User talk:Hijiri88/Archive 1

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


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Lst27 (talk) 21:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


You asked "Ummm... I don't know how to make "Líosalfar" redirect here. Could someone else do it, by any chance?)". It's easy; the process is documented at Wikipedia:Redirect. So just edit Líosalfar and paste in the redirect to the page you want it to go. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts[edit]

Thanks for the note you left me about User:DreamGuy, who is very rude in his comments when he enforces his narrow pov on the articles. There is something that can be done. I threatened to file a Wikiquette alert about him and am entering one now. This is one action we can take against abusive users. I believe more than one user can leave a wikiquette alert about a single offender.--AI 28 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Thankyou, though I do not think I will do the same. It might seem a little pushy and I'm very reluctant to do anything that might be perceived as a personal attack, even though it is only pointing out that it seems everything he has done here is put in his narrow POV to things, marked facts (or at least the mythological equivalent) as "POV", and called others who actually know what they are talking about ignorant. elvenscout742 28 June 2005 21:35 (UTC)

You need to pay attention[edit]

Hi. I did not delete your comment on my talk page, I moved it to the bottom of the page, where all new comments go. Putting it again means you duplicated it and ignored my response. That's just another example of you not paying attention and screwing things up. Try to get with the program here, because you are embarassing yourself. DreamGuy July 1, 2005 01:31 (UTC)

Missing Sun[edit]

No, I did not invent the term "missing sun myth" myself thought I am not sure how "official" it would be. I am pretty sure serious students to comparative mythology have invented more convolutive terminology for it (I'm more bent to history). However, the concept as I know about it does not come from Joseph Campbell but (IIRC) from Carl Jung. However, I do not have access to relevant books any more - it was years ago. Regardless, as far as I know, capitalizalition is irrelevant in this case, thought your argument makes some sense - Skysmith 2 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)

Elvenscout742, you might want to add a comment to Wikipedia:Requested moves#June 28, 2005 regarding capitalization of "Sun". --AI 3 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed some of the rude things stated by User:DreamGuy on your talk page. Also, I just read what you had written after my comments on his talk page (before he deleted them) and I would like for you to know that I had him reported for POV rants, and I pray that he is vandalized for a while. It is amazing that he takes no criticism and is so arrogant to beleive that Carl Jung and Noam Chomsky know less about any subject than he does. Take care. Horatii 8 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

feel free to add your words at the RFC page to help seal his fate. Gabrielsimon 02:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

to be specific. Gabrielsimon 03:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

and of course, the more specific link.,..

Gabrielsimon 04:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at his RfC now, I formatted it according to RfC guidelines so that admins don't just ignore our complaint. I moved all of your comments to the discussion page, we should rewrite them and enter them in "Evidence of disputed behavior" and "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" whichever is applicable. Please use differences such as this: [1] That particular one is where Dreamguy writes "VfD is a freaking joke" in the history comment. --AI 22:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't taking anybody's "side". I came into this because I was watching Gabriel after having had to block him at least twice for 3RR, and my purpose was simply to tell Gabriel that his behaviour was jeopardising his own ability to edit and hopefully get him off that particular path... which I am glad to say he has at least taken some of that advice to heart. My concern was never Dreamguy's welfare, but Gabriel's. I treated Dreamguy like any other editor - they say they haev a problem, if it's that bad, go to RfC, and I suggested exactly that. I see that process has already started, so let the community speak on that. --khaosworks 22:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Elvenscout, can you certify the RfC on Dreamguy? Thanks --AI 01:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


Elven, sorry for the non-standard spellings. They were in fact typos. I cleaned it up. I had to include discussion of Ravana in the Bhagavata Purana and the Ayya Vazhi religion in order to show that it's not just the Ramayana epic that views Ravana as evil.

Thanks for bringing them to my attention.

Raj2004 23:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou, and you're welcome. elvenscout742 11:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


WikiThanks.png Thank you for supporting me in my endeavors to rebuke rude users, and sorry for my remarks to DreamGuy in Spanish. I sure you could understand why anyone would call him a "pinche pendejo" though. Thanks. Horatii 22:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC) Original Barnstar.png Have a barnstar too. Horatii 22:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

missing sun myth[edit]

ive fixed it, to go with consensus, its once again myth and not that foolish motif... :-D joy! Gabrielsimon 11:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, that wouldn't really have been something that bothered me, but thanks! elvenscout742 11:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

we cant let anyone go against policey, or against consensus, can we? that wouldnt be sporting. Gabrielsimon 11:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, of course. Check my e-mail to you. I don't want to let him. elvenscout742 11:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm with you guys. --AI 03:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not over yet, please vote Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Missing Sun myth for the purposes of consensus documentation. Aloha --AI 03:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I already have voted. It should be deleted, for it is a copy-paste article. I say it should be deleted and the original article should have its name changed.elvenscout742 10:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
However, DreamGuy mentions that the new article can be deleted and redirected.[2] Which means it would have to be created again after VfD and a redirect entered, then the original won't be able to be moved there. A technicality.. Like Kelly suggested, it may be time for arbitration. DreamGuy is currently involved in at least one arbitration right now over a religious article. --AI 06:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, it should be quite obvious that when DreamGuy's request for a move failed, he resorted to coming up with a different name to suit his PoV, then unilaterally changed the name of the article, putting us in the position he should be in. I think it is time for that arbitration, and we should present all the evidence against him. He only has one moot argument.elvenscout742 13:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Elvenscout, I'm sorry, but you already tried a RfC over this and all of the editors who responded said you have no case. The facts are that you and your buddies were involved in a revert war and trying to keep the name of an article (and its contents) so that they had multiple errors solely to soothe your ego. The topic of the article in question is a motif, sun should be lowercase, by now there's no way for you to deny it. Your RfC lost, your VfD lost, you should just stop complaining and accept the fact that you were wrong and consensus was reached. This constant complaining over fabricated accusations does nothing but show that you are acting in bad faith. Give it a rest. If you pursue arbitration you will just lose that as well, because you are wrong, and everyone but you and a couple of editors who lost conflicts with me elsewhere knows it. DreamGuy 16:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


make a new one about missing sun myth , and his TYPICAL actions. Gabrielsimon 11:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

whoever deleted it, forgot this.

use it wisely.

