User talk:Nemonoman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Status: I have quit entirely and in all likelihood will not read nor respond to your comments.

Contents

[edit] Changes in Aurangzeb

You are unilaterally changing content with misleading edit summaries. Also you are blanking weeks of work. Please add, not blank and remove NPOV consensus to make the article somewhat one-sided. Thanks. --Ragib 17:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The massive changes you are making in the pretext of "simplification" is reversal of the compromoise on the NPOV nature of the article. Please add, not revert/blank the sentences making the article somewhat onesided. See Talk:Aurangzeb --Ragib 17:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

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, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. 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! --Ragib 3 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

[edit] New sections to talk page

Nemo, can you please add newer sections to the talk page at the bottom? That's the wikipedia convention ... to add a new section, just click on the + button to the right of the "edit this page" link .. that should add a section to the end automatically. Thanks. --Ragib 4 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for historical addition stuff to Auzagreb page.

Well done! Thanks Rick Boatright 4 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

I agree with Rick, good work. I believe we started off the wrong foot in the discussions, but as I said, work supported by references is always welcome. Thanks for the edits. --Ragib 4 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)

[edit] Reference added by anon

Hi Nemo, can you properly format the info added by anon IP 203.* ? He is quoting a big paragraph, it may be better if the information was paraphrased, or smaller quotes were used, or the info is merged with the section we already have in the article. The book reference should go to references section. It is better to quote smaller parts, and paraphrase and refer than to copy whole paragraphs ... :) . Thanks. --Ragib 5 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

[edit] Aurangzeb

Please read my comments on the Talk page for the article.

I am sorry, but I think the net effect of what you and others have done, by including only published, "authenticated" material is to remove any hit of divergence from the official Indian view that the man was a monster, plain and simple.

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aurangzeb#Tolerance.E2.80.94or_the_lack_thereof . Once upon a time, I was very happy at the balance we had been able to bring to the article. But what has happened since has shaken my faith in the Wikipedia itself.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) July 7, 2005 03:58 (UTC)



Nemo, look into this diff and this diff. Now you see the anon from USC at work, and how edit wars started back in May ... and what kind of mindset I had to face... I hope you'd be neutral and look into this neutrally. --Ragib 8 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)


See, how difficult it is to maintain an NPOV status in the article? Everytime it gets up to a reasonable state, some anon comes and messes it up. The anonymized POV is in both sides, and you need to watch it every day to maintain it. :) --Ragib 21:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Neo have you had a look at my reply on Khushal Khan etc?--Zak 16:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the edits ...

Hi Nemo, nice to see you come back periodically and clean up articles. The religion based hatred is so strong between some (not all) editors, that they keep coming back and adding POV stuff to articles villifying anyone belonging to the other religion. Same goes for Country pages like Pakistan and India. To maintain NPOV, you've gotta keep a sharp eye on articles. You are doing just that, and thanks again for your watch on the NPOV-status of the articles. Keep up the good work. --Ragib 15:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hebb

Thanks for adding Bobby Hebb to the Cresskill article. How did you find out he lived/lives there? I couldn't find info about that online. Badagnani 05:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that is very cool. I had never heard of him but I'll check him out. Some things I post (like that Halim El-Dabh lived in Cresskill) are things I know from my own experience (he's a professor here at Kent State) but aren't common knowledge. Happy editing, Badagnani 20:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

David Dworkin

[edit] Shah Jahan

The Japanese interwiki link was changed to ja:シャー・ジャハーン , which is correct. If this shows up as ???? on your computer, it's a font issue. What browser and operating system are you using? -- Curps 02:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yoga external links

I have at your suggestion reread the Wikipedia:External links criteria and I don't recognize specifically which criteria you believe the deleted links violated. Please explain, or I will continue to revert your changes. You apparently do a fair amount of editing and from the comments on your talk page from other users, appear to do so without regard to the nature of what your editing. These pages have a lot of personal effort, love, and compromise associated with them, and those involved would appreciate a scalpel not a sledgehammer as you edit. May I suggest that if you find the article problematic, you insert a clean up flag rather than simply cutting without documenting your reasons. Thank you. --Nemonoman 07:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Pages linked should be informative content about the subject of the article, not sites of organisations that happen to have something to do with the topic. Also please keep in mind the Three Revert Rule. --fvw* 07:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I'm sorry to inform you that you have been blocked for 24 hours for breaking the Three revert rule on Yoga. Please use the talk page more next time and try to keep to around two reverts a day. Take care :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want you can still discuss here with us :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persian Names, etc

"Persian names of Mughal Emperors

Hi Vpensdse: You have added Persian versions of names of various Mughal Emperors, and these Persian transiliterations have been added and deleted in the past by others. I am very interested in these emperors, and am trying (slowly) go give them a little more scholarship and weight.

What I'd like to ask is: What's the deal with persian versions of these names? Why did you feel the need to add this information? It seems very superfluous. I have seen some add Turkic versions of the names after the persian versions, for example. I think I have deleted these transliterations in the past based on my feeling that they only added confusion. So I'd be very pleased if you could help me understand why you felt the desire to add the persian versions.--Nemonoman 13:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, why do you sometimes add Urdu to articles about this era, and in other cases Persian? Very interested in understanding this.

I ask these questions with sincerity and respect and because I think your responses will be valuable addtions to my understanding. I am not asking them as a means of generating an argument. --Nemonoman 13:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)"

Hi,

I find that when studying a language, you read many articles related to it. For example I am studying Urdu, so I read about times when Urdu was in very large use, such as the Mughal period. When you read the name in the original Urdu script, you can recognize it much faster when reading Urdu texts, and therefore greatly facilitates the learning process, I believe. In addition to this, many, if not most other wiki pages already followed the practice of including the original Urdu script of the subject matter when it pertains, so it was also a matter of conformity.

As for the "Persian" designation - the Shah's of the Mughal Empire were of Persian origin, I believe, which is why I listed their names as so. If Urdu would be a better fit than please change it. Vpendse 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

تمام کچ کے بعد یہ صفحے دکھ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Arabic%29

[edit] Yoga

Love your new intro! it's on the same lines as the original one but framed very well. Thanks!--Pranathi 01:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] India related links

Hi, I thought you might be interested in these:

Links for Wikipedians interested in India content

Register: Indian Wikipedians | Network: Noticeboard | Discussionboard Browse: India | Open tasks | Deletions
Contribute content: Collaboration Dashboard - India WikiProject - Wikiportal India - Indian current events - Category adoptions


India-related tasks | Indian noticeboard
v • e • d • h • w
v • e • d • h • w

--Pamri • Talk 03:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taj Mahal

Hi, I normally wouldn't have added the cleanup tag to the article and am probably as conservative as you, but I am adding a cleanup tag to Taj Mahal since it is an important subject. I have already pointed out on it's talk page the issues with the article. Using the Version 1.0 assesment criterion, the article can be rated as B-Class. And consider the other articles tagged at priority cleasn board. Most of them are better than Taj Mahal in terms of organisation, references,etc.,

The reason I added the tag was to make this article a priority for cleaning it up. If you still want to remove the tag, you can remove it and probably we can look at other ways to clean it up. Regards, --Pamri • Talk 07:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taj Mahal, cleanup, etc.,

Hi, If you want to add a cleanup to any article, you can insert {{cleanup-date}}. BTW, Image:Loc-Agra.png is POV, since it doesn't indicated the areas disputed between India, Pakistan and China. And there is no license to boot. You can instead mark Agra on this map. Finally, you can move the rewrite of Taj Mahal to a seperate page on your userpage, say User:Nemonoman/Taj Mahal, instead of cluttering your talk page. Please feel free to ask for any help. --Pamri • Talk 08:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

map.

[edit] Taj Mahal

Hi Nemonoman please gather complete before Editing the Fatehpur Sikri page and Agra page ....because i think you are wrong ....No one can know more about Agra than me because Agra is my Hometown and i've been there for 20 years.....Fatehpur Sikri is in Agra Distric only .....and the pic u edited as itmad ud daula is actuallt inside pic of Agra Fort.......more precisely it's pic of Deewane Khas in Agra Fort.

here is the proof of concept ...link of UNESCO site which shows where Fatehpur is http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/255 so plz don't edit this again

Amit Jain


Great job on the Taj Mahal page. Michael L. Kaufman 17:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Work area for Taj Changes

Click here to see work area for taj

[edit] Hindi

Yeah, we try to write the localised version of subject in all articles. I´ve already requested an Urdu version too. You seem to be new to wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This procedure has not been followed in any of the articles I have worked on. Taj article has been up with my input for more than 3 years and it's the first time Hindi name has entered the picture. So please don't be too surprised by my question. If it is best practice, you might want to consider creating similar entries in Agra, India, Belgaum, Ahmednagar, Kuldabad, Jama Masjid, Delhi, Humayun's tomb, Itmad-Ud-Daulah's Tomb, Pratapghad, Pataleshwar, Ellora Caves, and Deccan: I have made edits to all these, and none have local language entries. "New to wikipedia" covers a lot of territory. I've been editing for 3 years before creating username Nemonoman. In any case, I have only been active for about a year. I'm certainly no expert. --Nemonoman 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Lots of Indian articles to write, too few permanent Indian editors. I added the Hindi (& Urdu solocited) text on an urgent basis as you planned to get it up to featured status. See Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore: All these have the local names. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope you don't take my questions as criticism. I am entirely capable of making criticisms as statements. Questions are questions. I appreciate the answer. --Nemonoman 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Abe Burrows

I appreciate very much your time and concern, and also want to state that you do make a good point about context. Our discussion so far has pretty much been over two issues: is it appropriate to add an ethnic identification to the opening sentence of a biographical article and under what conditions, and whether it is appropriate to use ethnic identifications in general.

