User talk:Buddhipriya/Archives/2007/August

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Star for you

For your edits to Shri Vidya - Gouranga(UK) 11:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I know we don't always agree on certain points, but I have to say I was genuinely impressed by your salvage work done to Shri Vidya. From a complete rambling essay to a concise and coherent (& sourced) article, overnight! Nice job :-) Gouranga(UK) 11:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Buddhipriya, I'm flattered you would ask, but am quite happy to remain a regular editor. The power could go to my head. ;-) Gouranga(UK) 09:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Buddhipriya wrote: Information.svg Adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Nāga, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. You have been told several times that you sometimes engage in WP:OR. You often add content to articles without citing any sources, which is inconsistent with WP:V. I am concerned that when I have asked for sourcing on articles, you sometime simply revert my requests for sourcing rather than complying with WP:V. I am sure that you are doing these things because you think they are the right thing to do. However I am having difficulty understanding your postition. Would you be willing to enter into mediation to attempt to resolve this ongoing conflict over source quality and general referencing needs? According to the graduated response mechanisms for conflict resolution, another step preliminary to mediation would be to involve third parties: [1]. I feel that involving third parties in this matter would be helpful to try to promote dialog on the issues. Are there any thoughts you have on that? Buddhipriya 08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya: If I didn't appreciate and respect your considerable hard work and your flawless scholarly style I would dismiss you as the personification of condescension. Your usage of "told" in the above smacks of schoolmarmism and arrogance. Yet again I consider what you wrote above as largely untrue and unfounded but appreciate the extension of mediation and involvement of a third party to resolve this ongoing stonewall stalemate. I would be more than happy to enter into dialogue with you and even work with you on articles to establish common ground. Buddhipriya, what I edit is my life's study. My editing is not vain folly as you infer. I don't always remember the exact source that I have secured information from but I have read thousands of scholarly spiritual works, have received empowerments and initiations from a number of teachers throughout my life and practice a synthesis of traditions. Spirituality is also key and primary to my lived experience and worldview. When I remember and re-access sources and references I include this information on articles directly; which is evidenced by my editorial history. Compared with you, I might not be a deft hand with Wikipedia policies and procedures, but it is my considered opinion that your usage and knowledge of said policies and precedures as a means of excluding and marginalising that which you do not understand and fear from being represented in articles is a contravention of the intention of inclusion which is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia.
Namaste in agape
Walking my talk in Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 23:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that you agree that involving third parties could be helpful. As a basic question, do you agree with the basic premise of WP:V that "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."? It would be helpful to me to know if you accept that as a basic Wikipedia ground rule. Buddhipriya 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Twilight language

It is a work in progress BP. Please have the courtesy to extend a few hours grace.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 05:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When I add a new source to an article, I generally do so by first making a specific citation to it as an inline reference, with a page number, in the body of the article. Once the citation is there, the work should be added to References to comply with WP:LAYOUT. Another approach is to raise the subject of adding the source on the talk page first, and ask if anyone objects to it as use of a reference. Just because you like the book does not make it a WP:RS, and other editors may object to it. So if there is any question, ask first then add. This is all about source quality. If you can get the editors to talk with you about what sources are acceptable, once they are vetted and in the References, further citations from them should be no problem. Buddhipriya 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
We all work differently BP.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 05:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
We all must work in accord with Wiki policies. Do you feel that the rules in WP:LAYOUT should be followed? Buddhipriya 05:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saivism