Gabrielsimon 11:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

please help certify Gabrielsimon 12:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

How, might I ask? Just add something beneath what you posted? elvenscout742 12:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

on the main RFC page, yea Gabrielsimon 12:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

RFCs are meant to be there for when users really can't work things out another way. I don't see that the other RFC is really going your way, are you sure you want to start a new one? Remember, Wikipedia is about making an encylopedia, not winning fights. Friday 12:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

how can we make encyclopedia with someone constantly bothering us with strange, paranoid and arrgavating, irratating behaviour? Gabrielsimon 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention ridiculing us for knowing what the word "mythology" means. elvenscout742 14:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not defending Dreamguy. I was just pointing out that since the other RFC isn't going your way, adding another one seems questionable. What are you hoping to accomplish? Friday 15:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought, apart from poor formatting, it was going rather well. I was very proud of all the work I went to to dig up all that stuff in my discreditting report, and I cited concise examples with those "diff"s. And now it is all gone :( . elvenscout742 17:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


You labeled this change change as "Removed PoV". How do you justify your claim that the statement you removed was POV? It seems to me that your removal of it could be described as POV-pushing to try to hide facts you find disagreeable. DreamGuy 11:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, they are not facts. I don't really mind, if you want to damage Wikipedia by including it, fire ahead. I'd really prefer not to argue with you (note that almost all of that "revenge revert"ing was done by Gabrielsimon). elvenscout742 11:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
And what would this "experience" be that would indicate to you that most Neopagan beliefs are similar to the original pagan beliefs practiced by ancient cultures? Certainly you must have something you could back your stance up with if you would characterize the simple act of including the statement as "damage" to Wikipedia? (Or at least one would hope so with that kind of language.) DreamGuy 12:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

your not showing good faith in quesitoning elven's experiance. shut up and stand back for a moment, and read things without your personal bias. boo hoo if it means you have ot admit to being fallable. Gabrielsimon 11:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Gabrielsimon? We seem to have already resolved this conflict. Check the history of Mythology. elvenscout742 11:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


Could you indicate the copyright status of the image you uploaded to Image:Ra Barque.jpg. Thanks. ~~~~ 23:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

