Talk:Charnel ground

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

Dedication and invocation[edit]

"To the Gana of the Chakra...
and the liminal all-consuming maw of Kirtimukha, Kalachakra and Yamaraja
and to the charnel grounds of our mouths and stomachs and the relentless Wheel of Life...
our bodies are the veritable cemetery of sentience."

A Dancing gana, Dashavatara temple, Deogarh

B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 06:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Information ported through the CC~BY~SA license[edit]

I ported information wholesale due to the license of the Rigpa Shedra wiki and would very much appreciate assistance in branding the information as so-ported through the CC~BY~SA license. In the days, months and years to come I will be doing more porting such as this and would appreciate if there is a particular template or bot that I may employee to streamline and automate the branding and other Wikipedia processes. Is there a separate process for porting and branding images and written text?
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 08:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was in error, the Rigpa Shedra Wiki license is actually CC~BY~NC and I was informed by a Wikipedian that as a result of the 'non-commercial' (NC) license the text cannot be directly ported to the Wikipedia license of CC~BY~SA and must be rewritten which I have done. I apologize.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 01:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DXPa3jZDQZUC&dq=Gorakhnath+and+the+Kanphata+Yogis.&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=NC6LlDX3KN&sig=tMLJVsxabMOD0GOeR5VrVohk1z0&hl=en&ei=HUAxS76vJMqLkAWMxIT2CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 21:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Eight great Charnel grounds[edit]

The list is given no coverage or explanation in its area. It should be reworked here until it is actually usable by readers.70.34.147.3 (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'Eight Great Charnel Grounds (Sanskrit: aṣṭamahāśmāśāna; Tibetan: དུར་ཁྲོད་ཆེན་པོ་བརྒྱདWylie: dur khrod chen po brgyad)[1]