Hello, an article I had some help to create (Swami Shankarananda Saraswati) has been tagged as being within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saivism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. Could you please spare a few moments to review and provide your views on how this might best be achieved within the context of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saivism. I have also created some content on Wikisource that is a translation by Swami Shankarananda of the Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta, that currently appears as a link in the Kashmir Shaivism article. So what I am looking for is a comment on the most appropriate context for including a reference in Kashmir Shaivism to the Swami Shankarananda Saraswati bio. Thanks Yogidude 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I have never heard of Swami Shankarananda Saraswati and all I know of him is what I have read in the Wikipedia article. I am not sure if I have understood your question. Can you say it another way? Are you asking if I think that a link to this article would be appropriate from the article on Kashmir Shaivism? If so, I would say at first look that my answer would be no, because in general I do not think that the See also section on articles should be link farms, in the sense of placing links to any possible connection for an article. If every person who had ever written something on the subject of Kashmir Shaivism were considered notable, the link farm would be quite long. However that is just my first impression, and since I am not familiar with this teacher I may be misjudging his notability. I suggest that you take the question up on the talk page for Kashmir Shaivism so other editors can help think this through. Regarding his translation, can you please provide publication details for his edition? I am not familiar with it, which is a measure of my ignorance. Buddhipriya 17:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The translation on Wikisource of the Sutras of Vasugupta is an excerpt from the second book listed in the Bibliography section of the bio. As to my question; at the risk of sounding repetitive, in the discussion another editor TheRingess tagged the article indicating that it was within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saivism. I am interested to take this further, because in his work Swami Shankarananda Saraswati is a proponent of Kashmir Shaivism and not just as academic interest, but in expounding the philosophy as a living teacher. Kashmir Shaivism is a very old wisdom, and the sages that have contributed to its distinguished past are well represented in the current Wikipedia article. However, the original teachers lived and taught from their immediate appreciation and understanding of consciousness. In other words, they did not expound the philosophy merely as an abstract idea (though I am not seeking to diminish the importance of academic translations to westerners like myself). The students of these sages were engaged by their teachers and compelled to learn from them in a real and practical sense. A living transmission from teacher to disciple is central element in other eastern modes of spirituality. So it is with Kashmir Shaivism. I could go on. To summarise, the significance of living teachers in the transmission of Kashmir Shaivism diksha should be included a priori in an article on Kashmir Shaivism, as this is true to the history of this tradition. Apparently, I am not the only one who considers the bio of Swami Shankarananda is relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Saivism; hence the tags on the discussion page I mentioned above. There are a number of other interested contributors to this project, but TheRingess is not listed as a participant in the project list, so I am seeking the opinion of others who are. In any case I will take this to the discussion page, as you suggest. Yogidude 14:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I regret that since I have never heard of Swami Shankarananda Saraswati and know nothing whatsoever about him, I am not the best person to seek opinion of in this question. After reading the article on him I would probably categorize him as a Western teacher who has started a New Religious Movement incorporating some ideas which he asserts are baed on principles of Kashmir Shaivism. I do not mean to be dismissive of him, I simply don't know anything about him. I do think your best approach for this will be to take the matter up on the talk pages for those articles where editors may be able to respond to more specific issues. My opinion at this point is that he is notable, but I see from the deletion review on his article that the decision was to keep it, so I assume someone out there knows more about this than I do. There is no evidence that I am aware of that would suggest that any teacher currently alive can prove a teaching lineage going back to the original Kashmir Shaiva movement, which ceased to exist as a functioning school hundreds of years ago. They have left us some wonderful scriptures that deserve serious study by spiritual seekers of whatever background. Unfortunately, the original line of oral transmission was broken, and apparently completely extinguished, leaving only the ashes of the sutras behind. They are valuable ashes, but they are not in themselves a complete lineage. Regarding the question of whether or not putting a tag on the article for Swami Shankarananda Saraswati to associate him with Shaivism is appropriate or not, personally I would give a weak no to that, but I am open to argument either way. Buddhipriya 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Your point regarding a direct oral continuation of the original schools is indisputable. I am not aware of any claims that contradict this by Swami Shankarananda Saraswati. His lineage is from Swami Muktananda and so is his connection with Saivism. I notice that the term New Religious Movement is used in the article on Swami Muktananda, and I am interested to hear more about the purpose behind this distinction between new and old religious movements. However after your suggestion to move the discussion to Talk:Kashmir Shaivism I think its best to continue it there. Yogidude 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I sound like I'm butting in, but perhaps you might find Saiva suj (talk · contribs) knowledgeable in this field. He helped in the Kashmir Saivism page a few months and is still sporadically active.Bakaman 04:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Baka. I only edit that article now and then but it is a topic I would like to learn more about. Buddhipriya 04:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How do i put a second author in the Harvard citation template?

You are making me feel like I no longer want to be a part of this community. Is it your intention to drive me away? I am really passionate and excited about Wikipedia. Mapping human knowledge in its entirety and seeing how the knowledges, technologies and insights inform each other and transform our community, ourselves and our world. I love contributing to knowledge that is accessable to all with online access. Knowledge that is freely available is a great egalitarian equaliser. Are you going to work with me or against me? Are we part of a team or not? How do I put a second author in the Harvard citation template? B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 13:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are reacting in a negative way to requests from me and other editors that you abide by basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:OR. To act as part of a team, please participate in discussion on the talk pages for articles rather than engaging in edit wars with no attempt to reach consensus on content. Regarding how to add a second author to a citation template, if you tell me what article you want help with I will assist you with templates. If you do not know how to use a template, you don't need to use it. It is OK to just enter a new citation in any form you wish, and someone else can adjust it later. Also, the use of the templates is entirely optional for any particular article and should be used if there is consensus among editors for their use. I think the best thing may be to switch to the newer Template:Citation as the older Harvard templates are now deprecated. Documentation for that template, with examples, shows that to add a second author you just additional fields as shown. Again, do not worry about correct format, just add what you can and ask for help on the talk page for the article involved, or ask me directly and mention the article. Buddhipriya 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Buddhipriya: Regarding your comment on my talk page...Thank you very much for taking this initiative and opening discussion within the community. I appreciate your transparency. I am a man of theory as well as practice. I have been a man of action on Wikipedia, but due to it Flamin'(?), I appreciate that I need to procure a deeper awareness of specific meta-Wikipedia policies and processes to increase the quality of my contribution to this project as well as my interaction with the community. In closure, I do appreciate that both you and IPSOS are senior members of the community.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 04:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the positive tone of your remarks, and hope that we will be able to collaborate more effectively as time goes on. I am most certainly not a "senior member of the community". I make no claim to expertise on any topic, and even if I did, such claims would be immediately rejected as irrelevant. I am just someone who likes to read books. With regard to my approach to conflict, since there is so much of it everywhere on Wikipedia I took the liberty of placing some short remarks about the traditional practice of debate (vāda) on my talk page: User:Buddhipriya#Words_to_live_by. In a nutshell, it says that when practiced with good faith, dialogue enriches both parties. I regret that I often fail to live up to that goal, but I must keep trying to improve. Buddhipriya 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Hmmm. Well, I've heard of Cosmic consciousness but it always seemed too New Agey for me to look into much. My suggestion would be to move the Western stuff into Cosmic consciousness and just make sure that each view is mentioned briefly in the other article. IPSOS (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on BalanceRestored's talk page

Thanks for the comment! I missed to say that one.