N.b. by adding the copyright/lack-of-copyright/pd/etc. info on that images page - [3]. ~~~~ 00:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I got it. It's basically my first image upload. elvenscout742 00:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for agreeing to the compromise -- I hope you're wrong about DreamGuy's reaction, as I think my suggestion (or one reasonably similar to it) is the only way to resolve the difference of opinion. We'll see what he/she thinks, I guess. :-) Best regards, Jwrosenzweig 08:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope so too, but there's a great difference between hoping and believing.elvenscout742 08:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of abuse against me,, doc, Slrubenstien, etc. are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have no intention of doing anything about it either way. It's not an area I know about. It seems it will just be deleted soon, anyway. elvenscout742 21:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I question Ril's actions as an admin. He has misrepresented my claim [4], sent me a warning for something I did not do[5], and incorrectly scrutinized a wikipedia user by accusing "original research" when the user was only defending his expertise in a field of knowledge[6]. --AI 12:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey Elvenscout, the complaint by Mikefar outlines tactics similar to what is being done to the Missin Sun myth and some other articles DreamGuy has been at. Take note of the type of characters that "show up" to support their actions. I'm going to refer a few other users to this discussion. --AI 13:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify my message to you, I was not referring to the sock puppet activity but the "anti-POV forking" activity with all this business about moving an article contrary to consensus and creating a redirect at the "old" article name. Basically, someone without consensus who disputes content does this and then when the articles contributors try to VfD or Cut & Paste the "old" name, they are considered to be POV forking. Accusing someone of POV forking in this case is unwarranted, yet they assert POV forking and gain consensus on actions against the POV forked article. See Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:POV fork. --AI 10:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Hey Elven, just dropped by to let you know I tried to compromise the edit at Mythology by just saying "mythological beliefs" DreamGuy's "Regional myths" seems too far fetched because the article at hand directly deals with mythology. Hope a compromise comes. Dbraceyrules 21:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What, and you think somehow that "Regional myths" doesn't deal with mythology? That's a rather odd argument. But your change at least isn't incorrect (like Elvenscout's preferred way), so it would work as a compromise, even if the rational for it isn't all that clear cut. DreamGuy 22:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
No: there will be no compromise. This time he is wrong and everyone can see it. I suggest you revert your own edit, as we should not have to reach a middle way with DreamGuy, especially when everyone else would likely agree with us.elvenscout742 22:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Elvenscout742, why are you purposefully trying to yet again ignore everyone else and have things your way. You should really learn to try to work with people instead of insisting that you don't have to listen to anyone else. This isn't about winning or losing, it's about making Wikipedia articles the best they can be. DreamGuy 22:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I realise that. And I can work with people. I am ignoring "everyone else" now, am I? It seems that you are, as usual, the one ignoring consensus.elvenscout742 22:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
And, as usual, you are in denial. DreamGuy 23:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Name one Wikipedian (other than yourself) who agrees with you on this issue.elvenscout742 23:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Elven, you know I wasn't trying to make you mad. I'm on your side anyway. I just think a little compromise would do some good. :( Dbraceyrules 22:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Good. I was a bit scared DreamGuy had succeeded in turning you against me. Oh, yeah, compromise is usually good, but a middle way is inappropriate when the consensus is against him. No doubt anyone with some sense (User:Llywrch, for example) will agree with me here. "Mythologies" is a valid, common word and people shouldn't be able to vandalise Wikipedia by getting away with enforcing their twisted idea that it isn't. I'm a little afraid DreamGuy might some day be able to edit the names of all the mythology articles (Norse mythology, Celtic mythology, etc.) to fit this view. That would be horrible.elvenscout742 22:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
You still don't seem to understand at all what I've explained to you. Norse mythology is an accurate title, because it's about the study of Norse myths. You seem to have gone from wanting to use the clumsy definition of mythology to mean a collection of stories to wanting to deny all other meanings. DreamGuy 23:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
No, I accept those meanings, it's just that they are less common, and in the case of "Norse mythology" they would not make sense unless it was the study of myths as performed by Norsemen. It is not, as such a thing would not warrant an article on Wikipedia, nor would the doxens of other articles thus named. It is the mythology (collection of myths) of the Norsemen. To the best of my knowledge you never explained that to me before, anyway.elvenscout742 23:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Um, no, Norse mythology is the study of Norse myths. You have to pretty seriously warp the meaning of common words to even try to make the argument that it would be myths as studied by Norsemen... but then that seems to be your strategy for denying how words are really used when you find yourself making arguments that make no sense. DreamGuy 01:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
"Norse" is an adjective. "Mythology" is a noun. By your logic (combined with the basic rules of the English language), "Norse mythology" could not be "the study of Norse myths", as the adjective is describing the noun, so it would be something absurd like "the Norse study of myths". I never said that is what I thought it was, only that that is the only logical (if nonsensical) meaning if one goes by your definition of mythology. Anyway, no source I can find uses the word "mythology" in this context to mean "the study of myths". Could you by any chance refer me to some of these sources of yours? You may have misinterpretted them, and I can see how difficult it would be to fix the misinformation that has dug its way so deep into thy brain, and it would be simpler to just undo all your edits so it at least doesn't dig its way into Wikipedia, but that would go against Wikipedia guidelines, still be more difficult than placing enough doubt in thy mind to look into things yourself before returning, and be very dissatisfying. You referred earlier to specialised "mythology dictionaries" being on your side: might I refer you to the "Oxford Dictionary of World Mythology"? In its introduction it refers to two definitions of the word. One, Plato's original Greek definition, seems to mean "the telling of myths", which would refute eny argument you might have that yours is the original definition and therefore better. It seems to be a modern definition that came from the fact that "mythology" is an "-ology" (though don't hold me to that last part). The other is based on the theory that "folklore and mythology are almost indistinguishable". While I don't personally agree with this oversimplification, I don't think anyone would ever argue that "folklore" means "the study of myths". To quote Oxford's plain old English dictionary: "n. (pl. -ies) 1 a collection of myths, escpecially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition. ... 3 the study of myths". It gives a plural of the word and gives your definition as a tertiary definition! The word mythos is defined as "a myth or mythology". "[A] ... mythology[!]".
Is that enough for thee?
elvenscout742 11:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You message[edit]

Holy Treadmill-in-my-living-room, Batman! Did you see what he's done? He's removed our peace offerings in order to make it look like we were not taking the high road! He's the one unwilling to compromise, and he's trying to cover it up instead of simply refusing to treat with us!elvenscout742 19:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing left to be said. If he doesn't want to compromise, we can't force him. Guess it is just time to move down the road. Take care, Dbraceyrules 00:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Uh, sorry, guys, but your claims to "peace offerings" don't mean anything when you turn around and immediately start edit warring right away and making more personal attacks afterwards. Editors here have to judge you primarily by your actions and not just your words. You both claim that you want to work to improve the encyclopedia but have made it clear that you are still doing things your way and your way only. Dbraceyrules also has a history of claiming he wants to get along and then going to other talk pages and talking crap (and he never quite understands that's it's pretty easy for other people to see these messages) so I guess it should come as no surprise that he did it yet again. Bottomline here is that if you two want to work on improving the encyclopedia you need to do so instead of letting your conflict with me lead you to blind reverts, personal attacks and edit warring. Both of you have violated these policies just within the last 24 hours. For future reference, that's not what "compromise" means. DreamGuy 00:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
There is no edit war. I asked you not to alter that article until we had resolved this conflict peacefully. I have yet to revert your incorrect edits on "Mythology", as I know that despite consensus being against you you will still go and revert back. As I said on your Talk page, I would be willing to forgive and forget, if you would only acknowledge consensus. Not once when we argued has consensus been on your side, and yet you always seem to get your way. I will stop when you admit that you can be wrong, and, in this case, are wrong. And if you would only start making positive edits I will forgive you for what you have done.elvenscout742 01:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
"Start" making positive edits? *I* should consider consensus? Boy are you seriously in denial. Best of luck to you with that. Hope you come around to your senses someday. DreamGuy 01:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I am guessing by the little asterisks around the "I" you mean that it is me who should consider consensus. While I understand that everyone needs to heed consensus, it would seem that you are implying that there has been an occasion on which I have gone against consensus. Could you point that event out to me, please?elvenscout742 11:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It's already been pointed out to you several times, both by me and by outside observers during the VfD on your original article and in the RfC discussing the incidents you had a lot to do with. At least to your credit you have stopped pushing your side when the consensus becomes so undeniable that you can't miss it, unlike some of the other editors involved in those instances trying to help you out. DreamGuy 02:49, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Look, I'm simply asking for one link to an occasion on which I have gone against consensus. The VfD was a trivial thing and things went the way they did solely because the page in question was not the original article and did not have the history page of the original. Consensus had previously been against your change of the name, but you did it anyway. I actually supported the deletion of the copy-paste article.elvenscout742 23:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
And now Dreamguy has used my presentation of evidence at his RFC against me in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence. --AI 01:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
You're surprised by this? Making provably false accusations in an RfC (blaming me for edits I didn't make, labeling normal edits as recommended by Wikipedia policy as if they were POV and personal attacks) is definitely something that can get you into trouble. You're worse than Gabrielsimon. I can believe he's just confused some of the time (not all), but you seem to be purposefully deceptive. DreamGuy 02:49, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


