User talk:TheRingess/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

minor edits

Hey there... looks like we share some common interest, been seeing your name around the last week or two.

Sethie is noticing for most of your edits you mark the "minor" edit box. However, it is Sethie's understanding that this is only for very minor edits- like grammer or spelling or punctuation. Would it work for you to only check the minor edit box for such edits? Sethie 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problemo.TheRingess (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Links: B-Gita

Hello Ringess, I certainly wouldn't agree that your edits were a form vandalism, even though I reverted the page back to how it was afterwards, and do appreciate your open attitude. Personally I don't mind if a page has a few links (within reason), and neither do I believe that it helps Wikipedia for us to spend hours scrutinizing every link for reliability. Better we all spend more time on writing better articles and removing the obvious spam attacks. That's my spin on it anyway. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 14:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the positive message! IPSOS (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

No, that seems like solicitation to me and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. IPSOS (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump

FYI, see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#TheRingess. Keep your chin up. I have put my two cents in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I.27m_Being_Stalked and User_talk:Sardaka#Please_use_the_available_mediation_channels. Buddhipriya 18:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For an overview of policies on dispute resolution, please see: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Would you be willing to use a MedCab request to work out problems with User:Sardaka? If so, that can become the immediate focus of attention and reduce cross-posting, which makes it more difficult for other editors to keep track of what is going on. I have made the same suggestion to that editor. Buddhipriya 17:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Adam Warren's article

I gave Adam Warren's entry a going over, mostly things I've been sandboxing for a while, hope it helps improve the quality a bit. I don't know how to write bios very well but I don't think it should be deleted. If you have any suggestions on what else specifically that could be done to bring it in line I would gladly accept them. Lando242 06:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghostbusters: Legion Edits

I would like to know if you had actually visited those links you deleted from the article before deciding they should be removed? They're associated to the book and it's staff and I could only understand the removal of one link, the one relating to Chuck Dixon and his quarrel with 88MPH head, Sebastien Clavet. I do not consider these to be "linkspam" and as such have seen it fit to restore them, in addition to including a discussion page article on the issue. The discussion page for Ghostbusters: Legion contains explanations for what each of the links you felt should be deleted.-Kingpin1055 17:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake then. We can consider the matter closed.TheRingess (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jessie's Mandelbrot

Hello TheRingess,

I have read the texts and understand that Jessie's Mandelbrot may not qualify as notable, but could you clarify the status of the other software entries on the Mandelbrot page. I don't see any distinction between Jessie's Mandelbrot and any of the other applications referenced.

Meesern 14:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems fair enough to me. My endeavor now shall be to make Jessie's Mandelbrot notable! It does have a couple of nice features that, for me at least, add to the intuitive understanding of what is happening in the set.

Meesern 09:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Auto archiving of article talk pages

I appreciate your effort to archive talk pages on articles, which often are long overdue. However I think that five days is much too aggressive for most articles, which may not get regular attention from editors. May I suggest that if no archive policy is in place for an article, that you raise the issue on the talk page for discussion, or perhaps use a longer archival setting such as one or two months? That would make it easier for infrequent editors to participate without searching the archives. Buddhipriya 06:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point.TheRingess (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Tantra

Hello, yes, the Tantric trinity was included in Dzogchen Gankyil teachings in Namkhai Norbu's Crystal and the Way of Light (both editions) as well as Tenzin Wangyal's Healing with Form, Energy and Light where they are referred to as Outer, Inner and Secret. I came across the Sanskrit and Hindu tradition names for these on the Internet at the following site for the first time today and recognised them as correlates: [1]; [2]; 'tantra' @ [3]; and[4]; et. al. Unfortunately, I do not have a print source for the teaching within the Hindu tradition but provided the names of two people in the tantric sampradaya or lineage as oral verification. I hope that somebody may ford this teaching in concrete scholarship by the 'fact' label or mechanism to which you make reference. Thank you very much for introducing me to that functionality and deixis. You assert that I included a direct quotation in my edits but by memory I only inaugurated an indirect quotation.
Respectfully
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gankyil, fractals, tantra and Dzogchen

This addresses ur interests and our current discussion which is essentially Gankyil oriented: [5]
Gracefully
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot archiving.