Most of my objections in my input on the talk page were regarding the second issue, however, after your comments I can now see how your argument regarding the first is very valid. I think a case that you described as being appropriate is Sholom Aleichem. In this article his background is mentioned in the first sentence, but it is within a context because it notes that he was a writer in Yiddish, a specifically Jewish context. I do see that, in the case of Abe Burrows, even though it has been hypothesized that the work of Jewish musical writers has a connection to Jewish culture, there is no mention of it within the Abe Burrows article, and therefore it can be argued successfuly that in that specific article it is inappropriate to add an ethnic identification in the first sentence. Although I'm not sure you want to go to every single article with "Jewish-American", "African-American", "Arab American", etc. in that situation and engage in this debate with others, I concede that you have made a successful case as to why "Jewish-American" should not be placed as it was in Abe Burrows and therefore I have no objection to your reversion.

With that settled, I think we can (with no thought of hostility) discuss whether ethnic identifications are demeaning, not regarding the Abe Burrows article.

I call irrelevant heritage information essentially demeaning because such adjectives suggest that there are, for example, "ALL" inventors and some sort of subclass of "Irish-American" inventors. Demeaning because the adjective suggests that Joe Blow shouldn't be considered as part of "ALL" inventors or compared with "Non-Irish-American" inventors.

I don't really believe that the adjectives really suggest that. When Wikipedia says that George Washington Carver "was an African American botanist", I don't see the conflict that you describe above. When I read this sentence, I do not interpret it as to mean that GWC is not a real 'botanist' but rather only an 'African-American botanist', but I understand that GWC is 100% botanist AND African-American. I believe that when I say that that he is an African-American botanist, the reason that the two characteristics are listed consecutively is not because they're dependant on each other, but rather just because it is a way to compactly summarize information. Therefore I do not believe that the use of "Joe is an Irish-American inventor" suggests that "Irish-American inventor" is a sub-class of "inventor", but rather 'Irish-American' and 'inventor' are two independant criteria that are listed next to each other as a summary. The former defines what is is known for, and the latter describes the context of his background. Therefore to me "African-American botanist" means that GWC is (1) African-American and (2) a botanist, not some qualified and interdependant mixture of the two.

Further demeaning because it suggests that one's heritage is essentially defining, and to be associated with one in perpetuity.

Likewise I don't believe that the "Irish-American" in "Irish-American inventor" is defining at all, rather it is "inventor" that is defining and it is "Irish-American" which provides context.

I assume from your username that you are a Proud Jew, and I would certainly understand that you wish to extend your pride to Mr Burrows by noting his participation in that heritage of which you are (justly) proud (or so it would seem from your username).

I am not proud if pride means asserting one's heritage above others or other criteria (such as what the person did), but yes, I am proud if pride means asserting that that heritage has value itself. It was not pride that led me to simply add "Jewish-American" to the article, however, but rather what I thought was a routine addition of biographical information. I never thought of it as anything more.

grew up through times when becoming aware of the subtlety and pervasiveness of racist thinking was a hard-fought personal battle. Before the PC police existed, individuals had to face the nature of racist language and thinking as individuals, and come to their own conclusions. I came to these conclusions independently, and have tried to live by my conclusions as best I can.

I do understand your concern. I believe it must remain a personal battle, however. Even a KKK member who has been bred to hate has the capability to realize that racist actions are wrong, because natural law is universally accessible. The PC advocates telling us that racism is wrong because they "know it is right" is not different than hate groups telling their children to hate because they "know it is right". Reason tells us that hate is wrong and immoral actions are wrong, not a social or political construct.

PS I'm not going to get into a revert war if you want to put the adjective back.

Well, as I stated above I understand your point and think its ok to leave it out, and the Jewish-American category left at the bottom doesn't seem to be as controversial because it is not attempting or is not perceived to be attempting to define the person in question. Therefore the article debate has been resolved, but if you want to continue discussing the abstract issues in question I'd be glad to, and no I did not suspect that you meant any hostility, and I didn't. Thanks for your input. Yid613 01:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

I DON'T think that he should be called an "Afro-american" in the first sentence.

I do see your point. The problem, as I must point out and you can imagine, with suggesting that "African-American" be removed from the first sentence of George Washington Carver is it would by responded with much backlash both because people would as an automatic reaction question the intentions and also because people often take up the issue GWC as a matter of African-American pride. Indeed, the first time I heard of him was when I was a kid watching television and commercials were showed honoring Black History Month by featuring GWC. I know the intentions are good and the argument valid, but other people might tend to assume things as a knee-jerk reaction.

Also that Hindu is being used as a replacement for Indian or Indio-.

Based on the limited knowledge I have, the reason people think "Hindu" can be used synonymously with "Indian" is because literally and originally the word simple means "Indian", or someone living beyond the Indus river (Hindu#Origins of the word Hindu). The problem as you very well know is that today "Hindu" has a religious connotation and obviously not all Indians are religiously Hindu.

For example a lot of discussion about changing the name of article Arabic numerals to Hindu-Arabic numerals. Like they were made by persons of a religion, not of a geographic area.

You definately know more about all this stuff and feel free to correct me, but the article says "Arabic numerals were first developed in India by the Hindus around 400 BC. They were then adopted by the Arabs, who call the numerals 'Indian numerals'" (Arabic numerals). Regarding your second sentence, as I've been taught "Hindus" really refers not to a religious group (as in Christianity and Islam where religion is seperate from ethnicity, I've been taught that in Judaism and Hinduism such a dichotomy does not so simply exist). From the "Hindu" etymology section: Until about 19th century, the term Hindu implied a culture and ethnicity and not religion alone. But I hardly know anything about this subject, so feel free to correct me at any time and don't take offense if I say anything wrong.

Lastly, regarding Abe Burrows being Jewish, I had always assumed and suspected that he was Jewish just because of the context. as you can read in Secular Jewish culture, a vast majority of Jewish musicals writers during that period and since were Jewish. Burrows worked with Jewish Frank Loesser, and a PBS documentary stated that they all went to the same high school in Brooklyn with each other. So I had previously assumed that he was Jewish but never would have added something to an encyclopedia because of my own assumptions. However two nights ago I decided to surf the web to search for confirmation, first under his son James Burrows, for which many confirming sources were found. Later to a lesser extent verification was found for Abe Burrows. My real interest is not in the Abe Burrows article or any individual's article but rather List of Jewish American Entertainers#Theater and List of Jewish American Playwrights, both of which I've tried to contribute to greatly. Thanks for the discussion. Yid613 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Class1x.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Class1x.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Sherool (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Reduction of headings

I've reduced the number of headings in the article per your suggestions. Thanks for helping out!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Domain or GFDL

I noticed that an image of yours is marked as {{PD}} when it is actually a picture of/by you (as you have written in the description page). Such images should be tagged with {{GFDL-self}} (which applies to self-made images). Please make the necessary changes.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have released the image into the public domain as the label says,and prefer that designation. --Nemonoman 14:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Mumtaz pic

Nothing Nemonoman. I just thought this one was more elegant and is definitely larger in size than the previous one. Besides the source of the old pic was not mentioned. --Deepak|वार्ता 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoga schools versus styles

Hey Nem,

There are 4 Yoga lineages...Bhakti, Karma, Raja, Jyana. You know that.

There are several Yoga schools with legitimate Sat-Guric lineages...Sankya/Raja/Jyana (Swami Rama), Raja/Ashtanga (Krishnamikurti/K. Patabi Jois; Sri Satchinanada; Sri Sivanada; BKS Iyengar, etc.), Raja/Bhakta (Vivikenanada; Yogananda, etc.), Karma (Ram Dass, Neem Koroli Baba)...

Everything else is a derivative style, or presentation:

Power Yoga (Beryl Bender Birch) Anasurya (John Friend) Yoga Zone (Alan Finger) all forms of Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga (Baron Baptiste; Shiva Rea) Bhikram Yoga Anahata Yoga Om Yoga etc...

...and therefore, in my opinion, reference to it is POV, as most of the style/presentation derivatives are driven by the need to market a product or present a personal interpretation of the sutras by a single individual, usually someone more than once removed from a lineage, and in many cases not even a Sadhaka (initiated disciple). This is akin to a black belt, who is generally considered a beginner in traditional martial arts practice, opening a school, versus an "inner door" disciple doing the same.

