User talk:Hanuman Das
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome & Disclaimer (please read)
This is the talk page for Hanuman Das. Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. Please note that I reserve the right to blank messages on this page for any reason, but most especially will certainly do so for any personal attacks or for communication with a third party on my talk page. If you have something to say to someone, use their talk page, not mine. If you do not agree with this policy, please don't post on this page, but rather contact me on the talk page of the article involved. Thank you. —Hanuman Das 13:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Archives
[edit] Further notice
I am no longer interested in the Starwood Festival mediation. I completely withdraw from it and am not interested in communicating with other users about it. Please feel free to discuss other matters with me, but all communcations involving the matter will simply be blanked without response. Fair warning. —Hanuman Das 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vairotsana v. Vairocana
They're not actually the same -- VairoCana is the primordial Buddha. VairoTSana was one of the first seven monks in Tibet and a prolific translator. There was a page on the latter Vairotsana, but it was copivio and therefore deleted. I'll see what I can put together for a stub this evening and un-do the redirect, just FYI -- but thanks! [oops I forgot to sign my name --Zero_sharp] 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- no need to apologize :) Zero sharp 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] what house?
I don't remember a particular house -- but it's been awhile. I just remember Cary Grant running away from an airplane in a field. Regarding the other issue, I've hardly said anything recently. I don't have anything more to say on the matter and am pretty much sick of it. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] no bells
The Mount Rushmore page had been vandalised. I thought i was reverting it but a bot did it first. Enjoy your movie! Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: the Effort
I'm very sorry to hear it, but I understand, and no hard feelings. You have certainly done a lot on behalf of this issue, and I hope you will still visit articles I edit and improve them as you have the chance, since there is much I still don't do well. I don't know how to enlist help on this; I can only hope the new mediator will support at least the validity of the internal links, and express some opposition to Pigman & Kathryn's expressed desire to eliminate all the links and many of the articles entirely. It's been hard to deal with this sort of attack by strangers, something quite foreign to me, and I appreciate the support you've given more than I can say. I hope you will still work with me on that part of what I do that does not involve the linking issue, and I hope you are not intimidated out of other activities you lend your energies to by such rude people. If I can help in the future in any way, please tell me. Perhaps my background and experience can be of use to you in some way; I owe you more than one. Ad Astra, Rosencomet 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Attempted Deletions
Well, I missed the discussions on Taylor Ellwood and Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison. I think they were nominated for speedy deletion at a time when my computer was down. If you know where I might be able to find the original text pre-deletion, I'd like to save it until one or both of them publish new books or do something else to support their notability and revisit it then. Pigman just targetted Sally Eaton and George R. Harker, but the response to keep was so overwhelming he dropped it (I just discovered that this moment). Ironically, Sally told me she'd just as soon have her page dropped out, prefering a low profile (I didn't know that when I created it), but there's no getting the toothpaste back in the tube, is there? He also targetted Tannin Schwartzstein, but heck, he may be right on that one. I think dropping Skip was a mistake, though: the present Archdruid of ADF with 4 published books. Ah, well. Rosencomet 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Starwood
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, and I'd be willing to discuss this issue with you further if you'd like.
I've set up a mediation page at Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation where I've addressed the issues raised on my talk page. Even if you do not take part in the discussion, I hope you will at least follow it.
Peace! - Che Nuevara 06:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- [1] Sorry to do this to you, but I've been intimidated into abandoning the effort.
If this happened, something should be done about it. I would recommend that you not seek out related AfDs. However, intimidation which can be demonstrated with diffs should go on the record. If you like, you can contact me by e-mail. I'm an e-mail enabled user. Peace. - Che Nuevara 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I came across wrong; I didn't mean to say that you should not take part in related AfDs. What I was saying was that seeking out related AfDs might look like if you were intentionally circumventing the mediation process. You can of course do whatever you find most reasonable; I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just giving you an outside point of view.