Have a request on Nirvikalpa Talk Page for you to provide specific justification for rejecting content and references. Hope to see you there- PS Saw warning to shorten your talk page. Cheers Mayagaia 01:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Made request on

I have made a reply to this on the talk page for the article. I did not understand the remark regarding the length of my talk page ("warning to shorten your talk page"), which is automatically archived on an expiration schedule by a bot. Buddhipriya 02:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Suzuki_1930_glossary_p449_samdha.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Suzuki_1930_glossary_p449_samdha.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing Talk Page

I was not surprised to see your message "Please try to avoid editing active discussions on talk pages as you did... The current material should not be refactored daily". You are busy in real life as your talk page informs, and therefore you undid my good work without even examining it. I had archived all matter which had nothing to do with present article. I still think that "REMOVE 'Blatant advertising?" in the talk page of Svadhyaya ought to be archived.

Thanks for your advice :"I see that you are getting into the spirit of sourcing." One generation ago, I guided and helped doctoral researches in Sociology, Political Science, History, etc of persons who are now heads of departments, although my own subject was Science, later History and subsequently English literature in which I topped the university. My user page mentions that last month I was busy in an international (scientific) conference on monsoons in which my paper had been okayed, and due to this preoccupation I could not devote much time on my contributions to Wiki last month, but I had hoped that other editors will ask me for sources or insert 'citation needed' tags, instead of wholesale deletions which they did. Had I not possessed a "spirit of sourcing", my paper 'A New Approach to Rain Forecasting' would have been rejected at the greatest ever conference on monsoons.

But now I need the help of persons like you for proper sourcing because I am too overworked. See talk page of Svadhyaya for my reference to Gita which you deleted.

See Svadhyaya : some changes are there. -Vinay Jha 11:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Your suggestion that I have removed your "good work without even examining it" is false. I have removed some of your material because it failed to comply with WP:V and WP:CITE, and because much of it seemed to be out of compliance with WP:OR, as I explained in comments on the talk page for the article. Regarding archiving of old material on talk pages, there is now an automated archive bot assigned to move old material off the page automatically. While you and I may have read the current material on the talk page, other editors may want to look back at what has been going on for the past couple of months to get a feeling for the article. That is why old material is often left on the primary talk page, as there are many editors who are not interacting on a daily basis.
I have been attempting to collaborate with you to retain as much of your material as possible even though it has not been submitted in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies because I recognize the general themes as being generally correct, and capable of being well-sourced over the long term. Please note that tone of dialog on Wikipedia needs to comply with WP:CIVIL at all times. I would like to recommend that instead of characterizing editorial differences of opinion as stemming from negligence on the part of others, you consider that they may simply be trying to improve the quality of the article by getting in more in line with Wikipedia policies. I appreciate the iterative nature of the work on the article, and look forward to continued collaboration with you, as you clearly have good knowledge of the subject matter. My comments are in no way meant to suggest that you are not able to do sourcing, or that your scholastic methods are in question. It is simply a matter of getting the sourcing into forms that other Wikipedians can agree are compliant with policy. Buddhipriya 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice: "Please note that tone of dialog on Wikipedia needs to comply with WP:CIVIL at all times. I would like to recommend that instead of characterizing editorial differences of opinion as stemming from negligence on the part of others...". It proves again that you sometimes answer in a hurry, without properly reading the full message. My statement "you undid my good work without even examining it" clearly referred to the archiving of talk related to previous version of this article and not in any way to the main article, but you answered that my statement was false because it often failed to comply with WP:V and WP:CITE, which shows that you took my statement to refer to the main article, and inferred it to be a mark of my incivility and falsehood, although I had said "now I need the help of persons like you for proper sourcing because I am too overworked."! I will try to become accustomed to the language you have used here for me. - Vinay Jha 05:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I regret the misunderstanding, which may have had to do with the fact that communication via this medium is often terse and subject to error. That is why dialog is recommended to iterate content toward some consensus. I am sorry that you feel that my answers do not always seem appropriate to you. I wish to repeat that I have high respect for your knowlege of the subject area and look forward to collaboration to make the article as good as possible. Buddhipriya 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Have responded to your expanded justifications (appreciated) on Nirvikalpa Talk Page Regarding warning to shorten your talk page...only know it popped up right after I clicked Edit Page and scrolled down to the bottom to start editing. Mayagaia 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


you took the article from here to here in March, leaving it in in a greatly expanded but unfinished state. Are you going to continue working on this? Otherwise, we'll have to slap the article with various cleanup tags. dab (𒁳) 07:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That move of content was done as part of the overhaul to Vedas that I worked on with Rudra and Abcedare at that time. The plan was to restructure the content there, which I did, and add some sourcing. It became apparent that much of the article was unsourced, apparently depending heavily on one article by Witzel. The main goal had been to shift that material out of Vedas, which was successful. I am pulling back at this time and do not plan on working on it much. In the immediate future I probably will be working on very few articles unless there is a specific request for involvement. The constant conflicts are very unpleasant for me. Buddhipriya 05:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rgveda Dating Controversy