Per precedent and the request of the bot's creator, please establish a consensus on an article talkpage before introducing bot archiving. The bot archiving of Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi was not helpful. Hornplease 04:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted, please establish a consensus before leaving notes of that nature on my talk page, it was not helpful. Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Oy! Did I do something to offend? Hornplease 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude, it was late, I was tired. Peace.TheRingess (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Without trying to start an argument, I don't understand the changes you made to the references on Oakland etc. How is it supposed to work? I click on the little arrows and nothing happens.

Sardaka 12:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TheRingess (talk) 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.

You are referring to the use of the {{reflist}} template in the references section. This template does two things:

  1. It creates an ordered list of citations from all of the inline citations in the article. It also ensures that any time another editor inserts a new inline citation, the list is automatically updated (hence saving duplicate effort).
  2. It creates a link between every element in the list and it's corresponding entry in the body of the article. For shorter articles, that might not mean much, but it is essential for longer articles.

The arrows work appropriately in my browser, so I cannot speak to why they might not work in yours.

TheRingess (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Swami Shankarananda Saraswati

I appreciate you taking the time to reconsider and update your position on this article. You have helped to improve it. Thanks. Yogidude 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

I hope we can work on article together. I have no problem in debating the merits of topics, and I don't take it personally, I hope you don't either. As Michael Corleone once said "its not personal ... its just business." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I noticed on the Shree Muktananda Ashram article that a lot of info has recently been deleted unnecessarily. Was this your work? If so, perhaps we could use it as a starting point for discussion, since you suggested talking about "specific edits".

Sardaka 10:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

subst:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. Cheers, Lights 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaśmir Śaivism

Hello, in the wake of a recent discussion on Swami Shankarananda Saraswati bio article you tagged the talk page as contributing to the Śaivism project. I am following up with this, and I am looking for some agreement on extending the Kaśmir Śaivism article; to include a modern context, specifically the contribution of Swami Muktananda and his followers (particularly Swami Shankarananda Saraswati) and the renewed interest in the practice and teachings of Kaśmir Śaivism in recent years. I would appreciate it if you could take the time to visit the discussion and perhaps offer comment. I had originally approached User:Buddhipriya for comment so there is some discussion on that users talk page, but you will find the most recent discussion here. Yogidude 21:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Kali

Could you please leave a reason for the "original research" tag on the article's talk page? Thanks. --Ghostexorcist 16:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


John

The chocolate train incident DID happen (the entire school's staff says so!!!!!)

So stop deleting things!!!

Please respond on my talk page John Schnell 22:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:ATT. If you would read that link all of your questions would be answered. Until you've read it, we cannot have a fruitful discussion. You might also read WP:3RR as you appear to be actively engaged in reverting.TheRingess (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you TheRingess —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs).

Personal details

I noticed Sardaka's edits and have issued the appropriate warning. You can contact the oversight committee to have the entire edit removed if you wish. Use the email link in the warning I just issued on his/her talk page. IPSOS (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your kind offer

You are most welcome. It's the kind of thing I hope other would do for me if necessary. One thing you could do is to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (second nomination) and try to help prevent it from looking like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. I expect that the same parties who tried to disrupt that AfD will soon discover the new one. Mind you, I'm not asking you to express an opinion in the AfD, but only to try to do what you can about the inevitably upcoming persuasion rants. IPSOS (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so far, so good (crossing fingers). IPSOS (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bodhicitta

Regarding the Bodhicitta entry, you reverted to an earlier version which lost a lot of new text, whereas I think your goal was simply to remove the multiple wikilinks and replace the nofootnotes banner. I have re-edited to achieve these two goals. If you intentionally removed all of the new text, please let me know so we can discuss what you feel is in error.

Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.7.130 (talk) 16:05, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice the new text, just the multiple wikilinks. Thanks for correcting my mistake.TheRingess (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing Equations

I wrote Matrix Mechanics, and in the section "differentiation trick--- canonical commutation relations", the three equations which appear before the statement "which can be identified as i times the ..." disappeared mysteriously, and were hard to edit back to a normal state. I think this is a bug in the Wiki equation system, but a weird one. It might be my browser, but I don't think so because while I was editing it looked like a Wikipedia bug. Hope you can fix it.Likebox 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I also wrote the page on velocity addition, and in the section on Doppler shifts there's the same disappearing equation problem. It concerned all the relativistic equations where the Doppler factor is square root one minus v squared all over one minus v over c. or (I wrote it below twice, as you can see by checking the source, but the first time it just doesn't appear!). Please let me know if this can be fixed, because I am very curious why it is happening. Thank you in advance. Likebox 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First equation below disappears.

f' = f {\sqrt{1-v^2} \over 1-v/c}

Nearly the same text appears below:

f' = f {\sqrt{1-v^2} \over 1-v/c} \,


are you a admin already or do you want to become one

if you not i think you could be and would want to Nominatate you if thats okOo7565 05:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer. At this time, I do not want to be an admin. I am editing Wikipedia at a level I am comfortable with and pressing matters in my offline life would prevent me from fully committing to admin duties. Take care, thanks again.TheRingess (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted right links but still treated as spm...

I posted some external links for some bangla music links. But i dont know why they are deleted... I think they are posted on appropiate categories , and i am not doing for search engine ranking as my site is on 10 links off all the keyowrd i posted here., and also that the other externals sites listed already are same as my site please have a look. I hope you should take a revision please. Please llok at gooqle and you you find the site on top 10 just below the best 5 . If you still think i was worng then i am sorry , and please choose some appropiate cotegory for me i you dont mind. Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by Creative ayon (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Your recent edits removed some important and valid references from the Swami Shankarananda Saraswati article citing a somewhat promotional tone. Please suggest a more neutral tone inclusive of the recent cited articles, as they are important to cite recent work and I would like them re-instated. While you are at it, I would appreciate a brief discussion on how to best deal with the user Truthdude and the repeated vandalism of the Swami Shankarananda Saraswati bio. It seems the recent behvaviour of this user does not qualify to get them blocked at Wikipedia:AIV, rather this is considered content dispute. As you have reverted a number of these edits yourself, you may see the benefit in blocking the user rather than continuing to revert the vandalism. Yogidude 15:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Matrika

I have noticed that you have working on articles under Project Hinduism and assessing them. Would you please go through the Matrika article and give your suggestions on it's talk page. Thank you.--Redtigerxyz 06:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Redtigerxyz 05:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I did a peer review of Matrika which can be found here. Feel free to leave comments/questions at that page. Jeff Dahl 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Khandoba

Khandoba is another article i have worked on. Would you do the same thing as you did with Matrika.

A problem with the article is its unstable nature due to constant vandalism by Vishal1976. Can you suggest a remedy??? Thanks.--Redtigerxyz 05:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

non notable??

Mandelbrot set (Undid revision 163140328 by Metalim (talk) removed non notable addition) Some commercial Ultrafractal is non notable. Why way much better open source XaoS is non notable? In my opinion it's the best fractal software out there. — lim 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Movie plots

Hello... sorry to have to say this, but please refrain from deleting "Plot" sections, as you did at The Day After and The Descent. While The Day After could in fact use a trim, the proper approach is to tag it or rewrite it - not to delete the entire section. As for The Descent, the plot section was not overly long, and we don't remove material because of "spoiler" concerns. (Readers are expected to understand that an encyclopedic article will probably contain this sort of material.) Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Amy Ryan

I notice you A LOT on the David Quinn page and because he is my teacher I thought I would let you know that he says nice things about how you have helped to keep his profile clean, even tho he doesn't want it up in the first place and wishes we would all stop monkeying with it! ;) He mentioned his friend AMY RYAN to us in class bc she is starring in Gone, Baby, Gone. When I went to her page, I noticed that it has two people on it (the actress and some other lady) and I didn't know how to disambiguate it because the page clearly has two people's stuff on it - movie listings, research papers, etc. Since Quinn's page has 5 disambiguations (is that a word?), I thought you might be able to help. You're cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.158.88 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I note you have previously declined admin nominations. Do you feel that has changed yet? Remember the admin duties are still just voluntary and dedication to the project is not mandatory. The buttons are there for all if they wish them and the community wishes them to have them. Should you be interested let me know. If not, no problem. Your work here is deeply appreciated. Pedro :  Chat  22:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ringess

I'm a newbie. I went in and added two links for Ascended Master sites, which at the time I thought was a minor edit and I think you undid them. Was it b/c I didn't discuss first? thanks for feedback,

Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Presterjohn64 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:NOT and WP:EL. Unless they cite reputable sources and contain information that expands upon that in the article, then they don't belong. If they do contain reliable material, it's probably best to summarize the material and include it in the appropriate section in the article, citing those websites as sources. Thanks for asking.TheRingess (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Palmer (Avatar)

Please help me improve the article without losing valuable information. your imput on the discussion part would be greatly appreciated or you can contact me at vencop62@gmail.com. I dont check it too often but i always get back to people. Thanks --Venus Copernicus (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siddha Yoga

The article Siddha Yoga you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Siddha Yoga for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. SriMesh | talk 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note: Perhaps your article sections would have a different presentation if you changed your quotation style to quote or quote box, as you have a few quotes, which is OK, but these other formats may blend in to the prose of the article more kindly to the eye.

Good luck with this article, it was very interesting and I hope you come to re-nominate it!

Kind Regards. SriMesh | talk 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of blog as RS

Greetings. Thanks for your edits etc at Solomon Freehof. Wanted to let you know that I restored the reference to the AJHistory blog and put in an explanation on the Talk page. Would be glad to discuss this further with you. thanks again, HG | Talk 02:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

golden ratio edit

not too familiar with wikipedia's rules. what does the edit mean "remove original research" under the golden ratio page, where I added about a music album with a CLEAR reference to the golden ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billywestom (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I am (was) the author of a page (Twenty-Six Lies/One Truth) that you proposed for deletion aobut 2 weeks ago. Unfortunately I've been away for the past few week and only learnt of this today - after the page has been deleted. I would have liked the opportunity to discuss the proposed deletion, or even now submit it for deletion review. However, because the page has now been deleted, i'm not even sure what the criteria was for it's proposed deletion and what discussion (if any) ensued. I'd appreciate it if you could give me a brief run down of your reasons so I can assess my options.

Thanks, Kathryn


Kathrynll (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't remember. I suggest bringing it to deletion review. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. thanks, Kathryn Kathrynll (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.TheRingess (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Etsy article

Hi! I left a note for you at Talk:Etsy#External_links (just in case you aren't watching it). Dreamyshade (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Plasma (KDE)

I'm currently on a school computer so I may not do this right away, but I noticed you added a Proposed Deletion to that page. I'd like to contest it, so I'll probably move it to WP:RFD. --SonicChao talk 12:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Advanced Theory

Hi, i noticed that you deleted several of the entries in the entry for "Advanced Theory" because they were blog links. These links link to the blog of the creator of advancement theory, a man named Jason Hartley, who is pretty much the definite authority on the subject. I reverted your changes. Doc Strange (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mario Polia in italian Wikipedia

Why did you deleted it? --Timiotatongenos (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No big reason. Perhaps you can expand upon his role in the search for Paititi and include the link as a citation.TheRingess (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Chidvilasananda

[The following talk is from "RandomStu"; I made the edit that TheRingess deleted. Explanation below:]

In the Chidvilasananda article, it's highly misleading to say that Swami Nityananda stepped down as guru. Surely if this is included in the Chidvilasananda article, readers ought to know that this step-down was temporary, and he's returned to the guru role decades ago. It'd be more useful, for instance, to tell the reader that Muktananda appointed both Chidvilasananda and Nityananda as successors, and the two later split to become gurus of separate organizations.

There is an article about Nityananda that explains all that and it is wikilinked in this article.TheRingess (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

More glaring is the fact that Chidvilasananda has made no public statements or appearances since 2004! Wouldn't a Wiki reader in 2007/8 like to know that Chidvilasananda is no longer actively playing the guru role? That'd seem like just about the most relevent information of all.