- I am of course still more than willing to follow up on the intimidation issue, if you want; if not, say so and I will drop it. - Che Nuevara 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page moves
I'm going to clean up all the clutter left by previous page moves. Currently, I'm busy editing the article, so that its content suits the title, and somebody doesn't move it again. utcursch | talk 14:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Buddhism in modern India
India Buddhist revival/Dalit Buddhist Movement/Buddhist Revival in India has been moved to Buddhism in modern India. utcursch | talk 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- As you might be aware that Pkulkarni (talk • contribs) and his/her socks have been blocked (see Talk:Dalit Buddhist movement). User:Pkulkarni (with his sock accounts) was the only person opposed to an article with the title Dalit Buddhist movement or Ambedkarite Buddhism. Other involved parties such as User:Hkelkar, User:AMbroodEY, Nat Krause[2], and NinaEliza[3] support for separate article about Dalit Buddhist movement. So, I've moved the article to Dalit Buddhist movement. The content about non-Ambedkarite Buddhism has been removed and addded to Buddhism in India[4]. Sorry for all the confusion. I hope I'm finally fixing this. Thanks. utcursch | talk 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: stuff
Glad to see you have stepped away from the situation, as it were. For the record, I can take a joke (I believe life is one big cosmic joke that I have to take), but the whole Mattisse/Rosencomet/Starwood debacle has gone far beyond any joke. It has wasted countless hours of other editors' time. That's really my only interest - to stop the disruptions so everyone can carry on with actual constructive editing. I'm not on anyone's "side", nor am I anyone's "opponent"; I was just as quick to act on inappropriate behavior by Mattisse earlier in the dispute as I was by you. --Ars Scriptor 15:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Days in film
Just a suggestion - you might want to think about taking one day and creating more content for it (premieres, actor births, actor deaths, technical advances, awards ceremonies, trivia etc) than creating a page for every day with one event on - that isn't really very useful or informative for the average reader. exolon 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I posted on WP:FILM about this - maybe they'll be able to help. I'd just prefer the encyclopedia not to give the impression there was only one notable event on any given day. You might want to consider some kind of 'incomplete/please expand' tag as well on the pages. exolon 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Hanuman_Das. I will probably be listing those articles for deletion as they're nothing but listcruft. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
These articles are really not needed and don't add anything to the Encyclopedia. I know you have good intentions, but it's something that really should be handled via Categories instead (if it even needs to happen, that's not clear). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
On a related subject, you are apparently setting out to add movie releases to every one of the 365 "days of the year" pages. It's not historically notable that a particular film happened to premiere on a particular date, and we've long maintained the policy that film premieres, book publications, CD releases, etc, are virtually never notable on these pages, and should be reverted on sight as listcruft. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- How did you get the impression that anyone was telling you to post this listcruft to the day of the year pages? I see a flat no here: WP:AN#User:Hanuman Das. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re Jahbulon
Thanks for your message. I had removed the article from my watchlist, as I had come to the conclusion that the contributors (especially on the talk page) were not interested in concensus or NPOV but in promoting their viewpoint on the matter. As I am strictly neutral in the matter I will go back to the article and cast my vote/opinion, although I doubt if it will effect the stance of either party. Again, thanks for the head up.LessHeard vanU 10:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding the Neem Karoli Baba wikipedia entry
Hello,
I am the webmaster of www.neebkaroribaba.com. I would like to get in touch with you through e-mail regarding the contents of this wikipedia page. Because I see that a lot of information is wrong (just because of ignorance). If you go through the Indian website, you'll find the right information. Can you conatct me on e-mail at: webmaster@neebkaroribaba.com.
Thanks, - Abhinav Bhatele 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jahbulon
- Wow! As Shakespeare is alleged to have said, "How can one make so much soup from a single turnip?" I probably know more about the OTO and Golden Dawn than about Masonry itself, which is to say not all that much. Still, it seems to be a very long and esoteric article over the definition of one word. Perhaps this is a major controversy within the communities that are arguing it; I know articles about the meaning of the words "witch" and "shaman" in communities I run in could be this long. I find the long quotes in the "Notes" section rather than links to the text odd, but perhaps the source marterial is such that this is more accessable than a link (say, a jpeg of an entire book to sort through). Also, I wonder about characterizing Stephen Knight with the title "Anti-masonic author" (I'm not saying he doesn't have problems with Masons or Masonry, but is that a proper way to quote a dissenting view?).
- But I can't see why one would claim the article isn't encyclopedic. It certainly appears to be, though the point that a definition of a word belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia has some merit. The article probably should be entitled "The Jahbulon Controversy", except that a search by those looking for just this analysis might not find it with that heading. Maybe the definition should be at the top, and the rest under such a title, or even "Royal Arch Masonry and the Jahbulon Controversy". That would also justify the presence of the definition of Royal Arch Masonry in the article rather than just a link to its own article. However, if the subject of the article is notable, and there certainly seem to be several people with strong views about it who have written both here and in referenced material about it, I'd say that the treatment of the subject here IS encyclopedic and the article should stay. The controversy is obviously real, the etymological information is key to the controversy, and the fact that "there's no way to claim any one person's idea is authoritative" is WHY there's a controversy (rather than "making the point disappear"). I can't see penalizing this article because so many others have NOT been developed with the detail and energy the contributors to this one have applied. I just think a lot of the article needs a heading like the one I've recommended. Rosencomet 20:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re; tantra
namaskar. sorry, i try to contribute as often as i can, but i normally dont have enough free time to make the significant contributions that i mean to. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hi Hanuman
Well, I'm sorry that this is happening. It looks to me like two good editors (and probably good people) have a lot of ill-will towards each other right now based on past experiences.
However, the reality is that the editor in question doesn't feel they can edit because of you. I say this is reality because the "source" is the editor themselves, and I assume good faith as much as I can.
I could "dig" for more "truth" in user contributions and page histories, but that's enough truth for me right there. I encourage you to do what I asked the editor in question to do. Find some way to extend an olive branch in order to make yourself and the editor in question more comfortable here.
I could give dozens of ways to do it from the Kindness campaign to Esperanza, but really, I'm sure you know how. This situation, like any change made to Wikipedia, is not intractable. I intend to copy this message on the talk page of the editor in question.
Sincerely, NinaEliza 23:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) On a side note - is your daughter the youngest person to have an article on Wikipedia
[edit] Ars Scriptor
I just clicked on User:Ars Scriptor, and got a notice saying that he/she had retired. Rosencomet 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Masons
I see you've been tangling with the Masons on the article about oaths. Thanks for the support. Browsing your talk page, I see that there's another front. I think I may have a thing or two to chip in... Frater Xyzzy 16:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Swaminarayan Dispute
Jai Swaminarayan Hanuman Das,
I think both of us can agree that Haribhagat is not using proper etiquette on Wikipedia, and I suggest we flag him for it. I will give him one or two more posts, but somebody as opiniated as him can never reason respectfully.
Let me know what you think.
---
Sincerely,
Moksha88 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