What I meant was that "story" is a general term with multiple and sometimes unclear meanings, but "narrative" is the term that scholars in the field of folkloristics (among other fields) would use. It's just a more precise term. "Story" for one thing can have overtones of falsehood or fiction, whereas "narrative" refers to the telling of historical circumstances, fictional events, personal events, poems that feature characters and events (as opposed to descriptions, love poems, etc.). You can see more at the entry for narrative, which, while it needs work, says better what I am trying to say here. Bruxism 01:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Gotcha.elvenscout742 01:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

lil help?[edit] Gabrielsimon 00:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I'd like to help you, and I would help if it didn't involve me denying things of which I have no knowledge just to help you out because you helped me in the past.elvenscout742 00:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

o great.... Gabrielsimon 00:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. But I do think you could definitely afford to take some of their complaints to heart, looking at some of their examples I would agree that some of your writings are a little PoV. No offence intended, it just seems like maybe you should try to tone that down.elvenscout742 00:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

thats reallt not what i meant when i asked for help (sigh) Gabrielsimon 00:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't even see any way I can help, other than by simply not certifying their complaints or sticking my nose where it doesn't belong. I would help, if there was some way I could do it without doing something that is against RfC guidelines I don't understand (and again, the reason I didn't do an RfC on DreamGuy myself was that I didn't want to go to all the trouble of figuring out how).elvenscout742 00:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I voted to close the argument with DreamGuy[edit]

The fight was an uphill battle, and it was agreed upon that he not add POV or anger other users in the future. I had also stated that I'd be more than happy to revert my vote if I saw any evidence that he went against the agreement. I hope this doesn't anger you, but it's about time some things settle down. Dbraceyrules 04:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So did I. He went against consensus by renaming it in the first place, and I myself was among those who voted to delete Gabrielsimon's copy+paste article, even though it went by the name that had previously been favoured by the majority.elvenscout742 23:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

how long ago was this? hes pissed me off royal tonight, and it seems on purpose. Gabrielsimon 04:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


I have put DreamGuy up for arbitratioon. addevidance at your convieniance, or just repair my formatting if it suits youGavin the Chosen 02:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


I have tried now to patch up dark spots with you know who and others, hopefully all this can be put aside. Orange Tournesol.png D. J. Bracey (talk) California state flag.png 22:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


I like the edits you did today. Especially moving the lists of celebrities into one "celebrity victims" section. Good job. The Literate Engineer 02:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006[edit]

Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 03:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy has been accepted. If you wish, make a short statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy/Evidence. Fred Bauder 21:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy with no action taken. →Raul654 22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This has been closed despite the arbitrators (aside from Fred Bauder) doing no work whatsoever. Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DreamGuy. ᓛᖁ♀ 10:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The names of our gods[edit]

Heill! A new proposal on the representation of Norse mythology names is now up for a vote. Some people object to it on the grounds that it would use non-English characters in some article titles. It would be interesting to hear your view since you've commented on related votes in the past. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the vote they are trying to have would force all Norse mythology articles to adopt 13th century Icelandic names, thus violating the Wikipedia naming conventions policies. It's also, unsurprisingly enough, being pushed primarily by people from Iceland. It'd be a good idea to show up and vote down the idea that we shouldn;t use English on the English-language encyclopedia. DreamGuy 02:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
By the way, if ever you wanted to prove that you do things solely to oppose me no matter how idiotic they are, your vote on this just confirms it. You are voting against your earlier vote to use English versions, and the people who come up with the "proposed policy" are claiming that ALL Norse myth article titles except Thor, Odin and Valhalla should be in 13th century Icelandic. DreamGuy 17:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


Um, if you're going to declare something a "direct contradiction of hard fact", it'd be helpful to actually cite some facts to back that opinion up. Tverbeek 00:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:vedic mythology merger issue[edit]

The merger of Hindu and Vedic mythology pages has been denied, 2:1. Thank you for sharing your views - Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow.

Elvenscout, thanks for your message. I think Vedic mythology is narrower than Hindu mythology. Hindu mythology includes Vedic myths (Indra, etc.) as well as myths from the Ramayana and Mahabharata.

I don't think it should be merged though.

Perhaps Hindu mythology can make a reference to Vedic. Raj2004 10:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice presentation[edit]

I found you while reading your comments on the talk page of Hindu mythology, and just came to say you a big hellooooo. --Bhadani 15:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Vedic mythology debate[edit]


First off, your Norse-German mythology example is wrong: the area covered is vast. Scandinavia is different and reasonably far from Germany and central Europe. They are different modern nations today. India is not, never has been this separate.