DAB who has used more abuses for others than any other editor. See Talk:Utpala where he abused me without any provocation. See Talk:Rgveda (esp. Give a balanced account of Rgvedic dating), where instead of answering any of the points raised by me about his edits, he labelled fictious charges against me. Is Wikipedia his personal property ? Differences must happen in democracies, but DAB does not tolerate dissension and starts abusing even his elders. My students are heads of departments but I can remain in Wiki only if I try to get accustomed to abuses. I merely wanted to inform you; nothing is going to happen because I can withstand greater abuses. --Vinay Jha 22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Learning how to deal with the atmosphere of conflict that pervades Wikipedia is something that I have not yet mastered. Wikipedia has a variety of processes for dealing with disputes, which are enumerated at: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I would urge you to start by trying to engage any editor that you are in conflict with in dialog to see if you can find any common ground. That is the first recommended step. If that fails, various methods of involving third-parties are documented on that article to try to see if others can help find a mutually-acceptable solution. You will find that all articles relating to Vedic history are subject to frequent debate, which often turns hostile. I have removed all such history articles from my watch list because I personally find the conflict tiring and demotivating. Regarding Rigveda specifically, while I have a deep interest in the subject I no longer try to edit there because the level of conflict is not enjoyable. Buddhipriya 05:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes DAB persistantly uses abusive languages. I think what he generally does is not good. BP, look I was new and I did not know the policies here at all. I now know I was behaving stupid. But, that's not the way.BalanceRestored 06:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding dispute processes on Wikipedia, please read: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I recommend that above all you seek to bring the discussion back to WP:RS and avoid personalizing arguments, even when it is difficult. By all means use the talk pages to raise whatever points you feel are important. Buddhipriya 06:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A reference

Hi Buddhipriya, I recently came across this Witzel paper that I found interesting:

I haven't actually read the complete published book, just the online article. Of course, this material/publication may be old-hat to you, but it was new and useful to me, so I thought I'd share it with you. Regards and happy editing. Abecedare 07:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the reference. It is cited on p. 98 of the Blackwell Companion by Witzel himself. I am so grateful to you for having suggested the Blackwell Companion, as I have enjoyed it so much and it is an inexhaustible source of citations. I am quite interested in the historical development of scripture, but have largely abandoned efforts at editing the articles that pertain to that because of the difficult editing environment. Buddhipriya 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You are right, the paper is cited in Blackwell by Witzel. But I can easily forgive myself for missing that since I have perhaps read 1 in 500 of the citations listed in the various articles of the book :-)
But seriously, I too find the book to be a fount of viewpoints and citations to contemporary thought. I especially like the sections on "regional languages" and "regional traditions" sections of the book particularly illuminating - since as a lay Hindu (and on wikipedia) the religion seems to be uniquely identified with Sanskrit (and Vedas) alone; so I personally enjoy having my unconscious prejudices challenged, even while I realize that wikipedia will perhaps continue to present a somewhat monolithic view. Reinhold Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer comes to mind. Cheers. Abecedare 08:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You raise a very important point regarding the bias for Sanskrit. To some degree the need for Sanskrit depends on the type of scripture which one wishes to concentrate on. The political role of Sanskrit is covered in the recent book by Sheldon Pollock (2006) The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India, Philip E. Lilienthal Books, ISBN 0520245008. In general I agree with the premise that the use of Sanskrit as the language of scholarship for orthodox Brahminism had the effect of disenfranchising the general public from philosophical and liturgical literature. While this may have been the intention of those who led the Sanskritization process, it ultimately led to their downfall with the rise of popular religious movements that went their own way. I personally agree with the view that "Hinduism" as a unitary entity does not exist. We have discussed this before, and the methods of multifactorial analysis or "trait constellations" of "Hinduism" are the issue. Some categories of Hindu religious systems utilize Sanskrit scriptures, and others do not. Buddhipriya 09:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Off-topic response: It is funny that you mention Pollock since I recently came across references to his works regarding the Śruti categorization (and some non-conventional translations of the term itself), which I planned to incorporate into the article (sigh, more editing) and had heard good stuff about his 2003 edited volume, "Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia " (sigh, more reading :-)). Abecedare 09:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Have responded to your invitation to say what I thought would be a contribution and how to reference it at "Talk Nirvikalpa" Mayagaia 15:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

IAST for Mumbai ?

