User talk:Bladesmulti

That's the man!

.

See also:
* Tips - Any tips/advises on recent edits.
* Grammar - Any copy editing, grammar, formatting tips.

Hinduism and Judaism

Blades, your reverts are fine because the IP is making changes to some sourced content, but the unsourced passage that you are reverting back in really needs sources. Also, the sentence about Narayana should probably be toned down a bit further; it is a bit sweeping at this point (alternatively, you could provide a quote.) Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I had seen every edit of yours, it will take some time to clarify the tagged ones. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just letting you know; a clarify tag can hang around for a bit, but if you are reverting unsourced content in, sourcing it becomes a bit more urgent. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Some pages[1] - [2] have a clue, but 'most Hindus' was not relevant, it is a basic belief. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder...

Why a group of editors who I don't even interact with in articlespace anymore are so fired up to have me blocked or banned? It's really something to watch. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I hear that, also seeking CU for fishing is just inflammatory. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

After getting TBANned, Fearofreprisal has continued to evade his TBAN ("I made a page in my userspace, but it's all a legit part of my ArbCom request!") and continued making personal attacks against other editors (I'm sorry, but assuming that everyone who trusts the professional historians on the historicity of Jesus is a "Christian apologist" is ridiculously offensive). When I called for him to be blocked for this kind of behaviour he went back to making these and similar attacks against me. Once he stops trolling the historicity of Jesus article with his fringe theories, and stops making personal attacks against other editors, I will stop asking for him to be blocked and for him to (voluntarily) declare his main account's identity. Alternative accounts have legit uses (I know this better than most), but claiming that you are trying to protect your real world identity from association with ridiculous fringe theories by using a single-purpose account solely for the purpose of promoting those theories is not one of these legit uses. I can fully understand the need to protect your real identity from legitimately controversial issues, but Bart Ehrman and Dale Martin are not likely to hire thugs to come and "silence" anyone when it comes to the historicity of Jesus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I have read about you as well, obviously you are very aware about legitimate and illegitimate use of multiple accounts. A user disagreed with the siteban proposal, instead he supported a normal block. But I don't think it is going to happen, FOR will be unblocked because he will have to make statement on ARBcom.

FOR's TBAN abuse could be addressed to sanction imposing admin, and he/she would've blocked. But I haven't seen if someone did. I cannot say if FOR is a SPA, he has edited many other pages. He has been tangled up with historicity of Jesus, and probably more time than we usually done on these pages.

I happen to enjoy the subject. Bart Ehrman has been my favorite. Richard Carrier is also very good. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard Carrier may be good, but no one in the academy takes his views seriously :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems I have a stalker. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki help soon given, Bjp willing just give the shout

Bladesmulti we would like you to sign up to "Transform India With Narendra Modi” - LocalCircles" Please title your subject as wikipedia editor for india and give any concerns you may have in the main section

As the group is a non paid organisation by the people of indian, anything which you feel troubled about can be given to the page and it will be handed to Mr Modi within one or two weeks, after that the issue will be raised and writers will be sent to help you out with full backing of refs and publishes.

You may delete this comment from your talk page to free up space, best wishes92.236.96.38 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)caplock

lol! Express block candidate! how do we request that Blade? --AmritasyaPutra^T 20:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sushruta Samhita may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a physician originally of [[Kerala]]<ref>{{cite book|title=The Encyclopaedia Of Indian Literature (Volume One (A To Devo)|page=311|author=Amaresh Datta, various|publisher=Sahitya academy}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hello, thanks for your interest in Ayurveda. It is my opinion that you are encountering more resistance to your proposal than your proposal merits. I do not myself wish to push the issue, but I did want to share that some people are interested in considering problems long term. I have no particular interest in Ayurveda, but I do have general interest in making information about alternative medicine available from the perspective of transparency.

At meta:Wiki Project Med/Projects/Ayurveda there is a description of a project to bring original Sanskrit Ayurvedic texts to Wikisource. This has not yet been done. From there, the intent is to translate them to English, then from English to local Indian languages. You may be aware that people in India have a cultural appreciate for Ayurveda, and I along with others feel that this could be a good project to draw in more health contributors from India.