The lines between Vedic and Hindu mytho are extremely blurred. Evidence is sparse. And Vedic heroes like Indra, Surya, Raghu, Agni are verly closely identified in Hindu mythoworks. While Vedicmytho is obviously the parent of Hindu mytho, we musn't emphasize as if Vedicmytho is a different body, coz it ain't. Its like separating the obviously smaller and under-ground roots from the visible, broad and big tree.

You shouldn't have offered the example of Krishna: its theology, not mythology. And so what if it evolved? We grow from children to old men but never cease to be who we are.

However I understand the call for a separate article. Its no big deal if they are indeed separate or not, since its just a format difference. Links can easily solve the problem, and the true connection is hardly affected.

What I don't understand, is your fight-to-death, bloody finish statements on such a small issue. Its a small issue (and it was resolved on Jan 28), so don't blow your crap on it.

As for my personal beliefs and yours - its whole bloody different matter, and I don't really want to change your POV, nor mine.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow



Forgive me if I used any harsh words in my rebuttal to your view. I'm a little averse to debates on issues I consider meaningless beyond a point.

I've also had a bad history with edit wars here. Made some enemies, and I definitely don't want you as an adversary.

However, interpret this as a sign of weakness at your own peril - Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

best wishes[edit]

My best wishes to you for Christmas and the holidays. Happy New Year too if I don't bump into you. Looking forward to working together in the future - Jai Sri Rama!

User:Rama's Arrow.

Thanks! elvenscout742 16:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi. Can you shed any light on what you did in the Kamsa article a short time ago? You appear to have reverted my previous edit with a comment that doesn't make sense 'article does not exist'. Imc 17:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Thats kinda harsh what you said back on the Yoda article page! Empty2005 07:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's ok i'm not offended Empty2005 14:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Names of Krishna[edit]

Hi, Elven

These are two names of Krishna, Acyutah and Panduranga. I added them. Maybe the editor was crazy but these are legitimate names.


Raj2004 23:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, Elven I thank you for your efforts. There are lot of crazies out there who merely vandalize.

Raj2004 00:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Elven, Kroni is analogous to Satan as he is considered the primary source of evil. I think.

Raj2004 11:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Elven, I always respect your thoughts. This is what I have to say:

Kroni is similar to Satan as being the source of evil. According to Hinduism, the current age is degraded because the spirit of Kali yuga is omnipresent and encourages mankind to do evil. Ayyavazhi credits the source of evil to a physcial being, Kroni or Kalenemi. Isn't Satan similar as he encourages mankind to do evil. I admit it's not a perfect analogy but according to ayyavazhi, Kroni is omnipresent, within each human being like God and the only way to curb the tendency to do evil is to chant the Lord's name.

According to one of the ayyavahzi web sites,, beware: the site may be virus-infected; I saw the site a year ago and it was virus infected. although the universe is infinite, creation and destruction occurs infinitely and the cycles of Kalenemi reappearing is infinite.

This is what the site stated: "Kalanemi/Kroni in Different Yugas

Different Yugas and Primary worships

Yuga Kalanemi's position from God Primary means to worship God Satya-yuga Worlds apart. Jnana Yoga Treta-yuga Countries apart. Ravana in Sri Lanka vs Lord Ramachandra in Bharatavarsha. Yahjna Dvapara-yuga Bodies apart (same family). Dhuriyodhana were living closer to Lord Krishna and also related. Deity worship Kali-yuga Within each person. Kali does not have a distinct body, but present in same body (where God also resides.) Chanting Lord's holy names.

It may be appropriate to note the following here:

1) Chanting of the Lord's name is the easiest way in kali yuga, not worshiping deities, to dispel the effects of kali and that was what Lord Vaikuntar was primarily teaching. In Brhan-naradiya Purana [38.126] it is stated:

"Harer nama Harer nama harer namaiva kevalam

Kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha":

In this (kali) age of quarrel and hypocrisy, the only means of deliverance is the chanting of the holy name of the Lord. There is no other way. There is no other way. There is no other way.

2) It is Kalanemi/Kroni who approaches to destroy Dharma and righteousness in every yuga. From far away in Patala loka, he approaches nearer and nearer and finally at the end of Kali-yuga, God destroys him and throws him again far away and the satya yuga starts. These cycles (of chathur yugas) repeat continuously. Only the names and forms of Kalanemi may be different in different yuga cycles.

3) Due to the influence of Kalanemi, the life span of human beings is shorter. Not only distance is in logarithmic scale, its effect in the life span is also in logarithmic scale. For example, in kali-yuga, average life span of people is about 100 years. In Dwapar-yuga, the life span was upto 1,000 years (This truth can be compared to the very long lifespan we see for Abraham in Bible). In Treta-yuga, the life span was upto 10,000 years. In Satya-yuga, the life span was upto 100,000 years (Sage Vishwamitra meditated for 60,000 years in Satya yuga.)

4) The life span and peacefulness of the human beings relate to the primary practice for the yuga. For example, it is almost impossible to practice Jnana yoga in kali yuga and even if one attempts it is fruitless due to the short life s

Raj2004 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you still disagree, I understand. I thought it woulld be easier for Western viewers to understand ayyavazhi although it's not a perfect analogy.

do you still want to remove it?

Raj2004 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Best wishes for the New Year, elvenscout

Raj2004 01:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Death Star[edit]

"I have no problem with you arguing your case, but please do not call my work 'vandalism'."

My apologies, dear friend, the edit I referred to as vandalism was that made after yours. The inclusion of your own edit under such a heading was an unfortunate abbreviation on my part.

