User talk:Davin/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Davin, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Special:Allpages

—Ruakh_TALK 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NLP in psychotherapy - merged.

I noticed you merged the article on NLP in psychotherapy. I initiated the move some time ago. Thankyou for following through on the request. --Comaze 07:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Comaze, you're welcome. In the discussion-page I edited "The article still needs cleanup, yet since November 2005. I'm not a native English speaker, so please can somebody do that for me?" I hope someone will take up that for me.Davin7 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yoga

As I've seen you making some edits to Yoga asana articles recentely, I thought you might want to be in on a discussion surrounding the origin of Surya Namaskara as a form of exercise. User:Khammam has made some extravagant uncited claim about some so-called "Raja of Anudh" being the popularizer. VanTucky 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not the slightest Idea. If the Raja of Aundh doesn't state to be the inventor, it might be the inventor, but as well the republisher, etc. I think one should check the sources mentioned at Surya Namaskar Origins#Raja of Aundh. Davin7 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found at least one book on http://books.google.com by searching with de ISBN-number only. Davin7 15:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zessen

As far as i understand from your message in Dutch, you want me to put interwiki link or write that article, Zessen, in turkish wikipedia. Sorry but i don't know Dutch at all, i can say... anyway I have just seen your message. I have never heard of this game called "Atlılar" and it is very likely that someone who is a good dreamer created it in his/her mind :) Sorry, but all that i can say is this. Good luck. next time if you write to my tr.wikipedia talk page you will get faster answers :) Bye --Ozculer 10:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)ɢ[reply]

Thank's for answering. I yet replied at Dutch Wikipedia. Davin7 11:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Connirae Andreas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Clicketyclack 12:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NLP

Hi Davin. Thanks for message. I'm sorry to say I know nothing about Connirae Andreas. The name certainly doesn't appear on the cover of Frogs into Princes although you say she is a co-author. But then I'm not an "NLPer" as it were. The person you probably want to ask is User:Action potential who is far more knowledgable on NLP than I. Fainites ^barley 21:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I know very little about NLP either. My edits on the topic were basically grammar and organisation edits. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 23:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway, to both. Got some more support now it seems. Davin7 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga poll

Please do not go leaving messages on random users' talk pages if they have nothing to do with what you are talking about. This is canvassing, and it is not allowed here. Thank you. Panoptical 15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't overreact so childish. I do my work correctly and seriously. And, like you show with your remark: nobody is perfect. I am not and you neither.

The fact of the matter is that I informed a selection of people that have contributed to yoga articles in the past and are still active on Wikipedia. No other thing than that. Davin7 08:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archiving

I noticed you archived the page at Talk:Yoga to Yoga/Archive/1. The page really should have been located at Talk:Yoga/Archive 4, since archives of talk pages should go in the Talk: namespace. There were three other archives of the Talk:Yoga page, so numbering it as 4 meant it would show up in the Archive box at the top. This is just an FYI for the next time you archive a talk page. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I had not seen that there was yet an achive box. Thanks for the correction! Davin7 19:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: asana

Agree i had moved it to yogasana, but in the net asana looks predominent. I have removed Wikipedia:Copyright, which has legal consequences. Please avoid personal comments, we resolve content issues by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thanks. Lara_bran 08:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also making personal comment in article's edit summary or talk page is strongly discouraged. Thanks. Lara_bran 08:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing has nothing to do with copyright. Davin7 08:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are posting content directly by copying, that too from a rival website. Legal consequences are always avoided. Lara_bran 08:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can move it back, without any discussion, in case of shirshasana. But its pronunciation is sh, not s, i know. Lara_bran 08:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To ease your fear of copyright, I have reshaped the definitions somewhat, although I'm convinced that one can copy a definition without infringing copyright rules. That is just at stake when larger parts pasted.

When Sirsanana is concerned: no, I cannot revert that. We need a moderator to do that. Next to that: the question is still open and we need a linguist in English to give a view on the translation rules for that. Davin7 09:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need of moderator, should i do it for you? but correct title is shirshasana. As forcopyright, you can paste inside ref tags, but you should write your own sentence to avoid copyright. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You state your copyright opnions as facts... I don't like that, since I'm convinced that you're wrong. When I use just 95% of one sentence of someone else, it has become MY sentence. Next to that: citing a definition only, is NO abuse of copyright. Davin7 09:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See section Wikipedia:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others. You should use your own wording. See seriousness there. Also leave a reply about too many images in asana article Talk:asana. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is speaking of a 'part' of copyright material. There's no question of that. It's a too purist approach. When images are concerned, in the case of asana it is functional. This article is an example of why the gallery-template has been created. Davin7 10:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skip image copyright. Im talking about text copyright. Also see talk:asana for too many images you posted, but this is seperate issue. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read. Davin7 11:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved back to Sirsasana, but i support name Shirshasana. Bye. Lara_bran 14:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asana revert