And this a lot like the issues we have in martial arts. Unless, you can trace the lineage of the style you practice through your teacher back to the developer/founder (Chen, Ling, Ueshiba, Musashi, etc.) in a straight line, what you're doing is likely dervative. Like, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference between Shotokan Kai, Seido, and Oyama...but Nakamura Sensei (Seido) and Oyama Sensei (Oyama) are presenting Shotokan Kai in a personal/family dervative form. So Shotokan is a lineage, but Seido and Oyama are dervative styles. The same could be said of the Kung Fu lineages...there are 5 legitimate Temple lineages. Everything else is derivative, even someone like Vincent Lin, who can trace his Ling Gar system back to his 23 generations back grandfather.

On a personal note, I am both a Sadhaka of Sri Swami Rama, and an "inner door" disciple of the Lung Men Taoist Grandmaster Li Ten Tung. I would neither presume to present my own style of Yoga, nor open a martial arts school. It reflects ego, and presumption.

It's a slippery slope, and one upon which I would welcome debate, but I felt it was it legitimate distinction. Mjformica 11:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't say that there were 4 Yoga schools. I said lineages, and that comes from the sutras. Secondly, if you "knew" anything regards the scholarship of Yoga, you would know this...I made that statement based on good faith of your background. It was intended as a compliment. Third, this is not my opinion, nor personal standard. It's a simple state of affairs. Finally, what does accredited mean to you? Anahata is, and I quote;,
"Anahata Yoga is a meditative hatha yoga developed by Ana Costa. It was registered with the Yoga Alliance in 2002. More than 60 teachers have received certification since then.
The method was inspired by this quote from Yogananda Paramahansa: "It is slow but sure suicide to walk, sit, rest, talk, or lie down with a caved-in chest. The cells of the lungs become starved thereby, and maladjustments of the vertebrae often occur."
The focus of Anahata yoga is the opening of the anahata chakra, or heart center: simultaneously correcting bad posture, opening the chest, shoulders, and lungs, and allowing the life force to flow into the body." ...by your own hand.
It is not a lineage or a school, it is a style developed by Ana Costa. Just because Georg Feurstein blesses it, doesn't mean it's anything other than what it is, and I'm certain Georg would be the first to support that statement.
Finally, this is not an attack or an elitist ploy on my part. It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that -- given the history of the Anahata page, and your 99% contribution there -- your ego is getting in the way. We all want to protect our teachers. I was simply making a distinction that I felt was apppropriate. And, to that point, it's not a major change...it's two words.

Do as you wish, I have no investment in it. Mjformica 16:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aram Baugh

you have edited my post on Aram Baugh now here are some fact that the Place was called Aram Baugh the Babur body was kept there. Noor jahan used it. yet in one stoke you have taken away most of my work because a large part was based on an article which appeared on Business line a newspaper would that not be free source?

[edit] Re: Yoga

I should have discussed the matter on the discussion page. Apologies for that. Yoga is central only to Hinduism and not to any other religions. It is because of ignorance that people do not link Yoga to Hinduism. In fact, any person who performs Yoga is actually practising Hinduism. It is also because of ignorance that people think of Hinduism as a religion. Actually Hinduism is nothing but a way of living. I do understand your concerns but it is my belief that Yoga is central only to Hinduism. The very fact that other cultures have adopted Yoga doesn't mean that Yoga looses its Hindu identity. Gautama Buddha is believed to be an avatar of Lord Vishnu in Hinduism - now should I remove Buddhism template from the page claiming that Gautama is not central to Buddhism only. Buddha never preached Yoga, neither did Guru Nanak nor Mahavira. But Krishna does. Yoga plays a much more significant role in Hinduism than in any other religion. People in other religions look at Yoga as a mere stress buster and fitness exercise but for Hindus it is mean of coming in contact with the Supreme Being and to know the inner self. Many Hindus consider Yoga as a form of prayer which clearly shows the importance Yoga plays in Hinduism. Fact remains that people are highly ignorant about Yoga. Yoga is a much more broader term than Anahata Yoga (I guess you haven't read the Bhagavad Gita. What your yoga instructors teach you is a fitness exercise not a form of spiritual prayer). Not adding the Hinduism template to Anahata Yoga article is justified. But I strongly oppose the removal of Hinduism template from the main Yoga article. Thanks and I would like to express my apologies again for not using the discussion page --Deepak|वार्ता 03:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I hear you Deepak, but I must maintain my position. I first read the Gita over 40 years ago, and have now read at least 11 translations, as well as 4 translations of the complete Mahabharata of which it is but part. When it comes to Hinduism, do not doubt me, nor my scholarship. You would be hard pressed to find a Westerner more loving or familiar with Hinduism than me. Hinduism may not be my native language, but I speak it quite well.

It is my love of Hinduism and my scholarship that makes me say the things I say about Yoga. It is apparent to me that Hinduism adopted elements of Yoga. This view is controversial.

What cannot be argued is that Yoga has expanded beyond Hinduism. Using my Western culture as figure, the Christmas analogy is very apt. I have been in Bombay, Pune, and Ahmednagar at Christmastime, and seen the plastic trees and wreaths and candy canes and Christmas lights shaped like OM on Hindu and Muslim houses. Is it legitimate for me to demand that those people accept Christ as their personal savior? In Japan, Christmas is a huge celebration, and there's not a Christian in sight.

Should the Christianity template be used on the Christmas article??

As to your Anahata comments, please forgive my very poor description of that remarkably wonderful practice and do not judge it because of my inadequacies. I find that Anahata is extremely pure and spiritual, and as Hatha Yoga goes, much more Hindu in essence and practice than the foolishness taught at many so-called Hindu ashrams. That said, I am very disturbed that Hatha Yoga and Yoga are terms so interchangable to most westerners, and if I had my way, the Yoga article would start:

This article is about YOGA, not the exercise regime most people imagine when they hear the word. That's "Hatha" Yoga. And REAL Hatha Yoga is not about bending or sweating or twisting into a knot. If you're interested in that stuff see Hatha Yoga Isn't Really Yoga.

I have watched the Yoga article deteriorate over these last few months, and it needs an overhaul. The Hinduism Project category is a problem I think for non-hindus who may still be well versed in many aspects Yoga. I think it sends a very wrong message, quite literally, telling potential editors to shape up to Hinduism Project standards to ship out. I particularly read to mean that my scholarship is not welcome, since it is at variance with a strictly Hindu interpretation.

Anyway, while I'm autocratic and unbendable about changes Aurangzeb and Taj Mahal, I make every effort to pre-discuss changes to Yoga, because it is, at its heart, the path all of us must eventually tread. We might as well get comfortable about describing it. --Nemonoman 03:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meher Baba

Dear Nemonoman, as you deleted previous posts about ethnicity of Meher Baba ....:

'Persian is an ethnicity and it refers to an ethnic group. I agree that it may also be equivalent to Iranian as the name of the country was Persia before 1935. However the word's main meaning is related to Persian ethnic group. Parsis of india are from persian ethnicity, as you probably know. Being from persian ethnic group has nothing to do with the nationality of the person. One may be from Tajikistan or Afghanistan or India or Israel and be Persian at the same time. You wrote: an't see how he's both a "persian person" and an "indian religious figure". Born, lived, died in India. He's Indian. Yes he is indian and at the same time belongs to persian ethnic group. -- Mensen 16:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your efforts are appreciated

I see that you've faced inevitable criticism and more than enough harsh words. I wish to add I appreciate your efforts on the Meher Baba page and wish I had said so in my comments, not because of any other reason than to express my feelings and respect toward you and your work, for such reciprocating wholly and not merely the thoughtful part is in my opinion moral in almost all cases.BeyondBeyond 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Hinduism

I haven't insulted you in any way. I observed the changes you made to Aurangzeb without the concensus others. Many people thought what you were doing was unilateral and rude. We've also had many troubles with fundamentalest muslim on articles such as these. I disagreed with your about your veiws about shivanji and the goa inquisition. If there was no shivanji, India would would be like indonesia. And there Goa inquisition is important because it was covered up. I have like scholarly references for the article since it still need a lot of work.--Dangerous-Boy 04:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In response to comments on Hindus in Yoga talk page

Nemonoman,

1) How can you say Hindus are doing political agenda?

2) How can you pass judgement on the age of Hindus taking part in Hinduism portal? Do you know them personally?

3) How can you proove that you are not spreading Christian/Western agenda here?

Your approach here is truely reflecting your unpleasant personality as you have mentioned in your user page. It's good to know that you have ALMOST started tolerating YOGA these days.... !...Self explanation...! --Holy Ganga 07:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Nemonoman,

1) How can you say Hindus are doing political agenda?

I say this about SOME of the editors involved. See Talk:History of Hinduism, and Talk:Taj Mahal for examples. Talk:Shiva is also revealing.
I don't mean to suggest that Hindus as a group have a political agenda. I do mean to suggest that some editors who associate themselves with Project:Hinduism and similar projects have acted in ways that suggest that they have a political agenda. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable if I described this as a Non-neutral Point of View?