Can you please take a look at my query here ? Thanks. Abecedare 22:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That was really, above and beyond!
Frankly I am not that invested in the final outcome, but was interested in the analysis of the issue and your post on the topic was excellent. Thanks and hope I didn't divert you too much from your regular editing tasks. Abecedare 16:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I felt that all the links here were either spam/advertising or were non-notable sectarian perspectives on what the sahasranama means. I removed the entire section because but another user reverted me. Could you look into the matter? Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 10:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts to deal with WP:SPAM. I think we should try to purge that sort of unreliable advertising across the board on the Hindusim project, but it is an uphill battle. Buddhipriya 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Swami Prabhupada

Comments from Western authors are fine quoting, but comments from Swami Prabhupada is not fine?BalanceRestored 09:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You may cite scripture to establish what it says, but not to establish facts.

What is the fact? The fact is the interpretation by a western author and not by an Indian author. Not even what GOD cites, not even what Indian Sages have already said, is it?BalanceRestored 10:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop telling me what GOD says about things. We are here to review what reliable secondary sources say about subjects. You continue to violate WP:RS and WP:SOAP by engaging in religious diatribes. Your continued emphasis on spouting scripture is not responsive to the repeated requests you have had to comply with WP:V. Please do not extend your religious lectures to my talk page, as I will consider it a form of talk page vandalism. If you wish to discuss article content, please do so on the talk pages for the articles involved. Buddhipriya 20:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WQA alert

Hello. I'm intermittently active at WP:WQA, and was scanning the unresolved reports. I notice that yours received no response despite being posted since August 6. Is help still desired on this issue, or has it worked itself out? Sarcasticidealist 10:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. Although the editor has reduced the attacks following the posting of the notice, I still feel that some independent review of the situation would be helpful. The incident I posted is just one of many conflicts that the editor has engaged in with me and with others. If you are willing to examine it I would be most grateful. Buddhipriya 20:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've responded at WP:WQA.

Re:Spam clean

Hi Buddhipriya. I applaud you for taking a stand against the spam and advertising that is prevalent across many Hinduism pages. I will support you on the talk pages in case you do meet people who want particular websites to stay (but shouldn't according to WP:EL). Another comment - I have observed that the Shiva and Lalita Sahasranamas both have a link of each respective text in Telugu. Per my understanding of WP:EL#Non-English_language_content, non-English links should only be added if the official/original text is in another language. It makes sense to link to a website with the texts in the Sanskrit language and a highly regarded translation into English because this is English Wikipedia but I discourage links of other languages. GizzaDiscuss © 02:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tulugu links have been removed. Please look closely at the Vishnu Sahasranama and participate in discussion there regarding the conflict about spam removal. Buddhipriya 02:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


I just reverted your deletion of the fact taggged material from this page. My main reason was that since I had added the tags only an hour or so back, it would be perhaps be fair to give interested editors opportunity to add appropriate references. If this is not done in a day or so, the unsourced material should undoubtedly be removed; in the meantime any reader who comes across the article will hopefully see the tags and treat the information with caution.
I should admit that I simply don't know whether the statements in the two sections you deleted is correct/incorrect - if you know that it is incorrect and therefore not only unsourced but unsourcable please feel free to delete those sections again immediately. Hope that makes sense. Cheers Abecedare 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought for the day:

--Jimbo [2]
I agree with Jimbo. If material is unsourced, it can always be added back when a source is available. Responsibility for sourcing lies with the editor who wants the material in, not with the editor who wants it out. Buddhipriya 04:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree. For example I nuked a couple of paragraphs myself that I knew to be nonsensical fringe material even though it formally cited a (non-authoritative) source. On the other hand, I retained the Herbert Benson paragraphs, since I know that the description is essentially correct although it needs specific citations.
As I said above, I cannot make a similar judgement about the two sections you deleted. If you know them to be "completely preposterous claims" please undo my revert; but if the only problem with them is a matter of rephrasing and adding sources, than it may be better to leave them in for now to give others an opportunity to add references as outlined by WP:PROVEIT. Abecedare 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As written, I think the claims are so vague that I cannot quite figure out what they mean. I have no idea if they can be sourced, but I would not be surprised if some New Age thinker somewhere cannot be found who would support almost anything. The current text seems to be gibberish, and like begets like. Leaving it in in an invitation to add more unsourced gibberish. Buddhipriya 04:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input about the content. Since you think that the material itself is suspect, and not only unsourced, I have self-reverted and deleted those sections. The material sounded incomprehensible to me too, but I was not certain whether that reflected my unfamilarity with the topic or the content itself. Aside: I don't even recall how I surfed to the article earlier today, but it was such a mess when I found it that I had to try to clean it up. Hopefully it is in a better state now, although hardly more than a poor stub. Regards. Abecedare 04:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the dialog on this, and thanks for your work improving that poor article. I stumbled upon it earlier today only because there was an unsourced addition of a dubious etymology [3] by the same editor who has been adding similar unsourced material to multiple articles, often citing Sanskrit derivations that make no sense whatsoever. Buddhipriya 05:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have not looked through the article history to see who was responsible for what addition in the article, but when I came across it it contained such fine examples of surreal and jargonistic gibberish:
"These different understandings iterate each other."
"original quotation was not meta-enhanced"
"A field in science may be defined as a dispersed and/or radiating array from an epicentre. This field phenomenon may be informed by the currently untestable Morphic Field Hypothesis."
and completely random terms (compound, conjunction, understanding, whole, individual) were wikilinked. Makes me wonder if it was auto-translated from some foreign language wiki ? Abecedare 05:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of the incomprehensible use of language was noted by User:Sarcasticidealist in comments made in connection with the active Wiquiquette notice Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Multiple_disputes_involving_B9_hummingbird_hovering that I have posted regarding the editor with whom I have been in frequent disagreement: [4]. Buddhipriya 05:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I have co-edited an article with User:B9_hummingbird_hovering, so was unaware of his/her activities, but I took a quick look the the editor's recent contributions and edit summaries and all I can say is "WOW"! Till now I thought, recent discussions on Talk:Vedas were veering towards incomprehensibility, but this is simply surreal. Makes me again wonder if the editor is composing his thoughts in another language and then using an automated translation tool ... Abecedare 05:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that the use of language is intentional in some way. The editor is quite interested in The Twilight Language. See Yantra talk pages for one of the conflict zones involving incomprehensible language where I have tried to track down some of the etymology claims. I had not considered the possibility of an automated translation tool, but it is an intriguing possibility. Buddhipriya 05:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