If there is a reliable source that states she is no longer the leader of SY then we need to use that as a source for your additions.TheRingess (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's any evidence, anywhere, that Chidvilasananda is making herself available to the public in any way, can the Wiki editor provide it? And if not, the fact that (by all evidence) she's dropped off the map is hardly insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomstu (talk • contribs) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD

I've deleted it, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Keilanatalk(recall) 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Brent Hartinger

Hi. You just removed some links from the Brent Hartinger page. Why? I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just wondering why. The links to AS IF and Brent's own blog seem to me to be entirely appropriate. But I may be wrong. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong too. Please read WP:EL and if you still think they are appropriate then please re-add them. Cheers.TheRingess (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Second Tuareg Rebellion

Hey there, I'm reverting the removal of links to two blogspot sites. While blogs may be against wikipedia policy, these are not simply blogs: they are the official press sites of the two rebel groups involved (and these specific web addresses have been refered to as such by wire service stories). There is no substitue for either of these. Sorry, but I thought I should give you a heads up on this. Thanks! T L Miles (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. Cheers. Happy new year.TheRingess (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello TheRingess, thanks for the warm welcome. Best wishes. —Devadaru (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your invitation for questions: (1) What happens if two editors simultaneously edit an article? If one saves his or her edit, and then the second one saves one minute later—unaware that another editor has just saved—will the editing work of the first editor be lost? (2) Why does the font (in my browser) change when displaying certain words (like Saṃsāra) on, for instance this page? I gather that the language has been changed. But I think the standard font (probably Tahoma?) should have all diacritical marks in it. Thanks. Devadaru (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. In regards to #1, the software handles that conflict by notifying the second editor that someone has changed the article since they started editing and ensures that they must add their contribution to the new article. For #2 I don't know the answer but perhaps you might ask at the Help Desk. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up #1. Devadaru (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jules Engel wiki

Hey, I noticed you removed a lot of links and citations out of the Jules Engel's wiki. My reasoning for putting them back on is that they are the only reference (not just online) but anywhere about this particular person. To be more clear, Jules Engel is not a well known person outside of the world of animation, and at that, is only known to that few that he worked with and his now world famous former students. He can be seen as a "animator's animator". While I have to admit I the wiki could be more organized, it has taken me a long while to fin the information and links I did about Engel. So, in the best of faith, I left those long list of references there so another user make better of them than I did, and clear, and clarify information that I might not recognize, or may not have the time to do. I would appreciate if you let this be for now, and hopefully I will be more active is fixing,. But erasing all those links is, I think, a tremendous mount of disservice for those learning about Jules Engel. Please feel free to discuss more with me.

Cyberpuke (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Cyberpuke

Not a problem.TheRingess (talk)

Trivia

Hi, I've noticed that you've been deleting a lot of trivia sections. I would advise that instead of removing the entire section, try to first integrate the information into the article. While WP:Trivia does state that trivia sections are unwanted, it also states that "If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." Please respond to me on my talk page if you would like to discuss this.-Mastrchf91- 06:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Aaron Turner

Hi. With respect to your removal of Aaron Turner's blog from the article Aaron Turner, citing WP:EL, please be aware that, while the guidelines do discourage linking to personal blogs in general, they don't discourage linking to official sites or to blogs which are "written by a recognized authority". And I think we can recognise Aaron as something of an authority on aspects of his own life. Cheers. --Popplewick (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel O'Sullivan entry

Hey there,

Just wondered why you were considering this for deletion? If there is anything you would suggest to make it more neutral perhaps, then please let me know.

09.01.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookofdays (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Nine Per Cent Growth Party

Thanks for your good faith edit removing blog link from the article. However, the blog in question functions as the official website for the party, it falls within WP:EL, and your edit has thus been reverted.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Cayra

Since you have strong feelings on Cyra, why not come and tell us exactly why the sources cited are not sufficient to prove WP:N. Look forward to your defending your position. Cheers! wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

about removing blog as reference at Forel International School

I'm aware of a general problem using blogs as citations, but this seemed to be an institutional blog - not a personal one. Is there anything in the rules of reliable sources that clarifies or addresses this difference? Blogging is just a technology that can be used in various ways. Personal opinions are the most common content of blogs but it's not inherent I think. More particularly you removed the citation supporting a statement - how is the statement defendable? --Smkolins (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to put them back. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of American Dragon: Jake Long Blog

I see that you have removed the blog on that page. However, I have reverted your edit since, according to WP:EL, links to blogs and personal web pages should be avoided "except those written by a recognized authority". This blog was written by the producers of the show. Please do not remove it. Thank you. TrackFan (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of blog link from Manned Venus Flyby‎

I have the same point to make as the previous editor. If you'd read the blog link you removed from Manned Venus Flyby‎ you'd have seen that it's written by an expert and is valuable background material to the article; if it was any other sort of web page than a blog there would be no issue about keeping it. A more appropriate course of action would have been to raise the issue on the article's Talk page. WP:EL isn't a blunt-edged tool. andy (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuity

'Love' (Greek: eros, philia, and agape) is that which I am and is what thou art, perceiveth and behold. The 'luminous' (Tibetan: 'od sal) I or 'stream of being', devoid of ahamkara, learns from 'everything' (Sanskrit: Dharmas) and 'nothing' (Sanskrit: Śūnyatā). 'Learns', in the aforecited, is qualified as realizing inherent 'gnosis' (Sanskrit: Jñāna). And yes, they ARE etymons of "knowing". Cultivate the Pāramitā to uncover the Five Wisdoms.
In virtue = incredible (There is "An Incredible Teaching Story" on my Tribe Blog accessible from my Talk Page just for Ü!)
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotation commentary

Leave the quotation in the Tantra article, without commentary and editorial redirection. This quotation redresses the fundamental flaw in the article: that being the absence of the historical designation of the Sanskrit terms for left-handed and right-handed modes. I would appreciate your assistance in progressing different views of these modes to ensure a richness of voice and register in the article. Tantra is still disparaged and misunderstood: evidenced by GaurangaUK from Vaishnava article fame. I am endeavouring to introduce a historical perspective of Tantric Vaishnavism within the Vaishnava article but am encountering, closed-minded, ill-informed fanatacism and religious intolerance. Your assistance in finding material to contribute in redressing these matters would be appreciated. Ah B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

tanx for your welcome..

hi there , thanks for your welcome. I think u noticed me in the talkpage of Shaivism.

in the article shaivism i've tagged some material for changes & do not see any response, do you think I can go ahead and change them.? The factual error is using Sri Renganathar temple's Vimana in the place of a thiruvanaikovil , which i think (in my opinion) decreases the good article's status.
(as I'm new and do not want to hamper the existing "flow" as well as harmony, I'm restraning from editing material as it is, if you need I can upload the scanned copies from the reference i mentioned.)


Thanks for your time.

Swraj (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Swarupananda in wikipedia

Sir/Madam

          Why you delete the bottom pages regularly.

do you find anything inappropriate?

If you think the lines contain anything unusual, please let me know. 
I also don't want to reproduce anything which is not fitting our Great guru's motto.

With regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minikuti (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Losar

TheRingess, Losar is currenting happening, how may I ensure that it is flagged as a current event? Is there a News Wiki article that this Wikipedia article can interwiki? How may I progress this? Is there anything else you recommend?
Blessings in the mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Osho

Hi, following on from the recent peer review, I've undertaken a fairly major revision of the Osho article and would be interested in your feedback. Cheers, Jayen466 02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

David Quinn

Hi, your recent edits of David Quinn removed new information as well as formatting. Could you please provide a reason for why you removed the information related to his work on behalf of Darfur?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.148.62 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you made such a weird formatting change that the I didn't see the additional sentence. The additional information is back now. My bad. Next time please leave an appropriate edit summary.TheRingess (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nityananda reference

I edited the reference no.6 on the nityananda article because a lengthy quote doesn't belong in a reference. The guidelines say that a reference is title, author, date and page no. Nothing more. Quotes belong in the article. See WP:REF.

Sardaka (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. I read through the link and could not find anything that specifically excluded quotes. Perhaps I missed a section. If so, please provide a link to that section so I can understand the policy. Furthermore, the standard citation templates allow for quotes. I think the reference looks fine as is. Happy editing.TheRingess (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do You Adopt?

I don't suppose you are taking adoptees? You have a very likeable style of editing and seem to know your topics very well. You are the only editor I've come acrosse who is authoritative without being stroppy. If not, don't worry but consider me for another time. --AaronCarson (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudi (Swami Rudrananda) entry

Greetings. Thank you for your assistance with my first serious contribution to Wikipedia - Rudi (Swami Rudrananda)

I am writing to request removal of Adi Da's information from the body of Rudi's biography because Rudi had thousands of students, and to simply mention one in the body of his biography - and not the other few thousand - would not be a good idea, especially since Adi Da chose eventually to break with Rudi and chose Muktananda as his guru instead (reference: The Kundalini Experience, by Dr. Lee Sannella, p.125-126 - Dr. Sannella was a personal friend of mine while he was living). If his entry is allowed to stay, then I must in all fairness add paragraphs and references for all of Rudi's senior students who are actively practicing and carrying on his work, rather than simply mentioning just a few of them in the Senior Teachers section.