2) How can you pass judgement on the age of Hindus taking part in Hinduism portal? Do you know them personally?

It's not a judgement that they are younger than I am. I am simply noting the facts, as they describe themselves in their user pages. I don't distinguish them because of their Hinduism; it is their age which explains some of their unconsidered actions, in my opinion. When you are my age, you may begin to see that youthful enthusiasm will sometimes trump reflective action.

3) How can you proove that you are not spreading Christian/Western agenda here?

I can prove it first by saying that I at least am raising the issue for discussion and not simply driving the article in a particular way.
(For example, you have clearly noted that some your colleague editors of the Yoga article have voiced concerns about its Hindu-centrism. Yet you have added the Hinduism Portal template without any explanation or any discussion. What kind of agenda is that?
I see that in December, without any discussion, you moved the Shiva article to Lord Shiva, and Krishna to Lord Krishna. You called these changes "minor". They were reverted a few hours later. Did it occur to you that these actions were more than minor? That they would raise questions in the eyes of others??)
I can prove it second by saying that my suggesting that Yoga predates Hinduism, and that it is part of many spiritual tradtions outside of Hinduism is neither Western or Christian in character.
Additionally I can state, but not prove, that I am not Christian, at least not in a formal sense, and therefore not compelled to an agenda which is essentially meaningless to me.
Lastly I may say that my only conscious agenda is the pursuit of accuracy. It that is a Western agenda, then our world is sorry place. I would hope that non-Westerners also embrace that agenda. In the articles I have edited, however, political agendae and emotion run so high that accuracy and neutrality is regarded as "unpleasant" and not "tolerant" .So maybe the world is a sorry place.

Your approach here is truely reflecting your unpleasant personality as you have mentioned in your user page. It's good to know that you have ALMOST started tolerating YOGA these days.... !...Self explanation...!

--Holy Ganga 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations. --Nemonoman 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Neomonoman,

You have just repeated same things by adding more words.

1) If your opinion is different, that doesn't mean that person is spreading agenda and you are innocent.

2) Accept that you passed personal judgements. In any case, if your opinion is different from others, you have no right to pass judgements on all Hindus here. Universal Comments like age, maturity, personal agenda etc. on a particular group have nothing to do with discussions on wikipedia. Also, i have seen their user pages, i didn't find them Young. Even if some are young, still i think nobody should have any problem.

3) You raised points and it was you who edited portions of this article without much discussions. So, you should follow what you preach.

4) Ok i believe you that you are not spreading personal agenda , i hope you will not bring rigid attitude again in between discussions and i also hope that you will also not assume that Hindus are spreading any kind of agenda.

Thanks --Holy Ganga 07:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Policy on use of Copyright Materials

This article [1] started you is a copyright voilation and direct lift from [2].


He has also conducted the New Jersey, Vermont, and Manhattan Symphony Orchestras in subscription, family, and young people's concerts.

He conducted Kurt Weill's Threepenny Opera on CBS Television. He was Conductor and Artistic Consultant to three shows of the PBS Television "Grow Old With Me" series.

Dworkin served as Principal Clarinetist of the American Symphony Orchestra under Leopold Stokowski. He later performed for many years with the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra. Dworking has performed throughout the world, including four Carnegie Recital Hall chamber and solo recitals. He was a member of Musicisti Americani, based at the Sulmona, Italy summer festival.

Dworkin is a graduate of The Juilliard School, where he studied clarinet with Daniel Bonnade and Robert McGinnis, and conducting with Jean Morel. He also earned graduate degrees in music and music education from Columbia University.

He is the creator of Conductorcise, which combines an aerobic workout with basic conducting and listening skills.


From: http://www.dworkineliason.com/html/dworkin/dworkin_artist.html

He has also conducted the New Jersey, Vermont, and Manhattan Symphony Orchestras in subscription, family, and young people's concerts.

Dworkin conducted Kurt Weill's "Three Penny Opera" on CBS Television, and recently served as Conductor and Artistic Consultant to three PBS Television documentaries in the series "Grow Old With Me":

Dworkin served as Principal Clarinetist of the American Symphony Orchestra under its legendary founding Music Director, Leopold Stokowski. He later performed for many years with the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra.

Dworkin has performed throughout the world, including four Carnegie Recital Hall chamber and solo recitals, and was a member of Musicisti Americani, based at the Sulmona, Italy summer festival.

David Dworkin is a graduate of The Juilliard School, where he studied clarinet with Daniel Bonnade and Robert McGinnis, and conducting with Jean Morel. He also earned graduate degrees in music and music education from Columbia University.

He is the creator of CONDUCTORCISE™, which combines an aerobic workout with basic conducting and listening skills...

These large scale coincidents definately don't look your own words.


See the policy here...

[edit] Using copyrighted work from others

If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a form letter asking a copyright holder to grant us a license to use their work under terms of the GFDL.

Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself.'

Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia.(See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context.)

[edit] Linking to copyrighted works

Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. from Wikipedia:Copyrights

[edit] If you find a copyright infringement

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Wikipedia. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future.

If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.

If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page.

In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project.

I sincerely suggest that you review some of your edits in light of the above or i will edit them myself. --Holy Ganga 10:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I never finished cleaning up that article. Now it's fixed.--Nemonoman 14:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict Romeo

So what am I to imply?

  • Neither Limber nor Benedict Romeo are notable?
  • Limber is notable, but Benedict Romeo is not?
  • Limber is not notable, but Benedict Romeo is?
  • Limber and Benedict Romeo are both notable?

A Google search of 'Benedict Romeo New Jersey' returns his phone number and address... on some of the pages. A search for 'military limber' returns relevant results to page 20. CrypticBacon 08:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • "propose" at www.m-w.com: 1. to form or put forward a plan or intention (intransitive sense), 2a. to set forth for acceptance or rejection (transitive sense). In proposing this article for deletion, I was using the "2a" definition of the word. I am not trying to "put forward a plan or intention". I am simply trying to see what others think about this article. I think we can both agree that being captain of a high school football team does not establish notability on Wikipedia, so the article stands on his mayorship (...of a town with 7,764 residents). I am curious to see what other users think about that level of notability. If they decide he is notable enough for inclusion here, great. If not, whatever, no hard feelings intended. CrypticBacon 08:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You raise a good point. Limber does, as it now stands, appear to be more of a Wiktionary entry. After searching around some more I found that Caisson (military) covers the topic of Limber, so I am going to redirect Limber to Caisson. Thanks for bringing up that to my attention. CrypticBacon 01:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, nothin' like keepin' it civil! CrypticBacon 03:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blank ǂ No....

I had saw your edits in the article Comparison of FTP clients#Protocol support that you fill in the blanks in to "no".

However, take a note that it does not mean that "blank" they do not support that protocol, but maybe was not filled in yet or not enough information. For instance, Captain Ftp actually supports ssl-ftp... http://captainftp.xdsnet.de/cftp/features.html

GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Accuracy (and Relevance) of Quote??

Cross post from the Talk:Akbar

I apologize it was my mistake. Typo ;). Well, While typing all that stuff in a hurry.. I messed it up. Hope it looks better now. I thank Nemonoman (talk · contribs) for bringing out these errors. IndianCow 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taj featured article

Hi Nemonoman, i am unable to understand which "See Also" are you talking about? I have seen all the noincudes on the page but they are only for removing images. Please try to clear me. Can you suggest me some reasons why do you think it is "bad link" for Indian featured article. Suggest me some articles to add for this list until we proceed Indian featured article candidates and Indian featured article removal candidates. Should we remove or we place it until it starts properly. Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nemonoman, I think this problem "Except a wing broken" might have occured due to your web browser you are using..if you go through history, you will not find any such thing if your web browser is working properly. I didn't have a good image to place there at that time. Someone suggested this image after creating to place there. So i placed it. Suggest me about IP:FAC..Would it be worthful. Will people respond properly? Thanks-- Shyam (T/C) 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Very thanks for your feedback. Sorry, I was wrong at that stage to ask you to see the history. Yes, you are also correct at this satge that i haven't put any information on the Portal Page. But i have changed the format which will be effective from 1 March 2006 which shows the information about Featured article page. Thanks once again-- Shyam (T/C) 17:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting copyright material on Diwali

Hi Nemonoman, thanks for doing that! However if you noticed you also deleted information that was not copyright. Awhile back, someone must have copied and pasted the information onto the page. But as you know, articles are constantly edited at Wikipedia, and you deleted some material which I added with permission and properly sourced. The truth is though that my additions won't make sense without the coprighted stuff but may you still be more cautious next time. Thanks DaGizzaChat © 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of India

Hi Nemonoman, it would great if you joined. I'm going to research Diwali in more detail so that the article reaches at least the same state before the copright material was deleted. Perhaps I can even make it a Featured article! DaGizzaChat © 07:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking forward to your novel