re:raja yoga template

I donno where i should not have placed. Feel free to remove. Point me to page where it is not appropriate. I included in target places, no more inclusions. Thanks. Lara_bran 06:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me include Yoga Sutras into that template? Lara_bran 06:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, I would be happy to look at it with you. Also, take a look at the {{Yoga}} template, which covers much of the same ground. You may want to consider if a horizontal approach will be easier to integrate on pages as part of the See also section, or as a replacement for the See also section, which often gets to be a link farm. At present the template takes up a lot of space. It probably is best to shift this discussion to the talk page for the template itself, by the way. Buddhipriya 06:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Visit Template_talk:Raja_Yoga, thanks. Lara_bran 06:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have seen your edits to Surya Namaskara as effort to seperate it from ashtanga yoga. Surya namaskara includes both asana and pranayama, directly linked to raja yoga. As a temperory remedy i restored to old version before you and me. Thanks. Lara_bran 08:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's continue discussing that issue on the talk page for that article so we can get the opinion of other editors. Perhaps having more points of view will help clear it up. Can you provide a source for the point of view you are expressing? According to WP:V all content must be sourced, or it can be removed. Buddhipriya 08:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Im not clear if you wish to disconnect surya namaskara from raja yoga. In that case let me provide sources. 09:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be best to discuss this issue on the talk page for the article so all editors can participate. Let's take it up there. Buddhipriya 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I replied there Template talk:Raja Yoga. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Please leave a comment in Template talk:Raja Yoga. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, this is english wikipedia, and sanskrit terms audience dont understand, all words in yoga template are in sanskrit. As for cluttering i may change it to for horizontal layout, but till then leave it in 8 limbs. I dont understand how do you say 2 templates in an article are heavy, see articles with 5-6 templates. I will be reverting your changes until third opinion. Lara_bran 04:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The eight limbs of Yoga are already listed as links on the Yoga template. Listing the same links twice is linkspam. In addition, I have previously objected to inclusion of irrelevant links such as Kriya and Surya Namaskara on the template. If you think a template should be added somewhere please propose it on the talk page for the article before doing it. Buddhipriya 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted your contributions in line. Why it is not redundant i have explained in template talk. You say we talk there, we talk here, thousand redirects. Redundancy of template should be discussed in template talk, not in your talk page. Thanks for all the help. Lara_bran 05:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And very sad to say, your revert in article Kama Sutra constitutes vandalism. Lara_bran 05:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. If you read the talk page history for the past six months you will find that the article underwent considerable editing to remove the excessive interest on sexual details that you now wish to put in. Please discuss proposed content changes on the talk page for that article. Buddhipriya 05:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your work on Hinduism related articles. But please note that this is english encyclopedia and articles should have world wide view, and focus on user who knows english language. Lara_bran 06:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I do not understand your comment. I have no idea what you are referring to. If you are discussing a specific article, I recommend that you do it on the talk page for that article. If it relates to the Raja Yoga template, I have explained my concerns on the talk page for it. Buddhipriya 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please dont discuss personal issues in some article's talk page. Regards. WP:PA, Lara_bran 07:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Last message to you in this regard. We stop doing personal comments, like comments on my/your actions until somebody else enters scene. I know what is edit war in WP:CON, i am a true warrior :) . I removed personal comments, that are hardly related to article. Nice day. Lara_bran 07:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Please see Upanishad talk page and offer your comments. Upasthadharma 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. You don't mention specifically what you want me to comment on. Due to limited time, it will be difficult for me to do much with that article's current conflict. However I would encourage the removal of any material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Material that is contested could be moved to the talk page for further examination. Buddhipriya 03:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A little strong

