User talk:Alatari/Archive 4

archived

Moved last years stuff into: User talk:Alatari/Archive 3. Alatari (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should read a little closer

First, he put back the info that was not in the source, which I took off because it wasn't in the source. He gave an explanation which made no sense and then continued to revert the edits without a real explanation. All he had to say was I found the source and put it back, which isn't hard to do. PS that won't get me banned since he kept acting like a little kid. You should read Wikipedia policy, but you say that to everyone you want to start a fight with.--Fire 55 (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been in a few fights on Wikipedia and some were even my fault, but my intent was only to ask for some civility to an editor I greatly respect. Do we need to keep at this? Alatari (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SI page

Thanks for fix in up my clumsy bits, and breat new additons with the history stuff. --Nate 14 81 14:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was always wondering how professionals in the past dealt with classifying piercing, flagellism and otehr stuff so we have a framework on how to deal with future attempts at inclusion. Also, self-harm didn[t just appear overnight and the lack of history was disconcerting. The genetic components still need inclusion but I don't think the research is there. Dopamine receptors seem to be involved but my understanding is incomplete. Ah here is a patent for a treatment for the x-manias and other OCD behaviors should give some insight? The spike in reported self-harm incidence in recent times also needs some research for inclusion to the article. Alatari (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hsed

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hsed, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.gedhighschool.com/Wisconsin-GED-Test-for-WI-High-School-Diploma.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hsed

A tag has been placed on Hsed requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 05:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Alatari. You have new messages at T'Shael's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 05:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Alatari. You have new messages at T'Shael's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alatari. You have new messages at Emptymountains's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"not cool"

hello. i got a notice that you sent a message or something, and when i click the link i get sent to my talk page where you say something like "it is not okay to delete editors' comments on talk pages" and then you have deleted your own comment. were you trying to tell me something or what? confused. Trst (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were the wrong person. Sorry. Alatari (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: crufty

It's true the cost/rating may not actually be necessary, however they do help in explaining the timeline, whereas the way the comic is destroyed really doesn't help. That's my two cents anyway. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a series based on comic book characters which makes fun of the comics and that comic is #1 of all Marvel comics. The creators seem to have taken a perverse pleasure in degrading that #1 issue from 1/2 million to 0. It seems an important theme. If you really don't like my additions; it's alright. I like the show but not a hardcore fan. Alatari (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This isn't a large enough subject to cover in it's own article"

You wrote "This isn't a large enough subject to cover in it's own article" about Marriageable age in Judaism.

This article is 3 times larger than, for example, beshert, Bedikah cloth, Ben niddah, and isha katlanit, which are all very unlikely to be expandable further than they are already.

So I was wondering what your opinion about the existence of the latter articles, given their size, is? If you think their existence is fine, would you be able to comment at the AfD of Marriageable age in Judaism, about why you think the size of that article is a special case/differs from the case of the above articles?

Newman Luke (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 articles you mention are minor subjects in Judaism and not information for the wider English speaking public. All the terms aren't even English and this is an English language wiki. So I can see those articles all nominated for deletion. They should be moved to the Yiddish wiki Marriageable age in Judaism can be summed up succinctly in the article of Marriageable age or an article on Marriage in religions. Alatari (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so if the following AfD's start turning towards keep, you'd change your opinion at the Afd on Marriageable age in Judaism, so that it reflected the community view on articles of this size?

Newman Luke (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was dirty pool to nominate articles for deletion in my name. If you want to go for their deletion then I'll go along and I put the nomination in my own words suited to individual cases. Link to my talk page is inadvisable because I can delete anything on this page at my desire. Alatari (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put them up for deletion because you think they are too minor. I'm fairly surprised that you didn't do that yourself, given your comments above, when I alerted you to their existence. Am I to ignore your judgement now? Newman Luke (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't pay the bills... Alatari (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire content could be edited and put into Jewish marriage. Alatari (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big problem with that - a problem of bigness; the Jewish views of marriage article is very likely to become huge, leaving little room to go into sufficient detail about marriageable age. See Talk:Child marriage in Judaism. Newman Luke (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why articles are edited for conciseness. Work on Marriageable age by expanding it across all religions and their views. Then you can jump into sub articles including Marriageable age in Judaism. I'm a strong supporter of WP:NPOV even to my denigration. All religions need to be considered. Alatari (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And which other religions have a specific point of view about marriageable age, other than Judaism? Newman Luke (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion governs peoples actions, especially marriage, for millennia so I find it very hard to believe there are no source information for other religions and their views on marriage age. The discussion about the age of Aisha when she married Muhammud's relates. Buddhism has the 5 precepts one of which is against sexual misconduct; which is something I've been researching. Something about Buddhist rules on marriage should come from there. Taoism, Legalism and Confucianism had rules describing how different aspects of life were to be lived. Someone will have to do more research. Alatari (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But do they have a position about marriage age.