A side effect of this project would be getting more people to actually develop Wikipedia content on Ayurveda. You seem to care about this, so I thought I would share. If there is something I can do to support your efforts further then I would. At first look, I think you know your way around Wikipedia well enough to take care of yourself, but as I said - you are getting a lot of resistance to the sources you use. My bigger regret here is that I feel Western alternative medicine and history is not held to such high standards. I hope you do not get stressed over this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bluerasberry. For the ease of readers, like others have said, we had to include to the common terms. These types of edit conflicts have been usual, but it is always good to see that whoever disrupts the project would ultimately face a block.[3] These are normally considered as pretty huge subjects, the more we are into it, the more we learn. I was about to say that I learned a lot from your long and informative comments. I understand that you have a different type of scope, and I also liked how you view these things. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Caution

Bladesmulti thank you for reverting the changes of Dillibabuji to Krishna but please don't revert them for a fourth time, as then you may get involved in an edit war. Rather discuss this on the talk page or with Dillibabuji or get a consensus and resolve the issue. Thank you so much. I am just worried about you and you have a lot of potential, and this is the reason why I'm cautioning you. Thank you Bladesmulti. Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't take this to your heart! Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking actively. It was probably 2nd time. 2nd last edit was concerned with the wikilink. Obviously since he's gonna add some original research and tell people to don't vandalise, it gets rather funny. Consider I am out from there for some time, posted a message on his talk(page). Bladesmulti (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand I have faced similar kind of problems several times (so many times that I don't even have count of them), but there always were some editors to caution me. I'm thankful to them! I had also reported this issue to Yunshui who later left a message on Dillibabuji's talk page, saying that he must add references. Dillibabuji later did add references but I later left a message on Yunshui's talk page questioning the verifiability of them and before he could reply you had reverted them and I was finally confident and was assured that they were not reliable. But it is strange to note that even the article Junior wives of Krishna has the same info, where it has existed before Dillibabuji added it to Krishna for the first time. The info is unreferenced even in the "junior wives" article. Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

He has made this new account just for editing this pointed subject. He knew that vandalism is common excuse for reverting a edit. New users usually panics when they see warnings on their talk(page), and he has not reacted yet. Must be a duck account. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand. It may be a sock but what about the info in the "junior wives" article. If there's no reference then it must be removed. Am I right or am I right? (:P) Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait for like 1 week, after tagging it. If there's no response, then see. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It is completely an unreferenced info. I have removed it as per WP:BURDEN. 16:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No issue with that change. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is it

If you continue with your edit-stalking, I am going ANI. Jayakumar RG (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell me, what did you do wrong? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I can provide many examples, but here is one, [4], where he is turning a 9 year old page into a redirect, without making any discussion. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You can see all the examples in my talk page. Just because the page was there for 9 yrs doesn't mean no one should question its inclusion. I reverted his edit at Vedanga Jyotisha and then this whole thing began. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not really surprising that when you could misrepresent a citation, any editor would like to see what type of changes you have made until now. They will also check when you had registered, what is on your talk page, how many contributions you have, etc.

I just reverted you on those pages, about which I knew. I didn't made any changes on any of those subjects that I have hardly edited. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you haven't even read Witzel's paper. You dont know what 'extant' means. There cant be an extant palm-leaf manuscript, preserved since 700-600 BCE! I haven't reverted you there because I dont want to edit-war. The other edits that you reverted were not remotely about interpreting citations. This looks more like biting at best. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually did, and you misrepresented the citation. Extant means current form. We rely on reliable citations, and especially when they are published by someone like Havard University and Cambridge University, there is no chance to argue with them. All you can do is avoid original research. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing with Witzel. He says: In sum, if one were to take seriously the autochthonous dates of the Jyotiåa at 1400 BCE,... implying that he disagrees with dating VJ to 1400 BCE. On the contrary, he thinks that VJ should be dated to 700-600 BCE. Its not that the extant form is from 700-600 BCE; the work was originally composed at that time, according to Witzel. Jayakumar RG (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said that he endorsed it, but 600-700 is usually accepted for the current form, while Witzel considered the period of final centuries BCE. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? Can you please show the relevant text from Witzel's paper? Jayakumar RG (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This paper, right? Where he says last centuries BCE and " while they fit in with the cultural and political climate just before the emergence of the Magadha realm and the Buddha around 500/400 BCE." I don't understand this: "(with the extant form possibly from 700-600 BCE, according to Michael Witzel" which I presume comes from [5] page 29, which is not by Witzel. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Blades' (mis)interpretation, Witzel says: "VJ was originally composed in 1400 BCE, and the extant form is from 700-600 BCE". Jayakumar RG (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)