User talk:TheRingess/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:TheRingess. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Re: 3RR on the CBC Guy Page

I don't think 3RR is of concern in page blanking or vandalism situations. It's just considered vandalism. I'm just not keen to get on The Hour for "unilaterally" blocking George Stroumboulopoulos. Logical2u_{Review me!} 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me

It is nice to see somebody welcome you to Wikipedia.

Thank you. Ssri1983 17:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please help regarding diacritics in Indian mythological names

Can you please help me regarding the use of diacritics in Indian mythological names used in articles? I am trying to find a policy page (if it exists) on the usage of names that have diacritics in other articles. Some articles include the diacritic information when non-English words are used while others don't mention them. This sometimes leads to incorrect pronunciation. For eg: in this article Vishvamitra, "Puthrakameshti" is mentioned in the section "Kaushika". In "Puthrakameshti" the first "a" is short while the second "a" is long thereby requiring a diacritic. As you can see, the diacritic is not used in any part of this article. But in this article Valmiki it is used, "kāṇḍas". Do you know if a policy page exists on this?

What is a nice balance between making it simple and following proper pronunciation? If I include diacritics on every previously unspecified non-English (in this case, mainly Sanskrit) word it would become difficult to read the article. The other extreme is also not very desirable.

Thanks a lot.Ssri1983 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

you caused the deletion of the IPEC page

you caused the deletion of the IPEC page and i cannot read your reasoning because the page has already been deleted.

i would appreciate if you could explain (on my user talk page) why you did such a thing

surely, i only provided a brief sketch of the Instituto de Permacultura e Ecovilas do Cerrado, and since i only received notice from wikipedia today about your proposal for deletion, i was unable to inform you of the importance of IPEC. the place is vital to the global sustainability movement and culture change in general, and has already been recognized by being chosen as the site of the International Permaculture Convergence for this year.

i don't know how to recover pages, or if that is even possible, but you made a mistake and i'd appreciate if you could explain why you did this and help me restore the page if possible

thanks, mkbnett

There are deletion reviews, your best bet is to bring it up there. TheRingess (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NA status

04:56, 2 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Category talk:Hindu temples in Indonesia (rate as start) (top) This can only' be NA not start- cheers Satu Suro 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Made a mistake in my edit summary. I really did change it to NA. But thanks anyway for bringing this to my attention.TheRingess (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I must object...

move to close this one. A mediation case does not concern itself with content, but rather process. I visited the article's talk page, and there is no discussion going on that needs mediation.TheRingess (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I must object:

As one of the more liberal site Catholics,I don't raise a stir. 1. NPOV requires that the dictates of a Faith be taken seriously, not mocked.

Lowering the bar on this opens the door to mischief.

2.Of the serious offences that can separate the soul from the divine, can Ringness explain why masterbation was chosen as as THE mortal sin example? regards Opuscalgary 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/mortal_sin_acrticle." 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please object on the case page. As I mentioned there are two main reasons for closing this case:

Mediation is not about content, but about process.
There has been no discussion between you and any other editors. There is nothing to mediate.

I have nothing further to add, please direct all comments and questions on the case' page. TheRingess (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.I will consider this closed. The case does fall under 'Sneaky Vandalism.' a number of articles on Catholic, & wicca, have been vandalised lately,& may have to be sealed.

I am on the Catholic wiki review,& this article is under my watch. I do appreciate that your valid concern is process, Ringess. Mine is to combat a mystery vandal.

warm regards Opuscalgary 00:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome

Hi,

Thanks for your gracious welcome :-). Are you the official greeter for new Hinduism-related pages and/or contributors?

I will have some discussion on the Guru Gita page after some time. Will you automatically know when I add my comments to the talk page, or will I need to notify you somehow?

Thanks,

71.75.19.219 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No I am not any official greeter of any kind. No you don't need to notify me.

TheRingess (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Zoonami restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- nae'blis 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

MOS

What is MOS, as in 'remove second link per MOS'?

Thanks,

MahaDave 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking compound nouns internally

Hi TheRingess,

I wanted to discuss internal links after you told me that, 'The basic Wikipedia style is to link the first time a word/phrase is used and not again.'