  • 'The Most Fierce' (Tibetan: གཏུམ་དྲགWylie: gtum drag)[2]
  • 'Dense Thicket' (Tibetan: ཚང་ཚིང་འཁྲིགས་པWylie: tshang tshing 'khrigs pa)[2]
  • 'Dense Blaze' (Tibetan: འབར་འཁྲིགས་པWylie: 'bar 'khrigs pa)[2]
  • 'Endowed with Skeletons' (Tibetan: ཀེང་རུས་ཅནWylie: keng rus can)[2]
  • 'Cool Forest' or 'Cool Grove' (Sanskrit: Śītavana; Devanagari: शीतवन; Tibetan: བསིལ་བུ་ཚལWylie: bsil bu tshal)[2]
  • 'Black Darkness' (Tibetan: མུན་པ་ནག་པོWylie: mun pa nag po)[2]
  • 'Resonant with "Kilikili"' (Tibetan: ཀི་ལི་ཀི་ལིར་སྒྲ་སྒྲོག་པWylie: ki li ki lir sgra sgrog pa)[2]
  • 'Wild Cries of "Ha-ha"' (Tibetan: ཧ་ཧ་རྒོད་པWylie: ha ha rgod pa)[2]
I didn't say it has no ref, I said (here with clarification) that it had no informative coverage of the eight Charnel grounds, explanation of what they are, coverage or sources for why they are relevant and notable to this article (besides being charnel grounds), or anything that could make them usable. I also did not delete the section, I moved it to the talk page.
As it is now, the list has no apparent use to it, unless you already know from an external source (I don't) why they're important. It is simply a list in the middle of the article. Simply saying "a source exists" does nothing to vouch for the section; I could make a list of Teletubbies with a citation to the some coverage fo them, put it on this page, and say "well, it's cited, so it's vandalism to remove it!"
Also, please stop using bots to revert bold edits, or blindly reverting from the RC, or whatever you guys are doing. Blindly reverting anons because they made a change to the page, especially when they voice their concerns or explain exactly what they are doing, is not assuming good faith in any way.
Finally, from an aesthetic note, creating an entire section for a name is atrocious. There's no reason why it couldn't be a bulleted list, as above, or a wikitable if necessary.70.34.147.3 (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My dear 70.34.147.3; you cannot delete section of an article just because you feel that it is should not be there. Should you feel that it should be made “informative”, please feel free to add with proper references. I must warn you that any more unwarranted deletions will attract “Vandalism warning” and hence do not engage into unwarranted edits. I am reverting last changes made by you. Please refrain from getting into an “edit war” and discuss the issue on the talk page first. If consensus is reached then for sure a section can be deleted.
Please note that the only purpose of Talk page is to discuss matter pertinent to the Article. Any information about the article subject (in short reading material); that is intended to be read by user is supposed to be on the article page and not talk page – so please do not “move” anything to talk page.
Editors are NOT supposed to be editing anything in accordance to their likes, dislikes, personal knowledge, judgement etc and if a credible source is established in accordance with Wikipedia policy then the matter will stay on Article – your or my endorsement of “importance” does not matter at all. You cannot decide what should stay on a page and what should not.
Incidentally I am not the only one to revert your changes and issue a vandalism notice; others also have done. So it is my strong recommendation that you do not engage into edits unless it is necessary and edit only information which is outdated or does not comply to Wikipedia policy.
As an endeavour to assist new user, I am taking the liberty of posting some guidelines on your talk page. Please go though it – it is very informative.
Trust this explains. Cheers AKS (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read my posts instead of posting the boilerplate message.
  1. I absolutely can delete a section if I feel that it is unencyclopedic, that's what the whole "anyone can edit" and "be bold" guidelines are about. As I have said many times, that section has no clear relevance to the page. If I put in stuff from Hellboy, yes it would have some indirect relevance to charnel grounds if you read all the Hellboy comics and knew where it mentioned them, but the page itself would have to explain why it is suddenly talking about Hellboy.
  2. Per notability policies, the refs have to not only show that something exists (or I could post stuff about polar bears from The Colbert Report on this page just by citing a random episode), but it also has to show why it's relevant to the article.
  3. You are the only one to give me a vandalism notice. The others were automatic bot-reverts.
  4. I've referred this to a R3O.
  5. I will probably no longer be replying to this discussion because I am once again fed up with how wikipedia prevents anons from contributing. I hope that you will at least comply with whatever the R3O suggests.70.34.147.3 (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O noticeboard. 70.34 is absolutely right about being able to remove content that's sourced if it doesn't fit into the article. While our information needs to be verifiable to stay in the article, it does not follow that any information that is verifiable always stays in the article. In more strict logical terms, our policies say: "If info belongs in the article, it must be verifiable." The converse of this statement, "If info is verifiable, it belongs in the article," is *not* true; the verity of a statement says nothing about the verity of its converse. There's also an editorial decision of what should go in and what shouldn't, and that will be guided by "likes, dislikes, personal knowledge, judgement etc.," particularly the judgement part of it (as long as the person removing the information can provide a cogent reason for doing so, which 70.34 has).
To wane philosophical, I also agree with 70.34 about the section in question. Are these charnel grounds particularly important? From what's in the article, it makes it look like a traveler's guide of the "8 great charnel grounds to see while you're here!" kind. The section really needs to say *why* they're important and significant, rather than just that they *are* significant.
Finally, let me just say that you can't warn 70.34 for vandalism for any of this. If he had just blanked the section without warning, that would be one thing. But he has a perfectly valid explanation for doing what he's doing, which means he's acting in good faith to improve Wikipedia, and anyone who is acting in good faith to improve Wikipedia is *never* vandalizing. So please don't tell him you'll warn him for vandalizing, since he is most assuredly not. Thanks! Writ Keeper 15:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This alternate wiki page, where sourced, seems like it has appropriate coverage for the eight great charnel grounds, and should be used as a template for what the wikipedia coverage should feel like (no plagiarism though, obviously). I personally don't have access to the resources it mentions, so I would not feel comfortable posting them here.

Some other sources I found:

70.34.147.3 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(sorry for not responding for awhile, busy on other parts of the wiki) Well, as long as we attribute it, we can copy it from that wiki wholesale, if we wanted; that wiki, like this one, is licensed under Creative Commons. I also don't have access to the resources, so I'm also a bit leery of adding it without verifying the sources; perhaps if ArunSingh could take a look at it and let us know if he thinks it's good, we'll give it the benefit of the doubt and add it? He certainly will be better qualified to judge it than I am (indeed, it's not really possible for anyone to be less qualified, where this subject is concerned. I'll ping him on his talk page and see. Writ Keeper 00:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • ^ Rigpa Shedra Wiki (July 2009). 'Eight great charnel grounds'. Source: [4] (accessed: Monday December 21, 2009) ི
    • ^ a b c d e f g h Dudjom Rinpoche and Jikdrel Yeshe Dorje (1991). The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: its Fundamentals and History. Two Volumes. Translated and edited by Gyurme Dorje with Matthew Kapstein. Wisdom Publications, Boston. ISBN 0-86171-087-8, p.157 Enumerations