If a "See also" column is permitted, perhaps a single reference to Adi Da with the double bracket pointer off to his own biography would be marginally acceptable under the circumstances. Meanwhile, I have undone the reference for the current time, pending a decision.--Cminard (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Rudi's entry

Thank you for your Notable Students suggestion that I have incorporated into the entry.

A brief introduction - I am a Kripalu yoga teacher and a technical writer, having worked in the computer industry (Digital/Compaq/HP) for over 30 years. While I am extremely familiar with the yoga world, have traveled to India, and have studied with many spiritual teachers over the decades, it was only in the past year that I came into contact with Rudi's teachings, via an audiotape. He did not have a Wikipedia entry, and so I decided to create one for him. He met with an early, untimely death at age 45, and although he had thousands of students, little has been published due to the short length of his life. As of this writing, I have not been in contact with any of the senior teachers of his work, and am stating this to let you know that I am writing this entry from as impartial a standpoint as possible.

As a result of my research, I fully expected the first challenge to the entry to come from the Nityananda Institute, headed by Michael Shoemaker (Swami Chetananda - a title he received from Muktananda, not Rudi), and am writing primarily to let you know in advance that this may still happen, once they discover this entry. I have come across conflicting statements made by Rudi's senior students in their various books and websites about who was authorized by Rudi personally to teach his work, and if/when anyone from the Nityananda Institute chooses to add either the link to the Institute or to state in Rudi's biography that Chetananda is the sole successor, please know that there are many sources - especially John Mann's book that was published by Rudra Press (their publishing company) that state there were indeed many legitimate teachers of the work before Michael Shoemaker met Rudi in 1971. That book is now no longer in print. John Mann met Rudi in 1959, and was his oldest student.

It was only after Rudi's passing that Shoemaker himself legally formed the Nityananda Institute and claimed to be the sole successor, and has stated that he has a letter signed by Rudi that designated him as such; however, Stuart Perrin makes an indirect reference to his successorship (along with the letter) as being incorrect in his book. This is why I deleted your Nityananda Institute pointer and changed it to Rudi's videos on YouTube instead. If the Nityananda Institute is listed in Rudi's links, then so should John Mann's link, Stuart Perrin's link, Steven Ott's link, and Bruce Joel Rubin's link, because they are all actively teaching Rudi's work, authorized by Rudi personally before he passed on, per John Mann's book.

Hopefully Rudi's entry will remain relatively free from controversy, and that the Nityananda Institute folks will create their own entry where they can claim anything they wish to about Rudi's teachings and succsssorship. Given that the possibility exists for another scenario to occur, however, I wanted to let you know in advance of the evidence I have discovered to the contrary.

While the Wikipedia entry can stand as is, I plan to add another section in the not-too-distant future regarding Rudi's teachings, drawn from his own transcripts, along with some additional pictures, once the proper approvals have been secured. If you require any further pointers or information on this topic, please do contact me. Kind regards, --Cminard (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vijnana Bhairava

I noticed your removal of the majority of this article, and have only just now understood. My apology for reloading it, and not understanding the rules a little better (original research, opinions etc...). As I have been working on Kashmir Shaivism for the past 25 years, (10 years prior to that in Vedanta), I have a lot of texts and articles on that subject. I now understand why my earlier piece (2007) on Grace was also deleted. Will do my best to stay within the confines of the Wiki rules in the future.

Since you are into fractals have you read the piece on "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot, which is mentioned in Wikipedia? George (talk) 9:49 17 Feb '08 (UTC)

Feedback

Thank you very much for your kind feedback on my first article. With the recent additions a few days ago, it appears to be stable now, and complete as is. I have contacted his official photographer to obtain permission to add three more photos, and those are my only planned updates. In the near future, I anticipate being in contact with some of his senior students to find out more about his teachings, and will ask them about adding their bios to Wikipedia. --Cminard (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Once in a while I look at the article on the Global Consciousness Project which I direct. It is fairly stable, though there are some notes about it needing cleanup, and being controversial. In the history page it can be seen that the article also gets vandalized, but that someone kindly restores it. I write to you because you made a substantial change in the external links, leaving only two, one of which is to a sort of tabloid newspaper article that contains a degree of exaggeration bordering on misinformation. That's alright with me, since most readers will see it as journalism, not science, but what surprises me is that you removed all links to journal articles, the peer reviewed sort that are stock in trade for science. Can you point me to the documentation on how many external links is too many? It seems that wikipedia readers would be well served to have at least one ordinary journal article.