This makes sense in general, but I question whether a single word that's part of a compound proper noun should be linked separately. For instance, in the Guru Gita article you linked the first instance of the word 'Guru', even though in that sentence it's only half of the proper noun, 'Guru Gita'. I don't know whether this is standard procedure and if you could point me to the Wikipedia guidelines on this I'd appreciate it. It would make more sense to me in this type of situation not to link the word 'Guru' if it's part of a compound proper noun because:

1) it makes one part of the proper noun blue and the other black. This is messy. 2) the concept of the proper noun the user is reading and clicking on is different from the concept of the page the user gets when he/she clicks the link. In my mind I click on 'Guru Gita' but I get the 'Guru' page. It would be clearer conceptually to find an instance of the same concept in the current article to link to its Wikipedia page. In other words, link the first instance of the word 'Guru' that appears by itself to the 'Guru' page and leave 'Guru Gita' to represent its own lexical idea.

What do you think?

Thanks,

MahaDave 02:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your points make good sense to me. Off hand I don't know where the link might be, I'm sure you can find the appropriate links by searching around. To me, guidelines aren't always hard and fast, and if you find a notable exception that improves an article, then go ahead and implement it. One of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is "Be bold". I think the guidelines about internal links are there mostly to prevent over linking an article, which does make an article harder to read. TheRingess (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

About revisions to the 11:11 article

As requested, I have produced a reliable source for the edit so that it is now referenced (Gregg Braden). However, I STRONGLY object to the information posted about George Mathieu Barnard describing it as a message from angels in his book "Search for 11:11: A Journey into the Spirit World. His book is SELF-PUBLISHED material, meaning he could not find anyone out there who would pay enough attention or believe his theory to make it worthy of publishing. This is analagous to me printing out my ideas on paper, stitching together 100 booklets, and referencing myself as published material. Yes, it is published by your standards, but it's self-published. If self-published material is deemed "verifiable, third-party and a basis for credintials" then, I have no problem coming up with 10 different theories, self-publishing, setting up a website for 12.99 a month (Yahoo Web-hosting), and referencing myself as a "reliable" source. Hence, I STRONGLY object to the reference attributed to his name and work since it is self-published, biased, partisan, and only posted to the 11:11 article as a means to driving viewers to his site where he sells his self-published material and bans anyone from the forum and site who disputes his ideas.

The Ringess,

Thanks for the welcome,and thanks for pointing out the errors of my addition to the entry on Michael Chrisman.

A friend of mine recently purchased an item from Michael Chrisman on ebay, and recommended him to me as a trusted source for acquiring bookbinding supplies. My friend was unaware of Mr. Chrisman's past.

The current wikipedia entry on Michael Chrisman portrays him as a credit to the book world for his entire life. That is not the case.

There are several threads on exlibris from librarians and booksellers who were reportedly swindled by Michael Chrisman.  My Wikipedia entry was extracted from one of these exlibris threads.  You can read these threads by reading the exlibris archives.

To do this, do a google search for exlibris archives. Scroll down on the exlibris archives page to "Search." On the search page, enter Michael Chrisman.

If there is no proper way of warning Wikipedia readers to beware of Michael Chrisman, the alternative would be to delete Michael Chrisman's article. It is an attempt at deception.

Please reply to me on my page.

Thank you, truthbewithu

NPOV debate in Kundalini article

Hi, I see that the Kundalini article has been marked as POV for quite a long time now, why do you think it is POV? I have read on the discussion page and it's not clear to me why it should be POV.

Thanks, Anton H 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm....I had to go back through the article's history to see when I stuck that tag on. I placed it there in July 2006. I haven't contributed very much to that article, so I haven't reviewed it again for neutrality. If you feel that the article now satisifies Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality I wouldn't object if you removed the tag. TheRingess (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I will do so, thank you. Anton H 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi, Perhaps you misunderstood the situation. I happen to be Neil Paton and the shots are my property, so naturally I'm entitled to use them. It's only if they were someone else's copyright that I wouldn't be able to use them on Wiki. A while ago I put four archival shots on the Papin sisters article, and they were all deleted because they weren't my property. The only reason I put "Copyright" on my shots was to try to discourage people from stealing them. Neilrobertpaton 09:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of SY article

Hi, A few of us have been debating a small expansion of the article, esp. in regard to Gurumayi. You might like to take part in the debate. We're trying to get a consensus before we plunge in. Neilrobertpaton 08:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

MedCab

Hello:) I have decided to take your case. I hope that I will be able to help out with it. Have a nice week:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Vagyoga