Hey...I reverted your last change to Asana...you took out some good info. But I also had to delete the headstand picture, and couldn't, for the life of me, get it to work right again. Would you kindly put it back? Danka. 30 sep 2007 22:42 69.120.118.244

There is a link to the article of yogi so there isn't a need to explain what yogi is. Next to that, at the article of yogi, it is explained that yogini is the female word. Than you added an image of Swami Rama. There is no need for him on this page. So I have reverted your action. Please leave it this way, since the article is not getting better with it. Davin7 17:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you don't own the article, so telling me to "leave it the way it is" is beyond the pale. Secondly, there is indeed a need to have an explanation of Yogi in the article...it's called cross-referencing. Finally, I did not place the photo of Swami Rama on the page, but it is indeed necessary, as the picture of the individual in Lotus does not accurately depict siddhasana, or easy posture, which is the basic pasture proffered in the Yoga Sutra.

And keep your condescending comments regards my efforts on the Yoga series page...a page i feel is simply unecessary clutter as articles go. 1 oct 2007 23:11 69.120.118.244

Those comments were meant possitively. Your edits on asana are not. Davin7 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, looks like your holier-than-thou, ego-driven, know-it-all bullshit is being corrected all over the place. Learn something about the subject you pretend to know something about before you write about it. G-d hopes you don't teach. Oh, yea, and if you're going to write in English...learn the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.109.63 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be proud of your personal attacks and childish way of dealing with your emotions. Davin7 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of your edits is clearly agenda-driven. you have a specific perspective on Yoga, and you come from a specific lineage, all of which is reflected in your edits. In addition, the information you present is often innaccurate, if not wholly insupportable. Kindly discontinue you edit warring and blind reverts on specific pages. Continued activity in this vein will result in a call for arbitration. --64.252.196.99 01:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you really believe that Patanyali described Allah in his Yoga Sutras...? The edits done lately in the article - especially within the sections that refer to sources - are greatly not right. And.. agenda driven? You're not talking on content there.. The images in the article are each time being hustled and not only repaired by me. What's the point of putting the ardha padasana each time to the above section, when esthetically it fits in between the other group of asana's...? When the playing is over, I'll look again to the article and fix what has been amaturised... ohw, or is it that what you mean with agenda. I'll improve articles when I can indeed. Nothing more than that. But it's more than is happening to the article of asana currently. Davin7 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your command of English were more subtle (and that is not intended as an insult), you would notice that there is no implication that Patanjali decribed any of the other dieties in his Sutra. A comparison is being drawn between the Vendantic interpretation of G-d, and the portrayal of G-d in other religions. In addition, there is a reference to the Isherwood translation of the Yoga Sutra, which you, if you had read it, would know delineates consistent comparitive explanations among the worlds major religions using the Sutra as a jumping off point. There are a half-dozen other books that do the same, including one which was written by the subject of some your edits, Ravi Shankar (sp), under the nom-de-guerre Ravi Ravindra, called Christ The Yogi.

As for the comments of the writer who accused you of being agenda-driven, "...When the playing is over, I'll look again to the article and fix what has been amaturised...", that statement is not an agenda, it's ego. Whether it is your inability to express yourself clearly in English, or just rampant pomposity, I am uncertain. But your edits, and your intentions, speak more loudly than language I have yet heard. You might want to look at that. Namaste. --Sadhaka 18:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You pretend to know me, but that's not true.

You pretend to know of god, but you don't even dear to pronounce his name.

You pretend. That's what you do. Davin7 06:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As if a Texan speaks proper English. Go wash your mouth, you anonymous blogger. Davin7 07:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you go tthe Texan thing. No true seeker ever speaks the name of G-d. And I pretend nothing, I observe...it's what I do. You are a strange one, kid. --Sadhaka 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"kid..." Pretender. Davin7 11:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting set of accusations. Here's the problem. I live in New York, and I know for a fact that Empacher hails from the UK, is the documented sockpuppet of another user (ask around...it's common knowledge), and uses the sockpuppet EmpacherPuppet (also documented) to keep his/her edits in categories.

You see, the Internet is a decentralized telecom system; that's the whole point. If you did a checkuser on yourself, you might find that you are in Costa Rica, or Praque, not Deutchland or whatever. Checkuser is a useless tool, by and large.

Further, I did not accuse anyone of starting an edit war. I made a compromise change to avoid the edit war between you and the other anons (did you notice my request for prtection was denied because it would deflect the apparently appreciated efforts of the anons you're pursuing?), as well as Empacher, that has been raging for weeks because someone (ahem) is not getting their way. --Sadhaka 18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- I believe you have been canvassing for this cause. That's the second time you've done this, which makes it the second time you've broken policy. Glasses houses, sir.