"George Lucas (who owns ALL the rights to the Star Wars franchise) said that the material in the Expanded Universe is not canonical to the Star Wars plot."

I am afraid you are mistaken on this point, my friend. Nearly all material in the Expanded Universe is canon, and Mr. Lucas has never said otherwise.

"He quite obviously envisioned Palpatine's death on the Second Death Star four years after the Battle of Yavin."

You are quite correct; indeed, we see this very death in Return of the Jedi. As an irrelevant aside, it was quite an impressive one, wouldn't you say?

"I have no real problem with the article saying that his 'spirit' was 'destroyed' in 11 ABY . . ."

Please excuse me for prematurely ending your quotation, but I must inform you that, were the article to present such information, it would be in error. Palpatine's spirit was, in fact, never destroyed; it was merely banished to the "madness beyond death," or "Chaos," if you will. Though to be frank the end result was much the same, i.e. it ensured that Palpatine could never again return from beyond the grave. Not quite exactly the same thing, though!

". . . but what you're demanding that we do (at the very top of a very long article, no less) is quote Expanded Universe material as canonical fact, and not even mention the fact that Lucas killed him off in RotJ (4 ABY)."

If you can devise a way to incorporate Palpatine's multiple deaths into his lifespan summary at the beginning of the article, then by all means please do so! However, I personally feel that "Palpatine (82 BBY - 4 ABY, 10 ABY, 11 ABY)" or some such looks a trifle too busy for an encyclopedia article (never mind the fact that Palpatine died an untold number of deaths in the span between 4 and 10 ABY!). Since Palpatine's corporeal life ultimately ended in 11 ABY, I feel that the article's current incarnation presents the facts more appropriately. :)

Jon Hart 00:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas - good edit.[edit]

Much better wording, I applaud you - I couldn't think of what to say - The article seems extremely biased at the moment, it hardly mentions at all the true origins of christmas (the winter Solstice etc).. I suspect information might have been added in the past but removed by Christians. O-o --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


I understand, but I was under the impression that the article already had the information somewhere on it. Does it not? --King of All the Franks 12:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

About Image:0504002a.jpg...[edit]

Is that supposed to be on your user page? Message me if it is...since this picture will have its head on the chopping block if it isn't (make sure to copyright tag it too). --Bash 03:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Put them up for speedy delete (just tag it with {{db|Reason}} ). Say that you're the original author/uploader and you want them deleted, and it'll be done. --Bash 20:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dragon (disambiguation)[edit]

If you take a look at Dragon, that page IS a disambuguation page already. I personally think European dragon should be moved over to Dragon (with some short additions for other kinds) as that's a far better article and already does what you sound like you want Dragon to be like, and then the current Dragon could be moved to the disambiguation page. Without moving articles around creating yet another disambiguation page and/or another Dragon article just seems like a duplicated effort. DreamGuy 20:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


Could you please go revert the Mythology article... we have yet another example of a Christian who doesn;t know the meaning of the word assuming that saying the bible has mythology in it is an attack on their religious beliefs... and in your edit comments, please mention 3RR and that he'll be blocked if he reverts again? DreamGuy 22:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. When I read the first sentence of your post I immediately went off to do as is best; I totally missed the advice about 3RR. Anyway, all the better for a POV-pusher to get blocked. elvenscout742 22:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
He reverted yet again... I just specifically warned him about 3RR on his talk page, so if you revert one more time and he goes and undoes it yet again after that warning and the discussion onthe talk page, I will stop giving him the benefit of the doubt and report him. DreamGuy 22:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not really trying to take sides, but clearly Codex Sinaiticus has had some problems in comprehension. I think he's gone a little beyond reasonable and your explanations have been very good. Perhaps he'll get himself blocked for a day and use the time to reflect. James James 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


I see this:

Hi. I noticed some of the rude things stated by User:DreamGuy on your talk page. Also, I just read what you had written after my comments on his talk page (before he deleted them) and I would like for you to know that I had him reported for POV rants, and I pray that he is vandalized for a while. It is amazing that he takes no criticism and is so arrogant to beleive that Carl Jung and Noam Chomsky know less about any subject than he does. Take care. Horatii 8 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

--and I agree, DG is a real J**k and is, IMHO, the worst of Wicki.

He is continually reverting the Bigfoot page due to his bias for myths. But I have photographed this "myth"...

beckjordBeckjord 05:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mythology message[edit]

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I am glad to hear that you intend no offense; certainly, your comments have not given that impression.

Regarding the question of Christianity "historically pervert[ing] the word to mean such a thing as a falsity", the use of Μυθος to describe something false predates Christianity by hundreds of years. While early uses as "story" or "narrative" in Homer make no distinction between fiction and non-fiction, the distinction between Μυθος as "fiction" and Λογος as "historical truth" is as old as Pindar (d. 443 BC) and Plato (d. ca. 347 BC), and most ancient usages of Μυθος are specifically as fiction. See here for details in the Liddell & Scott entry on Μυθος.

Since Myth did not enter the English language before Christianity entered Britain (the OED doesn't cite an English usage before 1830), it's hard to say what a pre-Christian usage of "myth" in English might have been. Interestingly enough, the 1961 OED entry on "Myth" has no ambiguity at all, defining myth as

"A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural of historical phenomena. Properly distinguished from allegory and from legend (which implies a nucleus of fact) but often used vaguely to include any narrative having fictitious elements." (Volume VI, p. 818 — sorry, no online entry available.)