Hello there. It seems to me that the page Vagyoga is still a good candidate for deletion but I do not understand the process for nominating such pages well. I see that your original nomination for speedy deletion has been taken off because the proponents have further inflated their claims. What options exist to question the continued use of Wikipedia for advertising in this way? Buddhipriya 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you begin an AFD, see WP:AFD. This brings the article up for discussion.TheRingess (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maintainer

Hi Ringess, I think I noticed somewhere that you are a maintainer. Sounds interesting. How does one become a maintainer and what does it entail? 203.164.55.11 12:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I recommend first signing up for a user name. Then you simply volunteer yourself by sticking the {{maintained|Your user name}} on the talk page of the article. It involves nothing more than answering questions. Take care.

Hello

Hi, thanks for your input. I think I understand what you mean now. I’m quite new at editing... Maybe you can teach me some more about the whole editing process. :) I would like to learn some more about uploading pictures too. Also thanks for the welcome earlier.

Category Tag

Hi, TheRingess

I'm trying to add a category tag to the Guru Gita page. I'm using the double outer [ brackets and the words 'Category:Hindu scriptures'. For some reason it doesn't show up. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Thanks MahaDave 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agendas

I will not submit to anyone's agenda. I don't know or care if the other editors are a couple of white-bread guruphiles who wish to disassociate themselves from the Hindu root of a tradition they follow, or whether they are "orthodox" Hindus who wish to disassociate Gurumayi from Hinduism. I'm not a devotee, so I personally have no agenda but the best article. But I can tell an agenda when I see one and have no intention of caving in. IPSOS (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see assume good faith. I have been trying to put this in the gentlest possible terms, but that doesn't seem to be working. You are overreacting. You have no basis except your own perception that others are engaged in an agenda. One of the primary philosophies of Wikipedia is to always discuss the material, not the editor. You are acting against the basic spirit of that philosophy and you are beginning to cause disruption rather than aiding in the process of creating a good article through consensus and polite discussion. This is just my opinion and perception, but if you believe that your perception of motives is accurate and truthful, then certainly I am going to believe my perception. In other words, you have an agenda, devotee, opponent or casual bystander and you are guilty of the very accusations you are making. So once again, please calm down, put yourself in other's shoes and try to see their viewpoint and work with them rather than making groundless accusations. There is no emergency, we will arrive at a consensus acceptable to everyone. We can arrive at that consensus quickly and painlessly or we can take the opposite route.TheRingess (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks once again

I want to say thanks for taking it on yourself to mediate the recent discussion on the Gurumayi Talk page. Your skills are admirable and it's my perception that you have a very clear and pure intent for the well being of everyone involved. You have my sincere appreciation. MahaDave 03:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Articles that may be of interest:

Namaste in agape
Walking my talk in Beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My editing an article

Hi, I edited an article on Siddha Yoga yesterday, but you have reverted it; the reason you have cited is that there is no need for "unnecessary addition of titles", but the titles are not unnecessary. I hope you will add them back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indian Indian (talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Reply to Ringess about Siddha Yoga

The use of the word Baba is a mark of respect, and hence, consequently necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indian Indian (talk • contribs) 10:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I understand that it is a mark of respect used by students. But it is not necessary in an encyclopedia article. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines regarding neutrality. Adding the word after every occurence of Muktananda and Nityananda might not be neutral. Thanks for the answer. Why did you remove a carefully sourced statement and not explain your deletion in the edit summary?TheRingess (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I dont understand Wikipedia much; I just saw the article and thought of editing it; since I was not making any major changes, I put it in minor edit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Indian (talk • contribs)

I'm still convinced that the edition of the word baba throughout the article is unnecessary and confusing. Please consider expanding the article in other ways. Every section is in need of new material, properly sourced of course. Please don't remove statements that already have valid sources. Feel free to ask further questions. Welcome again.TheRingess (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding a couple of articles

I notice that you have done a little editing on the Chakra page. I have been watching several articles related to Tantra for some time but have made only small gestures toward contributing to them. I wonder if you would be interested in collaborating on a cleanup of the articles on Chakra and Kundalini as a pair. Specifically I would like to see more rigorous sourcing on both articles, and a more clear distinction made between the original concepts in Hindu Tantric literature and the rather different ideas in Western literature. I do not know very much about the modern Western materials, but I can provide some WP:RS to the Hindu source materials. Is this material of interest to you? Buddhipriya 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)