I was hardly trying to silence opposition.... on the contrary, I was a little irritated that somehow it was my fault that I discovered the parallel conversations. I certainly didn't think that the section in the noticeboard was the place to discuss it, as it does sort of clutter things up. Could you perhaps explain your edit comment and reversion? (In keeping with the spirit of centralised discussion, I will watchlist your talkpage temporarily in case you wish to reply.) Hornplease 07:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. Your comments to Jossi seemed rude to me, and the removal of them from visibility had the effect of dismissing the point that he raised, which I think we can both agree was worth considering. While you may have felt finished with the conversation, other editors such as myself had not even seen it at the time that you took steps to make it less visible. Thus the need to expand it to see actually had the effect of drawing my attention to it, and I felt it was inappropriate for it to be concealed in that way. Is there any further explanation I can give you? I feel my restoration of the material to the mainline of the talk page was appropriate, particularly since I wanted to join in the discussion regarding the point that Jossi was making. Buddhipriya 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for replying. I certainly didn't think that removing them from visibility would mean that the point was unseen - an identical point was made on the article talkpage, where presumably everyone will now look in.
Certainly, if you feel you had a point to make, then you are entitled to restore it. I do think that even given your reasons, which I accept as perfectly sensible, the edit comment seemed unfounded. I could hardly, for example, expect that any editor previously involved in the discussion would not expand the box to see what on earth that was all about. However, for editors previously uninvolved and scanning the section, it would serve only to mislead as to the main source of discussion.
Finally, I think that my response to Jossi was written in light of this comment [5]; further, the implication seemed to be ("puzzled...") that there was some coherent reason why editors on that page were excluded from decision-making. This seemed to be something of a breach of etiquette to me, since clearly no decisions had been made, as well as the fact that at the time that discussion started, that talkpage looked like this [6] with no contributions from any of the editors who participated in subsequent discussion on that page. Indeed, a glance at that page should indicate why I started the discussion elsewhere. Instead, the person making the effort to actually centralize it was stigmatized - without a specific reason being provided. Given that, I don't think I was unjustified in being a little short. Am I wrong? If so, perhaps I should apologise. Hornplease 08:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that Jossi did not start off the conversation well, which triggered your reply, which you seem to agree could have been more diplomatic. I don't think an apology to Jossi is required, but if you want to build better long-term working relationships with him or her, checking in after a transaction can help build dialog, as you have done so appopriately here with me. I regret if my edit summary was too harsh. For what it is worth, I have been feeling dragged down by conflicts on Wikipedia for several weeks, and perhaps my own editing is taking on the unpleasantness, which I deeply regret. I have no way to retract an edit summary, so the best I can do is try to learn from this experience to be more careful with wording of edit summaries in the future. I applaud you for raising the issue of the AfD, by the way, and will support it. Is there anything further I can do to explain my view of this? I really do appreciate the opportunity to respond to your contact. We have not worked on many articles together and thus I have not had the opportunity to get to know you better. I hope we will find more opportunities for collaboration in the future. Buddhipriya 08:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Escalation of this sort is always a problem, especially when, as you say, one has spent some time in contentious areas. WP:AGF is all very well, but we do seem to violate it in spirit all the time, even as we carefully obey it in letter. (How I occasionally envy people who are moved to contribute to, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods. No doubt, for them, edit wars happen to other people.)
I too look forward to working with you in future, and thank you for taking this time, and all your advice. Hornplease 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahabharata controversy?

Its a well known fact among mainstream scholars of South Asian studies that some of the events in the Mahabharata were modeled after inter-tribal conflicts between various Indo-Aryan speaking tribes. I don't see anything controversial about that except maybe that some Hindu nationalists might disapprove as they're too immature to accept the Aryan linguistic migration as a part of Indian history. 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Behavior Pattern

Most of my suggestion were treated as a spam? If I can understand things better it will be great, it will be good. I thought a short note on Vegetarian, Ahimsa, Right Values should have been no problem at wiki vedas?. I've quoted Satyartha Prakash which is detailed commentary on all the wrong that is spread in India in the years keeping in mind the Vedas. I understand not every text in this book will be welcomed here as they are mostly controvertial. If you think I am seriously doing wrong, I will always welcome your comments about the same. I did quote verses from the Vedas right? that too from an important author's perspective? BalanceRestored 10:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is bit hard to understand, if you can explain my behavior, It will be appreciated. BalanceRestored 10:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If I am doing a mistake, it is unknowingly. If you noticed the same. I will appreciate comments about the same.BalanceRestored 10:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch. You appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to promote your religious views. Please review WP:SOAP and ask for help from your tutor on that policy. Please stop quoting scriptures to make your points. Scriptures require interpretation, and that interpretation should be from WP:RS. I suggest that you discuss these issues with your tutor. Buddhipriya 03:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be no problem any one in the world reading Sanskrit? The Vedas are well established book themselves. Can we get this discussed some where. I don't understand why should we actually need a interpreter here? Any one can read Sanskrit today using a dictionary. Is Sanskrit not an established language?BalanceRestored 05:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot understand what point you are trying to make. Please ask your tutor to assist you with communication. Also, I do not wish to discuss specific content issues on my talk page. Please raise whatever content point you are making on the talk page for the article to which it pertains rather than here. I will not repeat the comments I made previously, please read them again. Buddhipriya 05:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, You said "Also, I do not wish to discuss specific content issues on my talk page.", but you are the one who was discussing at Talk:Vedas that one should not present Sanskrit texts from well established Indian Books Written in Sanskrit at talk pages, if I am not wrong. But, I've already discussed about the same, There isn't such a policy. One can use Sanskrit references from any where and show the reference using a dictionary. So, don't you think it is necessary to explain the same?BalanceRestored 06:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Brahmin