Best wishes, Roger Nelson (rogerdnelson) 64.7.11.45 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot more to worry about with that article than merely how many external links there are.TheRingess (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hilda Charlton

Hello - if it is possible for you to adopt this article, I would truly appreciate it. --Cminard (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

External Link

Hello Ringess, This is Spencer Jones, I am the one who created the wikipedia page on Siddha Medicine on January 2007. When i created the wiki page, i put the links to my site pages as well, as i thought they will be of some help to the people seeking info. As my webforum is the only discussion forum on the entire internet, exclusively for siddha medicine and i had also listed a link to my page where i have listed the recognised colleges where siddha medicine is taught, as this will be of utmost use for people seeking to learn this medical system. The links were there on the wiki page for over 1n year now and all of a sudden i see the removal of the links. As the pages are entirely relevent to the content of the wiki page, i would like to know why is the external links always removed?

Thanks Spencer Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer Jones (talk • contribs) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you created the article is irrelevant. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Stop promoting your website. I can understand one link but 3 is excessive and promotional. Don't use Wikipedia to promote yourself.TheRingess (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ringess for your reply, i am moving the excess links and putting a single link (which provides the best info on siddha medicine) as you said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer Jones (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Rudi's article

Hello - someone has decided to dispute the article and the comments make no sense. If you would, please take a look at the discussion section. Thank you. --Cminard (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon investigation, it makes more sense. This person is apparently a Muktananda supporter. I will leave it to you to address.--Cminard (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. I took a brief look at the comment. If you feel the comment has merit, then you should edit the article to address the concerns. If you feel it has no merit then according to Wikipedia's guidelines you should remove it. The editor who left the tag was incorrect about articles and deletion. Biographical articles are usually deleted because they fail to meet the guidelines layed out at WP:BIO. The Rudi article seems to meet those guidelines. Please don't bring another editor's religious affiliation into a discussion of this nature. That's pretty much irrelevant to whether or not the pov tag has merit. Due to time constraints I'm going to decline your invitation to address the merits of the tag. Take care.
Thank you for responding. Being new to Wikipedia, I do not know the procedure. I thought that admins assisted in resolving disputes and challenges. I do not see any merit to the comments, as the comments come directly from his autobiographical material. I will try to resolve it on my own, though am not sure what the esclation procedure is should she continue to challenge it. I did not bring anyone's religious affiliation into the the discussion. Rudi was very much against the way Muktananda treated him, and the article reflects his not-so-positive experience with him. She has worked on Muktananda's biographical information and therefore cannot be considered free from her own POV in this matter. This is a personal preference; I have absolutely no idea what her religion is.--Cminard (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Before we can have much of a discussion regarding this, you need to read this link. Since you are new, it's excusable that you wouldn't understand one of Wikipedia's core policies. In short, please keep the discussion about the material not about what you perceive a fellow human being's motives to be.TheRingess (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the informational pointer. I have 'wikified' the comment on the discussion page of the article.--Cminard (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That should be that then. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ACIM

ACIM uses Christian language and concepts.

Therefore it is important to make the point that the doctrinal basis of ACIM is utterly different to that of Christianity.

The addition I made to the article could probably have been better written and someone is welcome to rewrite it. However, there is nothing 'POV' about highlighting the fact that although Judeo-Christian language is being employed by ACIM, it does not purport to extend existing doctrine, and rather it plainly contradicts central Christian doctrine (being jesus as God, jesus as sacrificial Lamb, and suffering as an expression of love).

Making this clear in the article is completely justified because otherwise readers would have to read the ACIM manuscript in detail as well as gain knowledge of Christianity/Judaism in order to understand the distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.213.178 (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like original research to me. You also removed sourced content and replaced it with your own. Please come up with sources for your material and place it more appropriately within the article.TheRingess (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)