It sounds like my cup of tea ... er, chai. Zora 09:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not delete references

I noticed that while doing your cleanup of Shirdi Sai Baba you also removed references (to the book by Rigopoulos). Thanks for doing the clean up, but please be more careful next time not to remove references. References are an essential part of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources and they took me a lot of time to collect. Thanks. Andries

[edit] Shahjahan

I think the information on Shah Jahan is very relevant for the article, and I was a bit puzzled by the comment on it. --Combes 02:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For a moment, I thought you made this comment seriously. What an amusing person you are!--Nemonoman 06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry. You were serious.
Shah Jahan triumphed in dozens of battles, managed to claw his way to the Peacock Throne, expanded the Mughal Empire, built dozens of the most beautiful buildings the world has seen, created the Taj Mahal, was deposed by his own son after a war where most of his children killed each other...and you think (1): that he had a harem and (2) that 4 Europeans accused him of incest deserve all that attention? Consider the sources for Pete's sake. The whole section is pitiful. --Nemonoman 06:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is notable and verifiable. I think you have a few self made cliches, and that you find it difficult to accept things that go against them. This is not a personal attack, just something you should think about. Wikipedia has even whole articles on this: Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. The sources are the best on this particular subject. The official chroniclers were employed by the kings themselves, they couldn't write about "scandals" or about the Harem life. But the European travellers could and did. The most important and qualified contemporary writer on this particular subject (the Harem life during Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb) was in fact Manucci. (I assume that you're familiar with him.) On the incest part, De Laet was the first foreigne traveller to write about it. Bernier and Tavernier stayed in Agra, and they both claimed the same. However, the matter cannot be proved, and there is the theory that Aurangzeb exploited this rumour to make a scandal out of it. Shahjahans promiscuity is legendary and was quite infamous, it is no allegation at all. Of course this goes for the whole Mughal Era, but Shah Jahan is exceptionally infamous here. His affairs with the wifes of Jafar Khan and Khalilullah Khan, with the sister of Mumtaz Mahall, with the wife of Shaista Kahn (whom he violated with the assistance of his daughter), with his many slave-girls and dancing girls and so on made his reputation. --Combes 12:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Look, the new sections are now at the end of the article. In some articles they are even in a separate article Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation, but that is not necessary. The incest part is stated as "allegation", and I think I will later add a sentence or two more about it to make it even more clear that it is not proved. Manucci is not a sensationalist self-promoting liar. He wrote the most detailed account of the Mughal Harem, and was the most qualified writer on the harem life during this time. Manucci said:"I must add, that I have not relied on the knowledge of others; and I have spoken nothing which I have not seen or undergone..." Especially for the later reign of Shah Jahan and for the reign of Aurangzeb, he cannot be ignored. "With rare exceptions, Manuccis statements, where they can be verified, are historically accurate, and a fair inferece is that, where there is no such corroboration, he may equally be accepted as trustworthy.."(Irvine's introduction). Look, I can only repeat myself about what I said above on cliches. I don't want you to leave and I hope you came back. --Combes 17:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry if I was unnecessary rude. As you have yourself hinted at, there's a lot of propaganda going on, and the unfortunate consequence is that one is sometimes unnecessary rude on talk pages. I apologize, and still hope you come back to Wikipedia sometime. --Combes 12:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I thank you for making the picture better. --Bhadani 14:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you for your kind words, very much appreciated :-) --Irishpunktom\talk 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translations

Hey Nemonoman. Apologies for the late reply. Including a translation of Taj Mahal in Arabic makes little sense because the Arabs have little to do with the Taj Mahal. The mughals' main language was Hindustani while the architect was Persian. So including the translation of Taj Mahal in Hindi, Urdu and Persian makes sense, but Arabic.. Thanks for asking my opinion. --Incman|वार्ता 13:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New material on Aurangzeb

Hi,

I understand that you have been contributing to Wiki since 2003. I’ve also read your comments on Aurangzeb’s war against the Rajputs, to which only two lines refer on the Wiki page of that Mughal Emperor. This is to let you know that I changed that page some months ago but was disappointed to see it revert to its present state. Even though you are no longer an active editor I urge you to edit that Aurangzeb page in light of the material presented below.

That Aurangzeb’s war against the Rajputs was a turning point in the history of India, and was separate from the rebellions of Jats, Sikhs, Satnamis etc, is attested to in Sir Jadunath Sarkar’s massive four-volume biography of Aurangzeb. I have all four volumes in my possession—in Volume III one chapter is devoted to Aurangzeb’s policy of temple destruction and imposition of jaziya, another chapter covers the broad Hindu (and Sikh) reaction. Two separate chapters of that same volume describe the war against the Rajputs, at the start of which Aurangzeb had imposed the jaziya in 1679.

The following are quotes from those chapters. All the spellings and grammar are as in the original work. On the reason for the war against the Kingdom of Jodhpur:

“A special reason, besides its strategic importance, made the Kingdom of Marwar a desirable acquisition in Aurangzib’s eyes. It was the foremost Hindu State of Northern India at this time. Its chieftain was Jaswant Singh, who enjoyed the unrivalled rank of Maharajah and whom the death of Jai Singh thirteen years ago had left as the leading Hindu peer of the Mughal court. If his power passed on to a worthy successor, that successor would be the pillar of the Hindus’ hopes all over the empire and the centre of the Hindu opposition to the policy of temple destruction and jaziya.

We know not whether Jaswant’s sins of twenty years ago—his presumption in opposing Aurangzib at Dharmat, after all the other nobles had declined to confront a prince of the blood, his treachery at Khajwa, his coquetting with Dara on the eve of the Battle of Deorai—still rankled in Aurangzib’s bosom, as Khafi Khan asserts, and he now sought to take a safe if belated vengeance. But it is clear that the success of his plan of the forcible conversion of the Hindus required that Jaswant’s State should sink into a quiescent dependency or a regular province of the empire. Hindu resistance to the policy of religious persecution must be deprived of a possible efficient head.”

On the reason why the Rajputs of Mewar allied with Marwar against Aurangzeb:

“But now the lord of Udaipur had to choose between rebellion and the loss of whatever is dearest to man. The Mughal annexation of Marwar turned his left flank and exposed his country to invasion through the Aravali passes on its western side, while the eastern half of his State, being comparatively level, lay as open to a foe as before. The mountain fastness of Kamalmir, which had sheltered Pratap during the dark days of Akbar’s invasion, would now cease to be an impregnable refuge to his successor. The annexation of Marwar was but the preliminary to an easy conquest of Mewar.

Besides, Aurangzib’s campaign of temple destruction was not likely to stop within the imperial dominions. He had demolished and wantonly desecrated the holiest Hindu shrines at Benares, Mathura and Somnath. In Rajputana itself, even before the death of Jaswant gave him any pretext for interference, he had pulled down the great temples of Khandela and Sanula and all other temples there, while after Jaswant’s death, the Mughal occupation of his capital had been signalized by the wanton demolition of its temples and the public desecration of their idols. On the revival of the jaziya tax, a demand for its enforcement throughout his State had been sent to the Maharana.

If the Sisodias did not stand by the Rathors now, the two clans would be crushed piecemeal, and the whole of Rajasthan would lie helpless under the tyrant’s feet. So thought Maharana Raj Singh, and so thought his clansmen, many of whom had already fraternized with the Rathor refugees in the Godwar district and opposed the Mughals under Tahawwur Khan.”

On why Prince Akbar rebelled against his father during the Rajput War:

“From an early period in the campaign emissaries of the Rajputs had been tempting Akbar to rebel against his father. Tahawwur Khan, the second in command of the imperial forces in Marwar, was the intermediary of these treasonable negotiations. The Maharana Raj Singh and Durgadas, the Rathor leader, told Akbar how his father’s bigoted attempt to root out the Rajputs was threatening the stability of the Mughal empire, and urged him to seize the throne and restore the wise policy of his forefathers if he wished to save his heritage from destruction. In this attempt to place a truly national king on the throne of Delhi, they promised to back him with the armed strength of the two greatest Rajput clans, the Sisodias and the Rathors.”

On the results of the Rajput War:

“The loss caused to Aurangzib by his Rajput policy cannot be measured solely by the men and money he poured on that desert soil. He had concentrated all the resources of the empire against two small States and had failed to achieve decisive success. Damaging as this result was to imperial prestige, its material consequences were worse still. In the height of political unwisdom, he wantonly provoked rebellion in Rajputana, while the Afghans on the frontier were still far from being pacified. With the two leading Rajput clans openly hostile to him, his army lost its finest and most loyal recruits. Nor was the trouble confined to Marwar and Mewar. It spread by sympathy among the Hada and Gaur clans. The elements of lawlessness thus set moving overflowed fitfully into Malwa and endangered the vitally important Mughal road through Malwa to the Deccan.