Please see 'Brahmin' : Etymology' in Talk:Brahmin. In the introductory para of this article Brahmin , a correct and well sourced version contributed by me is unduly being replaced with a wrong and unsourced one by DAB (See history tab of 'Brahmin') . On his talk page he issued a threat of topic ban. It has happened so many times (elsewhere too) that it is difficult for me to edit. Monier-Williams is a reliable source anf his SED is online, and any editor can judge. I do not know how DAB's attitude can be changed.- Vinay Jha Talk 13:34, 23 August 200

I will try to look at that dispute in the next few days. I regret that my time is very limited right now and it is difficult for me to take it up right away. By the way, I am eager to continue work on Svadhyaya but simply have had no time to work on it. I plan to resume the sourcing cleanup there during coming weeks. Buddhipriya 05:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit question

Hi Buddhipriya, Do you know the sanskrit meaning of 'khechari', as in Khechari mudra? And the proper spelling ('khechari' vs. 'kechari')? Our mutual friend User:Lara bran has been adding their expertise to that article, but I couldn't find a reliable reference for either question. As far as I know, what Lara added is correct, but he/she doesn't have a good track record from what I'm seeing. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I will need to look this up, as I am not personally familiar with the term. Many technical terms in yoga have specific senses within their traditions, so to be sure we have the right word, we need to see it in context. I will try to look at this in the next day or so. Buddhipriya 05:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I found something on it and will reply on the talk page for the article. I removed the unsourced etymology already, as it may or may not be correct based on what I found in Apte. I still am not sure if we have the right term, as the romanization is suspect and I am ignorant of the use in yoga. Buddhipriya 06:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you - I didn't realize it would be so complicated and likely time-consuming. I'll fix references on the article later, as Wikipedia seems to be having problems right now. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes the things I mentioned about sanskrit are not wrong as u mentioned in ur message. I have seen about 100 hundred books before keeping the information in the web and also I posted relevent documents by scanning them from Online sanskrit and also from so many sanskit librbaies I went. I still donot know how to post a message in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjuturu (talkcontribs) 18:58, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the above comment by Sjuturu, since the user did not leave a diff or metion a specific issue, I have no idea what they are referring to. Buddhipriya 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

third opinion

In third opinion page, comment should not be signed, 5~s should be used. please read the instructions there. Kindly remove your name from that page, leaving only date. Thanks. Lara_bran 06:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the procedure. I have removed my comments entirely. Buddhipriya 06:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not "my" comment to sign. You are welcome to edit that comment numbered 1.. Thanks. Lara_bran 06:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not familiar with procedures for that page, so it will be interesting to learn how it works. A request for comment was posted by the other editor involved at: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Eyes_needed_on_Kama_Sutra. Buddhipriya 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
What we will do is call third neutral editor to article's discussion page, we discuss only there. Through a noticeboard or anything. But i would like to see an non-indian editor for unbiased view. Lara_bran 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have replied to your points(8) by numbering. Possibly you might have overlook my numbered reply. Give a look at talkpage of kamasutra. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I previously read your replies and found them non-responsive to the issues I was raising. Please continue this discussion on the talk page for the article and not here. I will be finishing up my edit session now and will not be able to communicate with you further until tomorrow. Buddhipriya 07:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to your concerns in talk page. that these chapters are same both according to burton and doniger. Since you are the only opposer for the latest version, and your reply only had WP:CON etc and no reply to the main discussion i would be including content into article. Thanks. Lara_bran 11:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please post content discussions of this sort on the talk pages for the articles involved, not on my talk page. Buddhipriya 06:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Vishnu sahasranama

Hi, since you are working on this page at the moment, can you take a look at the "Benefits of chanting VS" section. It seems to be personal, devotional, unencyclopedic commentary. Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 10:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually do not plan to do much with that article right now simply because I am trying to cut back on the number of articles I am working on. I went there initially only for spam cleanup, and that task is still not completed. Abcedare had suggested cutting back to one or two links to the most authoritative translations, but you will notice that even removing the grossly inappropriate links has been contested. You originally drew attention to the spam problem there, and I would encourage you to continue to address it by participating in the discussion on the links on the talk page. I suggested a method for ranking the quality of the links, which I think produced one clear winner among the links still included. Regarding the devotee material in the article, I recommend that you just cut it if it is unsourced. Buddhipriya 19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yoga poll

Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at Talk:Yogasana#Opinion Poll on this article's name. Davin7 09:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)