PPS -- This tort also appears on the Request Checkuser page.

Please stop your personal warfare. Above all, it's anti-yogic behaviour, mr. big pretender. Davin7 11:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

No. Both policy and convention hold that red links are not acceptable. --DashaKat 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me where this is stated, since I conclude from your answer that these are official policies or conventions? Davin7 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RED

This page in a nutshell: Create red links to needed, unwritten topics, or topics where the creation of the article is imminent. Removal of red links for nonexistent topics should not be done without careful consideration of their immediate importance or relevance.

A red link like this one signifies a link to an article that does not yet exist in Wikipedia. Sometimes it is useful to create a red link to indicate that an article will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it is about an important, verifiable subject. Red links should not be created for topics that will never have articles, or articles that will not be created in a timely fashion.

Only make links that are relevant to the context. Do not create links for subsidiary topics that result in red links (links that go nowhere) to articles that will never be created, such as the titles of book chapters, or articles that will not be created in a timely fashion. Do create red links to articles that you intend to create in the immediate future or technical terms that need to be explained.

Bold and italics mine. --DashaKat 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hallo

I'd better repeat my question of October. 23th last:

"At the article asana, I saw that you were removing the internal links to four asanas in yoga, which yet exist in other languages: Ardha Padmasana, Vajrasana, Urdhva Mukha Svanasana and Ashwa Sanchalanasana (this particular photo actually shows the Utthita Ashwa Sanchalanasana). The motivation you gave for it is "kindly refrain from wikilinking until there's something to link to", but I actually don't understand the removal of the [[hooks]]. Since Wikipedia is - according to the languages where I write in - a project, where red links show articles that still are to be written. Whilst mentioning the articles in other languages, I am trying to show that the likeliness that they will exist some time in English is great. Now they're not shown in red anymore, there will be less change that these articles will be created or - when they will be - links to these new articles may not be restored here. Can you please explain where I can find that removing red links is policy within English Wikipedia, or - if you have irrevocably removed them - can you please revert the edits? Thanking you in advance, Davin7 16:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

So when is stated "Create red links to needed, unwritten topics, or topics where the creation of the article is imminent," tthis has been the case. The red links were there because they were needed there. Davin7 12:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to believe that your way is "the way" on a fairly consistent basis. Just becuase its done "your way" in Dutch, or Danish or whatever, does not mean that it applies in the EN:WIKI. That said, the policy clearly uses words like imminent, and immedaite. We do not use hooks or pointers here. You will find very few articles with red links for that reason. --DashaKat 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent experience here is that it seems to be very difficult in the Anglo-Saxon language sphere to speak on the issue and not on the person. Why do you for instance speak of "we" and "you", whilst you're not speaking of the two of us but of greater cultures or so? Why do you need to say "in Dutch, or Danish," when you know that you don't have to guess.

Then please assume good faith, since I don't point it out particularly my way on a consistent basis. When an article has been greatly edited anonymously it is good use in Wikipedia to correct when necessary and to keep an eye on the article. When that is on a consistent basis, then there's nothing wrong with that.

Finally on the issue, I have checked randomly just about ten pages to find out five with red links just the way they should be (Art Nouveau, Computer performance, Erica, Nǀu language, Tama Seisakusho). It was very easy to find proof that substantiates my statement. Let me please explain the way I work and how it works on Wikipedia: one has to convince on the facts and on the content, not by conflicting on positions. For now, my arguments are as clear as can be. Red links are functional and desirable here, because creation of these articles are imminent. The foundation for this is that these articles are yet existing in other languages. Since English is by far the most extensive language at Wikipedia, these articles will be written one day.

Please don't see it as a personal matter, but grant that these red links should be there for the time being. It's no big deal to give in once and a while in life. Davin7 08:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet

Well finally things get clear about the aggressive approaches lately: User:69.120.118.244 = User:Sadhaka = User:Empacher = User:EmpacherPuppet = User:DashaKat. This user comes from Richardson, TX, as are the series of anonymous edits done in the article at that moment.[1]

15:28 User:Empacher, page deleted on request
15:32 User:Empacher, talk page deleted on request
15:29 User:EmpacherPuppet, page deleted on request
15:33 User:EmpacherPuppet talk page deleted on request
15:28 User:DashaKat, page deleted on request
15:30 User:Sadhaka, page deleted on request
15:33 User:Sadhaka, talk page deleted on request

Davin7 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Category:Yoga type

I deleted the category, but I have not made a new category "Category:Yoga types" as you suggested. I think a more clear name would be "Category:Types of yoga". If you agree with me, just click on that red link and create the category. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've yet made the other category and made Category:yoga styles of it. I hope that will do?Davin7 (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour!