There is much discussion of Aisha's age, but was the marriage to her acceptable because of some official line in Islam about marriage age, or just because it happened to be a cultural norm in that specific part of the world? The marriageable age in England (and Wales), for example, has nothing to do with Christianity; it is acceptable for a Christian in England to get married at the age of 16 not because of some Christian doctrine, but because that's acceptable in the culture and the local law.

Buddhism does have precepts against sexual misconduct, but as far as I know this does not include an official view on what the marriageable age should be, or on what restrictions might apply to marriage at certain ages.

Similarly, Daoism, Legalism (presumably you mean Legalism (Chinese philosophy)) and Confucianism may have rules about married life, but do they have rules about age in relation to marriage.

Indeed someone will have to do more research, if they think there is a religion other than Judaism that has a specific opinion about marriageable age. I happen to be currently under the impression that there is not. Newman Luke (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples are modern day and not historical. Why is it 16 in Whales? Even if Judaism is the unique religion with age rules on marriage (highly unlikely) it's not notable enough to have it's own article. Trying to untangle Welsh culture from it's Christian influence is not an easy thing to do. "Go forth and multiply" doctrine of Catholicism existed for quite a while. It influenced age of marriage. What you are saying is that you will push only a Judaic POV and will not take a NPOV on this matter. Alatari (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is 16 in Wales because it is 16 in England - "England and Wales" is a single legal system (unlike Scotland, for example, which has a different legal system to England and Wales). It is 16 in England (and Wales) because of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, because of public pressure to do something against child prostitution. In 1275, the age was 12, as it was in Wales (which back then had an independent legal system). Before 1275, there was only common custom, and no law. The age here isn't connected to Christianity. Newman Luke (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

beshert is such a short article it could be rewritten a bit and added to the Jewish marriage article. It fits in nicely there. Alatari (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monier-Williams

His assertion is in his speech accepting the Chair. The material on Muller is in Nirad C. Chaudhuri's book , Scholar Extraordinary, The Life of Professor the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Muller. I don't have it to hand right now. None of tghis has any direct relevance to his scholarship except in the paranoid minds of Hindutvadis. Paul B (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One has almost broke the 3RR on the Lingam article about that particular line using his article as a source. I'd let it slide if he had your source. The debate over whether the lingam was ever symbolic of a penis is surprising. I thought the sources in support (like the creation myth or the translation of the Kama Sutra) were overwhelming but the backlash of even mentioning the word 'penis' in the article is stinging. I did learn that Western translations aren't always reliable and fairly biased. The Kama Sutra translation did misuse lingam but trying to source that it's influence mostly shaped English speakers concept of lingam is impossible; for me at least. Alatari (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for the new word(s) of the day. 'Hindutvadis' and 'Hindutva'. Hindutvadis is not in Wikipedia; I suppose a mention of it in the Hindutva article would be appropriate. Alatari (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to see Phallus, which might be a better correspondence. Phallic worship and Massebah would be better still, but these are just redirects (Phallic worship to Phallus, and Massebah to Standing Stone). Newman Luke (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Time

I can only assume you are joking because you clearly put in more time than I do. Gary King (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did do most of those articles over a year ago. I haven't been as active as much around here lately; I have fewer edits this month than you do. Gary King (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Monier Monier-Williams

Thank you for your enquiry as to the sources of the original article.

I don't specifically recollect the sources I used at the time of writing in 2004, which was before the emphasis on references in Wikipedia developed. At that time I added references in the External links section, so you may wish to explore those links.

The Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 article has been copied into the article's talk page, and Google Books has now scanned an obituary that should serve to confirm anything you need. Please see The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland for 1899 pages 730ff. EdH (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dances With Smurfs

Hey Alatari. I saw the ongoing posts about the Dances with Smurfs plot issue, and I wanted to draw your attention to my recent post over there with my thoughts and suggestions for the plot summary. As I said over there, I think you both have good points, so I tried to reach some sort of middle ground. Let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance

You have an incredible amount of editing to do on Wikipedia and if you would consider my opinion it would be to accept the situation on your last few AfD articles and turn over their fates to other editors. Your knowledge base is much broader than those few subjects and the loss of your potential to Wikipedia would be a shame. When someone of long established work, strong political ties, strong opinions and strong opposition to my work as a less established editor comes down on the side of banishing me; time to re-prioritize. Alatari (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things never change when people let bullies win. Be the Change you want to see in the world. Newman Luke (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Question about Lilith

No, sorry. Many of the old contributors to the article are gone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not an expert. Adam and Lilith were created from the same stuff, so they were equal. Since they were equal, they had an argument on who would be on top or below. Lilith then spoke the name of God and fled. This is from The Alphabet of Ben-Sira, which was written during the Middle Ages. Lilith myths existed before then, but Lilith was portrayed different. Yes, I believe that it was influenced by men's fear of woman, but I'm not an expert. The text is also used to explain things such as why Eve was created from Adam's rib. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I realise I haven't yet thinked you for the barnstar! Thank you. Paul B (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get your problem

Most languages use "Neptune" or some similar transliteration for their name of Neptune. A few languages don't. I think mentioning those which don't helps broaden the scope of coverage. The paragraph doesn't have to begin and end with those two mentions. Others can be added. Serendi ^pod ous 17:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an afterthought line to a first rated article like Neptune is what made me angry. I was reading a well written history of how and who named the planet and at the end was a single out of context line added almost like vandalism to the page. If you want to add the Hebrew name for Neptune to the article then it has to be put into context about why it was important to have a Hebrew name, who in the science community fought for this. Also excluding the names given by another 2 billion people of China and India was irresponsible. Was Neptune named before it was known to be a planet? Are there names of it as a star and not a planet? Is there an history of Neptune before it was 'discovered' by the Europeans? As of right now it was named by England and France and that's that. If other cultures are jealous of that fact then maybe that would be of interest to the article. Just adding a line "And now Neptune has a Hebrew name" was just horrible writing style on an excellent article. Why should the average English reader of the article care if it has a Hebrew name? Make it clear why they should care. Alatari (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

Because of the various traditions and schools of Buddhism in the present world,it is almost impossible to give a common view about sexuality.I am following Theravada Buddhism and I have made those changes to include the view of Theravada Buddhism about sexuality,which is almost neglected in the current article. I don't know what the local monks said to you about 'rape',but rape is a theft and a sexual misconduct according to my knowledge in Theravada Buddhism (it also violates the second of the five precepts).There is a list of about twenty different women,with whom you can't have sex as a follower of Theravada Buddhism ( you can have,but it is a sexual misconduct),as you have correctly mentioned.

Thanks for the ideas and sources you have provided.

If you are interested in Theravada Buddhism ,following web sites will be useful to you.

          http://www.accesstoinsight.org 
          http://www.dhammaloka.org.au/ 
          http://www.mahamevnausa.org/

Regards. Shehanw (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started my official journey into Buddhism at a Vietnamese Pure Land Temple here in St. Louis. I'm visiting a Theravada Thai Temple currently.

Are you a new Wiki editor? I can see you are knowledgeable about Theravada. You have added valuable material and if you are new the hardest thing I found about editing here was the WP:NPOV. Theravada is a POV of a particular sect of Buddhism and within Theravada there are various POV's differing from country and time period. Each source and author has a POV and a degree of WP:Notability all of which can be challenged by other Wiki editors. The NPOV is like a Wiki Middle Path and I can sense there may be some consensus building around a NPOV in the future of these articles. When there is any disagreement; building a list of notable sources and having them ready to drop into the talk page is the best oil to the gears of consensus. After a consensus is built on the talk page then that paragraph can be added to the article. Alatari (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truce on Factory

