User talk:Chjoaygame

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


Hello, Chjoaygame, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 1

User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 2

User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 3

User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 4



Two wikipedia articles that point to ancient works are linked: Tattva and Mimamsa. Please take a look at those two and references. If you think they are insufficient, please let me know why. I can provide more references. ~rAGU (talk)

Thank you for this response. It is customary to put a new post at the bottom of the page, like this, not at the top.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. A link is not a source. An important post deserves good sourcing of its own. If all you want is to point to another article, See also is the way. Removal of a request for reliable sourcing customarily requires actual posting of reliable sourcing, and acceptance of it. Though my interest in these matters has led me to make a start at studying Sanskrit, I am far from well-informed on them. My judgment about reliable sourcing will not be nearly as good as yours, I suppose. Experience and judgment are needed for reliable sourcing. The source should explicitly support the statement that it covers. I expect you will be able without too much trouble to offer one or two references from reliable sources, explicitly supporting the statement you have posted. I guess you are the best person to do it.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I have again posted a 'citation needed'.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the patience. I have to pick a couple from the ones cited in the articles I linked. I will try to do that. It has been a while I edited or used Talk. Sorry for messing up the page. ~rAGU (talk)
Thank you for your response. No worries. You didn't mess up the page. I didn't mean to hassle you. But I didn't want you to forget.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Editor Raguks, may I remind you about this. I have looked again at the links you offered as sources for your post in the sub-section Origins of the section History in the article Ontology. I think those links are not adequate as sources for your post. The links you offer are to very general articles, in which the specific tie to ontology is not easily seen. More importantly, even if it were more easily seen, a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. Your post is important and deserves good sourcing. Specifically or explicitly supportive reliable sources are needed. You are the best person to do it.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Chjoaygame I will do it. But I politely disagree that entire article and list of sources are nor "particular". Western folks always think the world somehow started in 15 century. Everything else needs evidence. I will however add references. ~rAGU (talk)
Thank you for this. Some time ago I fought to make it clear, in one of these articles, I forget which, that the start with Greek philosophy was based on only sources derived from Greek works, because I knew that Indian sources we probably earlier. I didn't know enough about it to prove it by adequate Indian sources. But I still thought that they would probably exist if one knew how to find them. And fought to make the point. Still it holds that a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. All kinds of nonsense can be found in Wikipedia articles. That is not confined to any special area. The idea is that a Wikipedia reader should be able to verify the sourcing himself. Maybe a bit unrealistic. I think it fair to say that the articles you link to would call for the reader to do a lot of study to find the tie to ontology. Maybe, or maybe not. Either way, specific explicit reliable sources are the right thing. Your point, I think, is good, and could be expanded if well sourced.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)