J'espère que c'est pas bien grave mais j'ai posté un message sur ta page wuu:User talk:Davin7! En attendant une réponse... J'ai une remarque: pourquoi tu ne mettrais pas des liens interwiki entre tes pages utilisateurs? Ce serait plus simple ainsi. Cordialement Otourly (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Otourly, j'ai repondu dans ta page de discussion. Davin7 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Il me semble que tu n'as pas compris les liens interwiki que je parlais. Plus simplement, les pages utilisateurs sont comme des articles, donc on peut mettre des liens interwiki sur les pages Utilisateurs. And you could see on my user's page the interwiki links, I think it's better for me and the others users. Otourly (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, j'ai fait quelques corrections mais je connais très peu le sujet, j'essaie de me renseigner! Ici: fr:Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/12_mars_2008#Relecture Otourly (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ton article est entre de bonnes mains! Otourly (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, je vois. Merci bien pour le proposer dans le Bistro! Davin7 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

En complément c'est une administratrice qui repasse derrière, qui pratique le yoga donc si tu as une autre traduction dans ce genre là je pense qu'elle pourrait mieux t'aider que moi Otourly (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'est très bien! J'avais vu 50 visiteurs par jour déjà et je savais qu'il y avait beaucoup des erreurs dans mon Français. Bon idée de le proposer dans le Bistro! Davin7 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Country Carnival

I reverted your edit on the West Country Carnival article - what you removed was not marked as SPAM, and poor edit summaries can be reverted under Wiki rules. However, I notice your edit was with another editor, and have started a discussion on the articles talk page. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied with sources at the talk page. You could have googled as well and you would have found over 100,000 pages stating that I was right. Davin7 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reverted your edits. I have seen the 4million claim for Fête des lumières, but they are all from commercial tourist sites - which wouldn't pass WP:RS. The Fête des lumières article also lacks WP:RS in itself, but in light of your attack on me - when I am trying to solve an edit war between yourself and another editor - I think is very unhelpful and highly provocative. As I said, I have placed a fact tag on this article, lets see the debate continue on the articles talk page. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable, the current one is that too and if you look at Google you can see more than 100,000 websites stating the same. Davin7 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't adopt a victim role, since there is no attack on you - have attacked me, and you already had an edit war going with another editor before I intervened with fact tags. Please read WP:AGF - I may have written the original piece, but that doesn't mean I want to defend the text you incorrectly edit summaried as Spam. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

If you want you can call RFC about timeline.--Rjecina (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good discussion with arguments going on now, so it may not be necessary. Nevertheless, thank you for your suggestion. Davin7 (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breath

Hello, you posted a question on my talk page asking if I could write an article on the complete breath. In answer to that I do not know if I'm the right person to do this. My knowledge and experience of breath is purely in the sense of a vocalist and as an Estill voice craft practitioner. Crazy-dancing (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've also posed the same question to me. lol Well for starteers I'm not sure that the term "full/complete breath" is a real and definable term. I am familiar with various vocal pedagogical methods regarding breathing. I am not sure where exactly such information would be most appropriate. Possibly on the vocal pedagogy article itself. I will give it some thought.Nrswanson (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan art

Hi, you removed the category vajrayana from Tibetan art with the motivation that it isn't part of it; but perhaps you missed the second sentence of the article: "Tibetan art is first and foremost a form of sacred art, reflecting the over-riding influence of Tibetan Buddhism on these cultures." To put it in other words, if you leave out the influence of vajrayana in Tibetan art, there is really very little left at all, so I think it fully justifies its place in the vajrayana category. rudy (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rudyh, in case of Traditional Tibetan art you are right, but when considering that Tibetan art is not only traditional, but i.e. Contemporary Tibetan art as well, it's too general to place Tibetan art into the vajrayana category. Regrettably, there is not much added to the article on other styles. Also Hellenistic art has influences for instance, and bön too. Davin7 (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davin, but that merely illustrates my point; there is very little left of Tibetan art when you leave vajrayana out. Also or Bon influences, you need to be quite knowledgable to distinguish Bon art from Tibetan Buddhism. As I understand it, traditional Bon all but disappeared, and 'modern Bon' looks pretty much like a slightly different tradition of Buddhism, in which they don't use the name Buddha of course. From what I know, Tibetan art and culture is/was so much focussed on vajrayana Buddhism, that other forms of art & culture hardly surpasses what you can find in one single small city in the west; a few painters, a couple of singers and musicians, an actor's group (like Tipa in Dharamsala), and, yes, what more? rudy (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General art (since 'tibetan art' is concerned here) is per definition not part of a religion; religious art can be though. An example: one cannot place Elvis Presley in the category African American, just because he was inspired by African American music. He himself is not an African American, as Tibetan art as a total is not similar or a subdivision of buddhism; category:buddhist art would be different though. Nevertheless, an absurd number of categories are pasted to articles here on en.wikipeda so it may be a culture difference since I usually contribute in Dutch. Friendly regards, Davin7 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]