In the incessant wars which fill the remainder of his reign, the Bundela clan and a few Hada and Kachhwa families supplied the only Rajput soldiers he could secure for fighting his battles. This was the harvest that Jalal-ud-din Akbar’s great-grandson reaped from sowing the whirlwind of religious persecution and suppression of nationalities.”

On the ambitions of Akbar after he was taken by the Rajputs to the court of the Maratha King Shambhuji (this is in Volume IV):

“Akbar’s one thought was, how to gain the throne of Delhi. He valued Shambhuji as an instrument of this design—to lend him money and men, escort him to Rajputana, and there joining the Rathors and Sisodias invade Upper India, rally all malcontents against Aurangzib’s rule, overpower the imperial forces, and enter the capital in triumph, as his own father had done in 1658.”

On why this plan did not work:

“But Shambhuji’s interests did not exactly coincide with Akbar’s. Why should he go out of the safety of the Deccan hills and jungles into the broad plains of North India where his troops would lose their natural advantage? Why should he denude his country of its defenders by accompanying Akbar in the wild project of invading Hindusthan, give Aurangzib an opportunity of conquering Maharashtra in his absence and cutting off his return home from North India, where a defeat would mean annihilation for the Maratha army? His work lay at home.”

So the plan did not mature. But this alliance of Akbar with the Rajputs and Marathas forced Aurangzeb to rush all his forces south and begin the Deccan Wars that lasted till his death. Hence the Rajput War from 1679-80 and Prince Akbar’s rebellion 1680-86 are inextricably linked with the Deccan Wars from 1681-1707 and deserve a separate mention on that page. As of now the page has only a two line reference to the Rajput War, which as Sir Jadunath Sarkar points out, also affected the Rajput clans living in the neighborhood of Rajputana. While Prince Akbar’s rebellion is shown as starting from the Mughal court (!) with no credible reason assigned: “Aurangzeb's son Akbar left the Mughal court and joined with Sambhaji, inspiring some Mughal forces to join the Marathas.”

[edit] Your comments

Well, it needs to be done. The deletionists, while clearly uninformed and ignorant, can be quite rabid and tenacious, like some kind of wild dog. I think one needs to be just as tenacious, while remaining level-headed and thoughtful, to deal with this and ensure that our project remains pluralistic and positive. You're welcome to join in the fun. BTW, have you watched the film all the way through? I'm having problems with streaming on my computer. Badagnani 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

Hi Nemonoman, to be bold is ok, but there are so many rules I ignore. Is what is going on in Meher Baba a content dispute, a revert war or plain vandalism? I have placed a test2a in Liam7's talk page, but I am not fluent with rules and wouldn't like to lead this in the wrong way. Can you please help me understand proper proceeding here? Hoverfish 08:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I guess I reacted too soon and without enough know-how in such matters. I will remove the test2a. I don't know that Cott12 has any ownership feelings on the article, but someone should see to it that things remain encyclopedic, preferably a wider group of editors, so that no single one appears to be a "gate-keeper", etc. I also appreciate knowing your opinion on Pete's section. Hoverfish 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The thing with Townsend

After you refered to groupies, I wish to share with you my view. I am no big fan of Pete, haven't attended any of his concerts, but I do find some of his earlier rock music better than of many others of his time. I can imagine that lots of his fans from the Who times still follow him as "groupies". However I receive feedback from some long time Baba lovers who have a totally different motivation for attending his concerts. They do not go to see a rock star of the past, but to share a loving musical evening in Baba's memory with the Baba part of the audience, which is not negligible at all. Often I receive YouTube videos from the concerts and honestly I don't think that the audience is in majority Who fans. So, if you accept this, let us try not to be unjust to the Baba lovers or likers who attend the concerts. I am quite with you as for the article mentioning, provided we take care not to discredit what is creditable. I also wish to encourage you not to feel as too biased to take part in the further editing. You have a longer experience with Wikipedia to know what is bias and what not. If we all stay inactive for this reason, then there will be only Cott12 who takes all the load (and possible blames) alone. By the way I am very glad we have finally started discussing. Your opinion and assistance may be of great value to my efforts soon, as I plan to start further articles on Baba connected literature. Hoverfish 13:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed your contributions but not the conflict on the Taj Mahal. Also the thermometer indication. Now they connect. I really hope the "Indian guru of Persian descent" is ok with you, since I was the one who suggested it to Cott12, hoping to stabilize things. On Townsend I will try to make a proposal, either via Tommy and the later devotional albums, or in a section of encyclopedically notable people who have supported Baba's message, with a mention to Tommy and the LPs. A peer review sooner rather than later could give us a more unbiased scheme to work on. As I said in my first discussion in MB, this article can reach the quality of the Bahai and surely it deserves it. I have to admit that Liam's deletion managed to wake up some active interest. Whether you wish to become more involved in it or not, I really hope you get to understand Cott12's position. He has done his best for the article, has researched very extensively for valid sources, has a lot of good material available and we could all be an effective team for a GA. Without mutual confidence and consensus we will not reach very far. You mention 50 years. You got me! I am only thinking of the next months and maybe years. Wikipedia is a living book. If in India there is social/cultural change, the Hinduism article will raise temperature, yogas will be disputed and modified, Bollywood fans will ravage film articles in favour of their stars, etc. If a new world development grows to reflect some of Baba's messages, the article may change too. Right now, however, it may not act as a crystal ball, neither a von Däniken sequel. The article is part of the Biography project and all conventions apply. Hoverfish 19:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jai Baba, my friend. Hoverfish 09:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One more piece of information I found on the above topic: [3]. No implications of inclusion meant. Hoverfish 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube

Dear Nemonoman, I noticed that you are one of the few of us who have added videos to YouTube that appear under the search term "Meher Baba." Very cool. What is Temple Dancer? Chris 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I also looked in amazon. I would appreciate an email from you, any time. Hoverfish 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

I have left a message in the Meher Baba talk page about Abronkeeler's edit. I don't have any objection in him doing it, and I am glad to hear from you, a writer of books, that you liked it since it's my work. I am sincerely honored. As for Jay, I can make a logically debatable statement that "Birds of unlike feather don't flock together". :) Hoverfish 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shirdi Sai Baba (experts)

I think we should ask as many experts as possible, because the more experts we ask the faster they start doing smth about the article and the better it will be. 16:24 Kkrystian 11 Dec. 2006 (UTC+1)

Nemonoman, thanks for your edits to the Shirdi Sai article. I agree with your views about primary sources and, as soon as humanly possible, I will get to work on it with all the source material that I have at my disposal. On another note, I couldn't help taking a look at your userpage and reading about your frustrations with Yoga, Shah Jahan etc. I also couldn't help ironically chuckling at your comments because I am involved in a few contentious articles myself, one of which would seriously fry your brain. Don't give up hope! You are clearly the type of editor that Wikipedia needs and it would be a shame to lose you. Perhaps take a break and then come back when you are refreshed. Sincerely, ekantiK talk 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your references!

Hi, Thanks for your citations for the Rock cut architecture article. I still have some problems with the article, which I have explicated on the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That's for your feedback on Indian rock cut architecture

I am no sort of expert but I love the concepts and photos so much. It captures my imagination entirely. Hopefully I can interest some experts in the matter. Are not the examples increditable and spectacular? (I'm gong by the wonderful photos which enter my soul.) Thank you for your feedback. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messiah

Thanks for the heads up on that. I was populating an unpopulated category, and I figured that it was a touchy subject with some people. I think the category should stay, but I'm not willing to get into a debate over it. :-) CRKingston 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] saints/gurus

A guru is one who teaches a large number of people. A saint would be someone that devoted their life to serving people/preaching/ or serving a higher power. The cats are in some disarray though.Bakaman 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mosque image

Hello, I'd like to edit the Taj Mahal image and want to alter the image caption to Image:Mosqueceiling Taj.jpg - currently it states this is the Masjid dome - could you confirm it is of the Jama Masjid, Delhi. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mosqueceiling Taj.jpg Image:Mosqueceiling Taj.jpg shows the interior of the dome of the mosque that flanks the Taj Mahal in Agra. I took the picture with my old Nikon. The Jama Masjid in Delhi is quite another building entirely.--Nemonoman 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks - it's not clear from the current caption. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taj featured article questions

Is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taj Mahal the only time this was submitted to FAC or is there another? --Joopercoopers 14:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There was an earlier peer review, here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Taj_Mahal

I've slept on the idea and concluded we should file a WP:RFC first to determine whether we need to include the P.N. Oak theories - it can all be sorted out from the off then and we can rewrite the article accordingly. --Joopercoopers 14:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A startegy that has worked in other articles is the main article thus and so. We could create a sub article: Taj Mahal Origin Theories.
I think we should see what the RFC determines first - I have a theory that flies are capable of pan-dimensional travel (this is why they're hard to swat) - but this doesn't mean we should have a wikipedia article about it. :-)
I've written up a draft RFC statement on my talk page - would you care to comment - It could probably do with a note to address what has been done to try to resolve the situation. (per the requirements of WP:RFC - although it's difficult to see what can be done to appease fly-theory advocates such as myself). --Joopercoopers 10:41, 22 January 2007