It seems that the "purely fictitious" sense antedates the more neutral academic sense of "foundational narrative" and survives in the common usage of "myth = fiction". JHCC (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made a lengthy suggestion at Talk:Mythology#Etymology and usage — some analysis and a suggestion. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. JHCC (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Japanese emperors[edit]

Please note my response to your message on my talk page.-Jefu 08:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mythology again[edit]

I'd appreciate it if you go revert Codex on Mythology again... he just violated 3RR policy putting in info that wsa incorrect, as the source he refers to to try to support himself clearly shows.

If I can track down the earlier version that had that passage and do the differences correctly I'll report him for 3RR, but I can;t revert him now without going over myself. DreamGuy 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

little help with Hindu mythology[edit]

I'm trying organize the the Hindu Myth category. Would you like to help me? Right now I'm just adding the {{HinduMythology}} template to all the articles under hindu mythology. And I putting {{WikiProject Hindu Mythology}} at the top of an article's Talk page. This includes Hindu dieties. I'm trying to also move any Hindu diety articles under the Hindu Mythology cat to the Hindu dieties cat. --Dangerous-Boy 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


I've put a suggestion at Talk:Mythology#A_suggestion on which I would appreciate your input. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

zscout is that you?[edit]

I once knew a person named zscout742 or something. I forgot their name and now I see yours and it is almost exactly alike. Did you change your name? DyslexicEditor 18:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


I have noticed "Lord" is widely used on Wikipedia when referring to Krishna, and I know some Western scholars also apply the honorific title to Vedic deities, but still I think it shouldn't be used. Jesus isn't called "Lord Jesus" (except in quotations or book titles), and adding "(peace and blessings be upon him)" to Muhammad's name is considered to be POV according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles).

After having looked up the meanings of the words Śrī or Śrīmat(ī) in my Sanskrit dictionary --light, lustre, radiance, splendour, glory, beauty to name but a few--, I concluded that these titles do not belong in an encyclopaedia that claims to be neutral. It wouldn't be in compliance with common practice applied when writing about other religions. Besides, they're not necessary, if you ask me. It's perfectly clear who is meant by Krishna or Krṣṇa. How about adding to the beginning of the article a statement that Krishna is often called Lord Krishna? ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of difference between the examples you have given and what we are arguing about. I don't want this to become a moral debate, but remember that the Gita itself is a conversation between God (Krishna), and Arjuna.

Like somebody else pointed out, I find no points of view while referring to "The Prophet Mohammed" or "Jesus Christ, the son of God". These are perfectly neutral in my opinion.

Cribananda 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, "Jesus Christ, the Son of God" is a Christian title given to the man they see as the one supreme lord and saviour of mankind, and so that would be POV, since it actually states outright that he is the son of God, rather than simply referring to the chief divinity of most Christian denominations as what he is. To call a god a god is not POV, which is the basis of my pro-"Lord" stance, but to imply that there is some extra validity to it is POV. It would also be POV to refer to any of these figures with upper-case letters for every pronoun, which I am hardly advocating. elvenscout742 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - Cribananda 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It does imply a point of view to call Krishna "Lord", Jesus "the Son of God", or Muhammad "the Prophet", and can therefore not be neutral. Also, stating that the Bhagavad Gita is a conversation between God and Arjuna cannot be considered in compliance with a neutral point of view. I don't see the difference.
And I'm not so sure "Lord Krishna" is common practice among Western scholars. And even if it were, it would seem odd to me to make a distinction between Krishna and Jesus, both of whom are considered divine by Vaishnavas and Christians respectively.
And once again: I find it totally unnecessary, especially in the Krishna article. It's stated in the introductory section that he is considered the Supreme Being. That should be enough, if you ask me. ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I find it remarkable that I received no criticism whatsoever from my fellow Christians for changing "Holy Bible" to "Bible", but as soon as I started changing "Holy Qur'an" to "Qur'an", or "Lord Krishna" to "Krishna", I was asked to refrain from doing that.
"Lord", as a translation of Sanskrit "Śrī" or "Śrīmat", is a title of veneration. And Wikipedia is a place of information, not veneration. ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy (again)[edit]

Hello, I am contacting you because I saw that you were involved with a previous DreamGuy RfC, at the discussion page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2.

His personal attacks and general uncivility have been increasing in frequency again. I tried to follow dispute resolution procedures and work it out with him on his talk page, but he just deletes the comments that I make, and accuses me of harassment. He is also deleting related comments by other users on the issue[7], as well as history that he has been blocked for a revert war[8], etc. etc. After multiple attempts of communication, I was advised to file an RfC on him, but upon doing research, I see that there were already two others, and that he has already been cautioned about uncivil behavior.

I am contemplating filing another RfC, or perhaps further escalating the matter. Would you like to be involved with the discussion? Elonka 13:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore my latest stalker. She somehow has the idea that my not responding to her personal attacks and harassment is somehow uncivil to her. Note that the block for the revert war was overruled by a number of admins who said the admin who did it was clearly breaking policy, but of course that doesn't matter to this woman, who won't let inconvenient things like facts get in her way. And, of course, as you well know, every user has a right to delete comments of their own talk pages, so her complaining about me removing her annoying posts is just silly.
Hope you are doing well. Sorry to see you ducked out on the Mythology conversation. The religious POV-pushers are still there, and they have moved to myth and Urban legend lately too. DreamGuy 13:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Elvenscout, thanks for the message. I wanted to make sure you had the option of participating if you chose (if I were in your shoes, I would have wanted to know, so I was following the Wikipedia golden rule guideline). If you do not wish to be involved, I understand and respect that. Best wishes! Elonka 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

my talk page[edit]

