User talk:Ekajati: Difference between revisions

• Archive 1 (April 2006 - Sept 2006)

Sure, I'll add them to my watchlist. I know a little about Tibetan Buddhism, but not much about the politics between the schools and teachers. Clearly some sectarian groups are editing what they consider to be "opposing" groups articles. —Hanuman Das 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say, you seem to know more about the rules regarding bios of living people and reliable sources than I do (just read through the discussions on those articles you mentioned). There are similar issues going on on the Adi Da article. Care to take a look? —Hanuman Das 01:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much discussion has been made on the lcoation of the photo and a consensus has been made. If should start a discussion instead of unilaterally changing the picture location. -- Jeff3000 16:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS is a guideline, and does not have to followed in every case. In this case consensus has been made on the location of the image. -- Jeff3000 16:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I did not revert your category changes. -- Jeff3000 17:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not policy in Wikipedia. Policies cannot be overridden, but guidelines are constantly overridden all over the place with consensus. -- Jeff3000 17:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very visible note at the top of the page. The placement of the image is similar to a "spolier alert" on Wikipedia, so that people who don't want to see some info don't have to. The diference with a "spoiler alert", is that people can jump right over it without reading it, but that is not true of an image, and thus the location at the bottom. -- Jeff3000 17:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I made a mistake blocking you for 8h. You acted in accordance with WP:LIVING. The block has already expired so there is no way to undo it, but I'll be happy to confirm that you were right. I promise to be more careful next time. Thank you for making WP better. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been involved in the Michael Roach article, I want to inform you that Kt66 has proposed an addition to the article. Please see the talk page section "Three Ways after a Three-Year-Retreat". I did remove it from the main article — see my talk page response — and suggested that consensus be reached on the talk page first. User:Kt66 appears to be making an effort to follow Wikipedia policies, though a patient, careful explanation seems to be helpful, as English does not appear to be his/her native language. — ERcheck (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a number of problems with the Buddhist categories you might want to look into... First, Category:Buddha should probably be renamed to Category:Buddhas. Second, Category:Buddhist mythology is extremely dubious. Most of the articles in it should be classified into Category:Buddhist deities or perhaps a new category, Category:Buddhist demons. There must be a Category:Bodhisattvas somewhere, should it be under deities? What about Dharmapalas? Do they need a category? Are they deities? Maybe mythology is needed after all to include non-deific beings? Or something. In any case, it needs some thought from someone who understands the entities in Buddhism and their relations to each other better than I do... —Hanuman Das 15:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ekajati, please excuse my over-reacting on you changes, but you changed controversial discussed articles quite speedy and I projected you just want to repress critic. Please take my apolgies for accusing you of being a lumberjack. As far as I can see you just wanted to put into practice the WP rules. Thank you for improving the articles. --Kt66 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :-) --Kt66 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that it's preferred to use the category redirect template Template:Category_redirect instead of just putting a redirect in the category. I took the liberty of using this in Category:Buddha and Category:Buddhist deities, but I don't know where else you might have used redirects. RandomCritic 15:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you were trying to do now... Move was a bad choice of words on my part. I cut and pasted the original version from Dakini(Buddhism) to Dakini. I'm not a subject expert here, but if there is anything from the Dakini version that I replaced that is verifiable, it should be worked into the current article. If the editor who did the move comes back and reverts, they should be contacted and implored to discuss before reverting without consensus. If they ignore this it would be a good idea to involve an admin.--Isotope23 20:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ah yeah, I forgot about the history...in that case, report in on AN/I... an admin can move it back from Dakini(Buddhism) to Dakini and retain the history moved by User:BF.--Isotope23 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:COOL, it was a simple mistake and in the grand scheme of things it didn't really complicate this all that much more... CSD is the right course of action here, and it looks like it has already achieved the purpose.--Isotope23 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to request the AfD be closed per nom withdrawal as the previous version is there now and there is no further reason for the AfD.--Isotope23 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, that works too.--Isotope23 00:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had to dig deep to find that history after you hijacked the article. Now that history exists from the recent revert. I will commend you people for improving the article, however, where were you 5 years ago when it began as a short stub? Doing tantra? or were you meditating? Anyway, some of what was written before the sabotage/subterfuge of redirects to make the Buddhism article more foreground than the sanskrit definition is deplorable. BF 02:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links I removed were price lists only -- do you really think price lists belong in the body of an article as a reference?

Thanks! Timmy12 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Please leave Rosencomet and his articles alone." -- is that a correct Wikipedia attitude?

Sounds like you have ownership issues. Lets check into this and see if you are entitled to make such blanket "off-limits" statements. Are you actually Rosencomet? Why are you so defensive of him? Or is someone pulling your strings? Timmy12 18:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekajati, I see you are having trouble with Timmy12. You should be aware that this user is most likely a sockpuppet of Mattisse, who previously went on a vendetta either against Rosencomet or maybe pagan authors and performers in general. She likes to tag pagans with "importance" tags, even when they have 20 or more books or albums credited to their name and listed in the article. Refuses to do the least amount of research or even a Google search before tagging. Refuses to discuss issues on the talk pages of the articles. Won't acknowledge the comments or opinions of other editors more knowledgeable in the field. I'd advise against posting on her talk page - she gets emotional and then will harass you on your talk page - at least she did this to me.... A real piece of work, this one... Sees conspiracies everywhere - I see she's accused you of being Rosencomet. That's pretty typical... —Hanuman Das 10:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it to Checkuser. Admins don't act on unfounded accusations alone. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work rounding up those references and bibliography. I think you have single-handedly rebuffed the deletionists! ;-) —Hanuman Das 01:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on the AFD for this article. I've voted. Septegram 13:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and Hanuman Das may want to check out Timmy12's User Talk page, particularly here. Not sure what's going on, but I saw your name mentioned and thought I should alert you.

Septegram 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mattisse was trying to contact you. Zie was invoking your name to Timmy12, and I thought I should advise you.

Septegram 18:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]