(UTC)

Thanks. Never one to let good enough alone, I have taken a shot a few revisions. The earlier version was entirely adequate; feel free to rv my changes...--Nemonoman 14:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've filed the RFC at Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. --Joopercoopers 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, - I'm worried about your anneurism. The RFC will be posted for maybe a month, so whilst I appreciate your frustration with the pro-oak lobby, it might be more prudent (and efficient)to give their arguments an airing and then deal with them en-masse. I intend to sit back for a few days and see how it pans out and then present a few arguments of my own which will hopefully be persuasive. Were in for the long haul here but it should be worth it. Remember, they have to substantiate their claims with verifiability from reliable sources, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Bakaman for instance, by saying "Whatever his other theories are, this one is quite plausible" has already pissed on his chips by imply Oak is an otherwise unreliable source. No further argument of logic is necessary.--Joopercoopers 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Why I became an inactive...or marginally active...editor.--Nemonoman 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the barnstar

Thank you Nemo, for the terrific swirling barnstar award for the Baba articles. I have followed with interest some of the work you do here, and though I am not up on it as you are, it seems you tirelessly confront some amazing Eastern conspiracy theories and misinformation. I will keep watching. All the best. Cott12 Talk 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The main problems I see with the Taj article at the moment is 1. Resolving the POV issues - which is now hopefully in hand - could you direct me to any registered users of the pro-oak variety - silence isn't consent so we need their comments. 2. Referencing - I find it really hard to reference others work so I've started a restructure and rewrite at User:Joopercoopers/Taj Mahal/restructure it kind of involves taking each sentence evaluating whether or not it's valid enough for inclusion and then getting a good reference for it - this is just for discussion at the moment but with a potentially contentious article we need a high level of referencing - so the first paragraph I was drafting probably has the required density IMO. I'll write it all up and then start chopping, changing, adding images and horse trading. For me, architecture is informed and inextricably linked to the people and culture that produced it, so setting the scene and explaining something of the nature of Jahan and Mumtaz's love seems a sensible start, particularly as we do need to deal with the notion, true or otherwise, about the interpretation of the building as a monument to Love - there are other interpretations of course which we'll need to include, but the human interest always creates a good read - but nothings set in stone and as I said we can take view later - right now I'm interested in getting well referenced material written up to edit down later. I've ordered a book from Ebba Koch - I read a review of it in the Architectural Review - she's widely regarded as a global expert on Mughal architecture, so when it arrives I see her as a good main reference - the contextual stuff I've done so far is just filling time until the book arrives. Unfortunately I was invovled in an admin misunderstanding today - thanks for you comment on the talk page - I was really concerned it was going to mess the RFC up, but it's all worked out ok in the end. I have no intention of editing the main Taj article for some time. Take care. --Joopercoopers 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You can read the peer review and FA comments for registered users, also the many notes on the talk page and the archived pages. For the real barn-burners, see Talk:P.N. Oak
If you wish to focus on the love-story, fine. Leave Jahangir and Nur Jahan out of it. They are not particularly pleasing characters, and imo, better avoided. Shah Jahan was a loving husband to Mumtaz until she died -- they were practically inseperable -- but he devolved quickly into doubtful, licentious behavior afterwards.
Best book I've seen to date is:
  1. Tillitson, G.H.R. (1990). Architectural Guide to Mughal India, Chronicle Books
Good luck and have at it. --Nemonoman 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the complexities of the man though, a soldier with artistic sensibilities, a real rennaisance man with blood on his hands, the ruthless leader capable of such an expression of love as the Taj. Anyway I might junk it myself - we'll get together when I've got more copy to talk about. Thanks for the book tip - do you have a copy? regards --Mcginnly | Natter 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nemonoman

I assume you know the allusion of your username: much like noumenon which means, roughly, 'the thing in itself' as it really is. Nice name. Cott12 Talk 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I never considered that allusion. Thanks for being so complimentary as to believe I would have thought of it.
Actually my wikiname is based on one of my favorite characters, Captain Nemo. His name is the Latin for "nobody" or "no one", an allusion to the answer given by Odysseus to Polyphemus in the Odyssey ("I am No One," Odysseus tells him. Later when Odysseus is attacking Polyphemus, he begs his friends for help, crying out "No one is hurting me!" and of course is ignored).--Nemonoman 18:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All the better. I did not know any of that about the Odyssey. The noumenon allusion is indeed a complement as you are constantly working to correct articles to things as they really are. That you might be 'no one' too might not be inconsistent with such a philosophical notion, as you know. (-: Cott12 Talk 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whilst

Sorry [4] I've used it all my life (and I'm only in my mid 30s) - only recently was I told it's considered archaic by American editors......I'm still breaking the habit. --Joopercoopers 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taj

Nemo,
We've gone from this:-

Contemporary chronicles and court histories make it clear that Shah Jahan intended the Taj Mahal to be acclaimed by the entire world. It can be argued that he was almost entirely successful in this pursuit. The building has inspired admiration that transcends cultures and geography; so much so, that the personal and emotional responses to the building have consistently eclipsed the scholastic appraisals of the monument. Some of these responses and leaps of the imagination are now so old or compelling that they are imbedded in a global psyche and are often repeated as fact in opposition to the scholastic consensus. Others have attempted to use or promote misinformation about the Taj for political or self-serving advantage.[1]


To this:-

Some popular stories about the Taj Mahal are now so old or compelling that they are often repeated as fact although they have no factual basis; sometimes misinformation about the Taj has been used for political or self-serving advantage.[1]

I'm concerned you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater here. It's important to mention

a. The buildings acclaim - implicit in this is a testament to the builidngs greatness - myths are usually about famous buildings.
If this is what you mean, then say so.'
b. The pan-culture pan-history appraisal of the building is an important facet.
Yes? So?? This is not a myth'
c. The divide between scholastic research and popular misconception is no longer emphasised.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean? That we as a human culture are idiots? If meant to reference myths associated with the Taj Mahal, isn't this very section meant to emphasize that divide??
d. The paragraph has been wittled to one sentence - WP usually discourages one sentence paragraphs.
You are quite right, even that sentence adds very little value. I really don't see why even it is needed, since this is the myths section.'

The reasons why the myths abound are an important introductory paragraph to the section - I'm happy to see the prose tightened, but let's keep the content and try and work out an accomodation here.

Here you and I disagree. "Shah Jahan wanted to universal acclaim and nearly succeeded.' Or however your wordier version said it. You could put that practically anywhere: Intro to the article, Origins, architecture, etc. It's not about myths.
Do you want to add a sentence: "As with all famous building, myths about the Taj Mahal abound." Compare that to: 'leaps of the imagination are now so old or compelling that they are imbedded in a global psyche and are often repeated as fact in opposition to the scholastic consensus.' Adding extra words doesn't add extra value. Make your point and get on with it.

Better still it will be easier to do this on The rewrite. I've made good progress - everything is referenced to the nth degree, but it's still a way off yet - It will need whittling - the architecture section will become a content fork I think. I've got to finish the 'conservation and the future' section, the actual description of the mausoleum, jawab, mosque and terrace, then there's some information to add regarding artistic responses and influences, oh, and then I've got to sort the graphics out and provide a site plan. But I'm happy to start polishing and sharpening the prose on the bits which are finished. --Joopercoopers 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have watched your restructure. You have put together a good outline of information and added excellent reference material. Good job. Your prose is wordy, however, I am sorry to say; often so wordy that your excellent points are obscured. Trim, hone and clarify. Or if you don't please don't be too offended when other editors like me jump in.
Don't worry -- neither your edits or my edits are likely to last very long. Soon enough, this article will simply state that the Taj Mahal was a Shiva Temple stolen by aliens.'
Written with admiration and friendship...--Nemonoman 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One-sentence paragraphs

Joopercoopers wrote:

WP usually discourages one sentence paragraphs

Paragraphs are used to group thoughts into useful chunks. Sometimes the thought inside a single sentence is so big, so complete, that it deserves its own paragraph. Not to be used all the time, of course, but when applied sparingly, this rhetorical device can add real impact.

Example:

Jesus wept.

Or from As I lay dying:

My mother is a fish

Or this:

Call me Ishmael.

--Nemonoman 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oak

I doubt he is Knapp. I misquoted the title of Knapp's book and he didnt notice, but reproduced my error. Paul B 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. I enjoy every minute! The editor seems to be a member of the Hindu Students Council. He has just been reported for sockpuppetry by Hornplease, so we shall see... Paul B 15:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taj pictures

The panoramic picture fits perfectly and balances the table of contents. This was long ago agreed by all. W Donelson 18 April 2007, 10:28 UTC

[edit] Taj Panoramic picture

TO: Nemonoman

RE: My suggestion on the correct course of action --

Yes, I understand. But if you are going to remove something that someone else has added, then it's best to discuss it with them first.

If you want to change your own additions, go ahead.

If there is clear vandalism, go ahead.