Paul started calling me a hindu nationalist and nobody warned him? When I call him an aryan supremacist, because he only wants his POV pushed through, people start jumping through hoops? Why this duplicity? Shivraj Singh 06:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a time when earth was flat and the centre of universe. Modern research is bound to genereate a negation of old theories and one has to be ready to accept new research and hence the falsification of there favorite theory. My 2 cents : do not have a head in the sand approach. Please read this article and if you have questions do let me know:

Shivraj Singh 18:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is my last response to you. You have shown your prejudice, i.e without knowing the facts you are siding with an opinion which is historically/genetically/archaelogically/linguistically incorrect. Then you have the audacity to call me a spammer! Do not think I give a hoot about what you say. Shivraj Singh 18:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Smarta Hinduism and polytheism[edit]

Elven, your changes are fine in the criticism of Hinduism article. About the argument that this form of Hinduism may be easily labeled polytheistic, I disagree. The smarta system common in Hinduism is perceived as polytheistic; rather it is a form of inclusive monotheism, where one God is perceived as having many forms. In contrast, a polytheist thinks that two gods are different, i.e., Zeus and Poseidon, for example. An inclusive monotheist such as a Smarta, on the other hand, thinks that Vishnu and Shiva are differents aspects of the one and same God. For example, the Smarta theologians, influenced by Advaita philosophy, have cited many references to support this view. In one example, they interpret verses in both the Shri Rudram, the most sacred mantra in Shaivism, and the Vishnu sahasranama, one of the most sacred prayers in Vaishnavism, to show this belief. By contrast, a Vaishnavite considers Vishnu as the only one true God, worthy of worship and other worship of other forms as subordinate or simply incorrect. Raj2004 13:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

sure, Elven, and thanks. The vedas may be interpreted to support polytheism. Howver, the Vedas state: A Rigvedic verse illustrates this theme of tolerance by stating that "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously.

also only Smarta Hinduism follows this view. Vaishnavism and Saivism are more strict panentheistic monotheistic faiths, Raj2004 00:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

your kimono pict[edit]

I added your kimono picture to the kimono article and nobody seemed to mind. But on the geek article, well somebody said I needed your permission. I msged him because I think he's wrong about that. Your pic is noted as licensed for all to use, too.

This is an older version of the article: I thin it's nice how I described your picture. Comments appreciated. Tempoo 11:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Samurai I : Musashi Miyamoto (Facts section)[edit]

I think that the 'Facts' heading is definately important. The information provided gives a little background on the story of Musashi Miyamoto. I think the section should be reincluded. What are your views? Jack 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Elven, if it's a legitimate source, please feel free to put in. For me as Hindu, I think of Ravana as bad but we have to be NPOV as long as it is a verifitable source which the Encylopedia of mythology is, unlike other sources. However,It would make the Ravana article almost like an article about Satan emphasizing that he was a good angel, Lucifer before he turned bad. But even Hindu scriptures said that Ravana was a reincarnation of someone once good: Please see what I wrote earlier: "In the Bhagavata Purana, Ravana and his brother, Kumbakarna were said to be reincarnations of Jaya and Vijaya, gatekeepers at Vaikunta, the abode of Vishnu and were cursed to be born in Earth for their insolence.

These gatekeepers refused entry to the Sanatha Kumara monks, who, because of their powers and austerity appeared as young children. For their insolence, the monks cursed them to be expelled from Vaikunta and to be born in Earth. The all-merciful Vishnu agreed that they should be punished but agreed to mitigate their curse. He asked them whether they would want to be undergo seven births as devotees of Vishnu or three births as enemies of the Lord. Since they wanted to get back as soon as possible, they agreed to be born in three births as enemies of God.

In the first birth, Jaya and Vijaya were born as Hiranyakashipu and Hiranyaksha. Vishnu incarnated as Varaha and Narasimha and killed them both. In Treta Yuga they were born as Ravana and Kumbhakarna and were killed by Rama. Then in Dwapara yuga, and in their final birth, Jaya and Vijaya they were born as Shishupala and Dantavakra and killed by Sri Krishna. After the end of three births, they returned to Vaikunta."

sort of analogous to Lucifer/satan fall. But put the view in of Ravana, since it's a verifiable source.

Raj2004 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree, Elven so long as it is a verifiable source.

Raj2004 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sephie of Meridian[edit]

I'm curious about your comment that Sephie is a shortened form of Persephone. Not that I don't believe you, but I'm pretty sure that was never mentioned in the comic, and I'd be curious where you got this information from. Thanks. LordAmeth 04:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


sorry for the delay. I was away. Not all Vaishnavites consider Buddha to be an avatar. some consider Balarama to be an avatar but as you correctly point out as an avatar of Shesha.

Raj2004 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Japanese history[edit]

Thanks for fixing my misguided :ja: links in the various Japanese history articles -- I'd meant to remove them since you made your points over on the Talk:Japanese_Paleolithic page, and then got busy with other things and forgot. Doh! Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 16:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: anonymous edits[edit]

I didn't revert blindly, per se. I looked at the edit and wasn't too sure about it, but after considering the other edits from that IP, I figured it was probably bogus. Always remember to sign in when editing. — Mar. 28, '06 [13:10] <freakofnurxture|talk>


Hi, Eleven Rudra in contemporary Hinduism is considered one of the names of Shiva. Rudra, in another view, is one of the forms of Shiva. In early Vedic times, Rudra was a minor storm deity. Some scholars suggest that the Rudra merged into the later monotheistic concept of Shiva.

So I don't think there should be a redirect to Shiva.

Raj2004 02:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)