User talk:Dseer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your identity

I think I have figured out who you are. I would like to let you be at choice about whether this is publically revealed on wikipedia or not and having the extremely intense desire for truth and not merely a belief, which is after all, just a group of symbols, I am wondering if what I am saying reminds you of anything? Warmly Sethie 21:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I knew you would resort to extreme threats. Keep your threats to yourself, I will not be blackmailed. I'm reporting you to Wikipedia for making them, and demanding appropriate action. You have unsurprisinly exluded any assumptions of good faith. Goodbye. This is my last communication. --Dseer 21:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am really sad to see your response, and that you experienced my message as a threat, if you are who I think you are, I am a huge fan of yours, and I was really looking forward to connecting with you.

Would you please let me know what portion of my above post you read as a threat?

And if it doesn't work for you to talk with me, I welcome any offical action or investigation into the matter.Sethie 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your identity revisited

When he looks inside of him, he can find not one ounce of "threat" in the above post, however he can find other ways he has "threatened" you, doing the RfC ("If you don't agree with me, I'll get others to look at your work"), so looking back Sethie can see how you percieved his above post as a threat... we were immeshed in some conflict.

The above post, for Sethie, was a playful, excited and giddy post about wondering your identity.

However, now that we have begun discussing to what a certain author and his worldview will be represented in the articles, Sethie believes it is essential for NPOV to be maintained for you to answer the following question: have you written a book which could be abrieviated as TMRADMTEB?

If you don't wish to answer that question, would you please not participate in the discussion around him and his work?

If you want to dialogue a bit ABOUT the question, Sethie is game for that as well. Sethie does not enjoy raising this, because he values people's choice to annonymity AND Sethie loves, adores and cherishes the wiki practice of NPOV. Sethie 14:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My appologies apparently Sethie failed to remove the Michel Langford link a couple of months ago! Sethie 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] identity issues and complaint

In response to your complaint on WP:ANI, I have left a warning message on User talk:Sethie. if you want more than a warning, please provide diffs of behavior justifying such action. DES ^(talk) 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ramana Maharishi

Why you do not implement your views boldly ? I believe even Bharatveer will support you. I really believe Godman has a narrow definition of the word Hindu, although his sentiments were correct because he want to keep Ramana Maharishi away from narrow sectarianism. Instead of describing Ramana Maharishi as a Tamil or a Hindu Tamil, he should be described as "born into a Tamil Hindu family". Bharatveer is too fond of reverting which I do not support. But you have put me in his camp, and labelled me hasty, although I kept away from editing that article. Iddli should not remove the word Hindu. Since you are already editing that article, I request you to mend the error, which is intentional. -VJha 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You did more than I expected. People believe me to be a Hindu, but I do not use this word for myself. Hindu is a wrong spelling of Sindhu; and Sindhu was not any religion. The religion of this country was simply called Dharma in ancient texts (Dhamma in Prakrits) by supportes of all paths. Sanātana was later added to Dharma, in order to distinguish it from Buddhism and Jainism of later days. Modern Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are much removed from original tenets (fundamentals). The best definition of Dharma was given by Bhīṣma just before his death in Mahābhārata : "that which upholds/bears (everything) is Dharma, ...(and) its characteristics are Patience, Forgivance, Self-restraint...(etc.,Dhriti, Kshamā, Dama...)". Dharma cannot be confined to any particular ideology, deity, ritual, etc. Dharma is a morally upright way of living which saves one from falling away from Truth (God). Only a guru can decide which particular path is appropriate for a disciple. There are as many paths as there are gurus or disciples. Some of these paths degenerated into separate religions, fighting among each other. I already said Godman's sentiments were correct but his words were politically incorrect. I did not misunderstood him. There are few, if any, westerners who understand India better than him. Generally, Wikipedians do not produce articles like Ramana Maharishi, how they allowed you &c to write such a superb article is a wonder ! Thanks. -VJha 15:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can spare some time, please read the article at following site : http://www.indiastar.com/venkat1.html (A book review by Kalavai Venkat of Romila Thapar's Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300). Then you will understand why Bharatveer was (wrongly) infuriated against Godman. In the arbitration case, Doldrums is complaining against Bharatveer just because Bharatveer tried to cite the topmost Marxist leadert of India who eulogised Romila Thapar for her contribution to marxist historiography. Why Bharatveer is being denied the right to state the truth? You will understand the greatness of Romila Thapar once you read this article critically. Kalavai Venkat may be a Hindu nationalist (I do not know), it does not make the review un-scholarly. Bharatveer is not getting support and Doldrums has succeeded in getting his wrong views endorsed in Romila Thapar. Is it OK ? -VJha 15:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please have patience for a day or two. Things are improving. I do not like Wikipedians fighting among each other. -VJha 18:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romila Thapar

You have not checked the points discussed by Kalavai Venkat properly. Venkat is right, unfortunately. Romila Thapar writes in a deceptively reasonable manner. Judge from the sources. Indian history has been wrongly interpreted by many historians. -VJha 00:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Romila Thapar has a lot of fans in Wiki who will not allow any impartial criticism. Romila Thapar is a well known leader of Marxist historians in India, but Bharatveer was not allowed to quote the published statement a topmost Marxist leader. -VJha 19:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adi Da RfC

Please have a look at Talk:Adi Da. Adidam advocates are again trying to prune out well-sourced material that doesn't support Adidam party line. Have a look at WP:SELFPUB. Looks like there is way too much Adidam material in the article and a significant correction is needed. We'll see if other editors agree. thanks, Comesincolors 18:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. regarding editor 202.63.42.221's ridiculous complaint against you, I commented here. Comesincolors 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Chinmoy

Wikipedia seems to be a playground for cults. Such groups need to be held to the rules. WiccaWeb 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, one thing at a time for me! I don't mind having an article on Sri Chinmoy, but geeez, it needs a lot work to be fair, balanced, and so on... I've been working on a few of the sections, and will eventually propose the changes at the Sri Chinmoy Discussion Page. Personally, I think it's a cult, but than many will say the same thing about (especially) my own path, Wicca... Speaking of cults, The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation is interesting -> http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html WiccaWeb 18:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

I wanted to once again say how sorry I was about some of our interactions. Looking back I would have liked to have asked the same questions, however done so in a way that were much more respectful of your privacy.

I also wish I had been more thorough in reviewing the history of the Ramana page and hence not accused you of doing something you didn't do.

Also, in some of our interactions on the page, I was not always as gentle and calm as I would like to have been. Sometimes I was outright rigid, insisting that I get my way and that all other viewpoints were wrong. I am also feel very regretful over this.

I have removed all references I know of which might "out" you. If there is any further way I can make this situation right, please let me know.

If you would like to discuss this matter privately, feel free to email me at outbeyondideas@gmailxyz.com, just remove the xyz. love, Seth Sethie 14:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A further apology

I'd also like to appologize for our first interaction. [[1]]. I wish I had been more cautious and respectful and only removed the portions which were quotes and left the rest.

Sometimes I get too focused on wiki rules and see myself as an enforcer of them! So sorry. If there is anyway I can make this right with you, please let me know. Sethie (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Dseer (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)