If there is an academic difference of opinion, discuss first.

Cheers, William

[edit] Making edits to others' contributions

Nemonoman said "Discussing edits is NOT a requirement".

Yes, it is just a Courtesy.

Puh-leeze...
By the way, another courtesy is signing your edits on a talk page.--Nemonoman 04:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taj Mahal

Hi, I have already left a message on user:Universe=atom's talk page. I suggest you leave a strong message as well, since his obsessive edits gave you a lot of extra work. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. I have done so.--Nemonoman 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You deserve a cookie

Thanks for taking action on Aerial yoga. I hope you will continue to pay attention to Yoga and help improve the quality of that article. Buddhipriya 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking action on Aerial yoga. I hope you will continue to pay attention to Yoga and help improve the quality of that article. Buddhipriya 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sai Baba of Shirdi

Nemonoman, why did you write that there were no academic sources about Sai Baba? The Gale Encyclopedia of Religion is one such source. Please reconsider your vote. Best regards. Kkrystian 08:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One source. How many others? The lack of multiple academic sources has been raised as a concern by other editors. I have defended the article on its discusson page despite its lack of academically acceptable sources. So give me a break, please.
As to reconsidering my vote, again, a break please. The article is marked as
  • Start Class by the BIOGRAPHY project
  • Start Class by the HINDUISM project
  • Start Class by the ISLAM project
  • Start Class by the RELIGION project
In my opinion, you had no business nominating it as an FA until the article had reached some higher level of integrity from one or more of the persons in these projects, who had already noted that the article was not of good quality. That nomination was never going to succeed.
My vote stands. I like Sai as much as the next guy, and make every effort to visit Shirdi whenever I can. My affection for Sai doesn't change the fact the article is NOT FA quality. If there were sources and methods by which its content could be raised to approach FA status, I would pitch in.
BUt the ratings of this articles on the WikiProjects were given in December! Kkrystian 12:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just compared December/current Sai Baba here. Please note that many of the changes are simply moving paragraphs that are essentially identical in the two versions.
If you think the article has improved to FA class because of the changes since December, I suggest you compare it to other FA class articles. It is nowhere near as well documented or well written. I personally would have a problem rating the article as even B-class on the Biography scale, although a more liberal editor might rate it thus. The changes since December, however, have not substantially improved the article in my opinion, and certainly not to FA status.
Look, Kkrystian, it's a perfectly OK article; it's just not an FA quality article, IMO. The difficulty of finding reliable, unbiased sources suggest to me that it will be very difficult to make it so.--Nemonoman 15:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Thanks for getting in touch ([5]). I noticed that you have a message saying that you have ceased to be an active editor. Hope you will reactivate one of these days. Buddhipriya 17:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoga

That edit was problematic for many reasons. No specific citation was given, and Neo-Buddhism is derived from Theravada Buddhism, so the statement was false. Arrow740 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Working on Robert Haas page.Thanks for your help.

Thanks for your help on the Robert Haas page, Jay.--TomCat7 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Seven Wonders IS effectively, a commercial site

New Seven Wonders has generated MILLIONS for its directors over the last eight years. Although they claim "non-profit" status, this is just a cover to hide the salaries they receive as directors.

http://blogulate.com/content/is-the-new7wonders-a-scam

If you remove Explore the Taj Mahal, then you must also remove the New Seven Wonders links as well.

Regards, William Donelson

[edit] New Seven Wonders

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:New Seven Wonders

Template:New Seven Wonders has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Joopercoopers 11:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shiva part

There is no need to include the shiva part because it is unnecessarily included there just to show hindu names. It is a finial and not a shiva thing. Search for finial and see what it is. Also Taj Mahal is not a hindu related building and no one can remove the muslim text from there.

[edit] Talk page

Thanks - I saw a similar thing on the talk of Intelligent design and thought it was a good idea. I should perhaps check in and let you know my current thoughts on the Taj article and related matters. I finished nearly all my reading a while ago - still waiting for Begley and Desai's book of translations and interpretations, but amazon promise me it is being flown over the atlantic as we speak. In essence we're going to end up with a triangle of articles - The main Taj article at the top, using summary style to describe the Content forks of firstly, The origins and architecture of the Taj including it's precedents, place in the Agra waterfront city, symbollism, interpretation etc.etc. and secondly The postconstruction history and culture - this will deal with the later European reactions, it's inspirational qualities, how it was used by the British right up to the recent 'symbol of India' aspects and some of the politcal scandals that have surrounded it in recent years. (currently sketched out in the later half of User:Joopercoopers/Taj Mahal/restructure). When the two daughter articles are finished we can look at properly condensing them down and tying them together in a brief and succinct way in the main article - the advantage is I can do this quietly beavering away without to much attention from the vandals. --Joopercoopers 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

PS - how do you find the map - gimmicky or useful? --Joopercoopers 15:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if "Consensus: Do Not Include." is strictly accurate on the talk page? - I thought the conclusion was to strictly limit the inclusion to the short paragraph in the myths section. If I was a PN Oak fan, I'd think - oh! I better include it then. --Joopercoopers 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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.


[edit] Taj Mahal article

thanks for the enouragement Nemonoman. hopefully i will try and make some thoughtful, objective contributions to that artcical.

[edit] Good Article review: Taj Mahal

An article you have contributed to, Taj Mahal has been nominated for Good Article review. Upon recent review of the article, I found some issues within the article that might keep the article from GA status. So, I have asked for a Good Article review. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion there. Drewcifer 03:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments such as: So this is your little tempest, stirred up in your little teapot, for your little gratification. are really unhelpful at GA/R. You, are free, of course, to disagree, and to discuss but to attack other editors because of disagreements isn't really acceptable. Try to assume good faith. I really hope one good article review doesn't stop you from editing, I wouldn't blow this so out of proportion. It's just Wikipedia, and it's just one article. Consider that the GA tag has little, if any, meaning outside of the Wikipedia culture. Readers either don't care or just don't know about it. IvoShandor 09:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Also note, I don't really have an opinion on the article, I think it could use a bit of cleanup but haven't really examined the issue in question. Just saying try to be constructive is all, not to be condescending or anything, just seemed the debate was getting a bit heated is all. IvoShandor 09:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: an 'excellent article' may no longer a 'Good Article' because some self-appointed guardian doing a 'SWEEP' of GAs thinks the vague criteria for being a 'Good Article' might someday be changed -- and you criticize MY RESPONSE? --Nemonoman 11:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I criticize your lack of assumption of good faith, not your response. GA/R is a discussion, not a battleground. I have no interest in semantics arguments about the use of the terms "good" and "excellent." My post here was meant as a soft reminder, nothing else. IvoShandor 11:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume good faith. I don't assume good sense.--Nemonoman 11:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

:-) --Joopercoopers 11:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am sorry, but I can't see how the comment above assumed good faith. It assumes some alterior motive, which I don't see in this particular editor. Any disagreements are meant to be sorted out at the discussion in question, which could have been listed by anyone, for pretty much any reason, that's why the discussion is so important. I am convinced that people are taking this process of handing out green plus signs way, way too seriously. Look, I have nothing against you, indeed, I don't think I have ever even come across you. Like I said, just a soft reminder was all that my comment was meant to be. Hopefully you see it as such. IvoShandor 11:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any ulterior motive either in this guy. He is just as confused as you are. The GA process is young. The criteria is vague on this issue. It is difficult to sort this all out, especially when you're being accused. It would be nice if you would help make the process better and realize that he is acknowledging his mistakes, rather than blowing it out of proportion and giving yourself a heart attack. Just take some time off to cool down. Wrad 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Quit Entirely

Funerial flowers for Nemo.......don't get me mourning, I'll have to ban music on wednesdays and stop wearing perfumes.--Joopercoopers 11:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Funerial flowers for Nemo.......don't get me mourning, I'll have to ban music on wednesdays and stop wearing perfumes.--Joopercoopers 11:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sick to death of Wikipedia and its culture. I quit. My best wishes to some of the excellent human beings I have met while being an editor. --Nemonoman 11:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

whoa there! steady on - or at least tell me whether I should take your book away to Morocco with me later in the year. --Joopercoopers 11:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't quit. I almost did myself last week. It's not worth it, though I understand from above that you have had some other issues. But with some assistance from others we may be able to work through them. I implore you not to quit on account of some editors, especially if you have met some "excellent human beings" here. IvoShandor 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what happened to "delist it, or keep it, I really don't care"? That was the right attittude!--SidiLemine 11:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoga poll

Don't take things personal Nemonoman. I've got a poll goinng on. I hope you may not be lost for Wikipedia. Thank's for serveral yoga articles of your hand I passed through! The standard text I would have send, were:

Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at Talk:Yogasana#Opinion Poll on this article's name. Davin7 09:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright terms as left by Meher Baba in his last will and testament

Meher Baba specifically left copyright of "sayings" and "messages" in Trust except where otherwise specified http://www.ambppct.org/trust/docs/Will%20and%20Testament.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meherbabalastwilltestament (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)