I came across this page as part of research and was urked by its awkward layout and word over-usage. Swear to me you are not Thomas Dublin and I shall withdraw. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.85.40 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of him before today. Look back thru the article's history and see that his work was used as a reference months ago. A lot of what you are doing as copy-edit looked great but if a section has sources and has been there for months it's best to get consensus before deleting. Laborers and workers are interchangeable in this article so why not leave a few instances of each? Why remove the factory worker pic? Alatari (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like labor depicts toil better than work. The Factory women part seemed a little over-focused for one sub section (red flag). You would think, if anything, children would be emphasized as an infamous part of history. I just get annoyed when I think someone is manipulating. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I am actually a novice wiki user. I use the internet to learn (with a grain of salt) and I can't stand lobbied information. Anyway the pic looks a little phony and Norman Rockwell-ish. The Library of Congress has way better ones that are public domain, like pictures/item/oem2002001409/PP/resource/fsa.8b01874/?sid=c22bd0c6276ef3b34a1831fcc9f6f03d. Anyway, since you're not Thomas and you have ever heard of him, except for his extraordinarily numerous amount of references in this article in which you have taken extreme particular interest, I officially concede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.85.40 (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a war. Your copy-edit work was nice. Neutral Point of View is like the prime directive of WP (IMO) and so using 'worker' sometimes and 'laborer' others seems to spread the POV around. Your point about the woman might be correct; maybe the pic isn't from the '40's and putting a face on a factory worker is problematic. Should it be a white woman from America? Maybe it should be deleted it's just I get protective of pages when anonymous editors start deleting long standing content. I can't find that picture you linked in above. You have a direct link? How about setting up your own Wiki account? Alatari (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GLBT topics and Buddhism

Here is an interesting citation [1]particularly the conclusion.

It includes: "Like all religions, Buddhism takes a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behaviour in particular. The most common formulation of Buddhist ethics are the five precents:"

"The five precepts constitute an integrated set - each precept supports the others. To know what 'sexual misconduct' means you look at the other precepts. 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble. By contrast good sexual conduct is based on loving kindness, generosity, honesty, and mental and emotional clarity - conduct that has good results."

"Lets look at the spirit of the precepts as a whole before returning to sexuality. Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. "

"But the other religions also have lists of no-no's, of forbidden sexual practices. Some object to partial or total nudity, or masturbation, or cross-dressing, or sado-masochism, or homosexuality, or fetishism, or premarital sex, or oral, anal or group sex, or contracepted sex. Buddhism is notorious for its habit of putting points of practice and doctrine into lists. So where is Buddhism's list of naughty sexual practices? The answer is short and sweet. Buddhism doesn't (for once!) have a list."

"The Buddha was in fact a social engineer's worst nightmare. Not only did he not waste a word of condemnation on non-procreative sex (hence no list of no-no's), but he inspired thousands to ordain into celibate monasticism and so leave babymaking behind altogether. This was not because he disapproved of sex or babies, but in an era when a non-celibate usually ended up with many children to feed, clothe and house and so had little freedom or time for spiritual pursuits, celibacy made a lot of practical sense for many people with a spiritual urge"

"Buddhism does have a strong sexual ethic, but not a repressive one. The main point of this ethic is non-harming in an area of life where we can do a lot of damage by acting violently, manipulatively or deceitfully. "

"Of course, one can meet Buddhists from traditional backgrounds that do have a problem with non-procreative sex like homosexuality, just as we run into ones that are still challenged by gender equality. But this sort of inhibition or prejudice comes from a particular ethnic culture or national tradition only. You can confidently tell anyone who expresses these sorts of attitudes that they have nothing to do with Dhamma as such."

Regards, Atom (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another reference[2]

"Buddhists have the Third Precept -- in Pali, Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami -- which is most commonly translated "Do not indulge in sexual misconduct" or "Do not misuse sex." However, for laypeople, the early scriptures are hazy about what constitutes "sexual misconduct.""

"I hope we can all agree, without further discussion, that non-consensual or exploitative sex is "misconduct." Beyond that, it seems to me that Buddhism challenges us to think about sexual ethics very differently from the way most of us have been taught to think about them."

"First, the precepts are not commandments. They are undertaken as a personal commitment to Buddhist practice. Falling short is unskillful (akusala) but not sinful -- there is no God to sin against. Further, the precepts are principles, not rules. It's up to us to decide how to apply the principles.

"You can find anti-homosexual teachings in some schools of Buddhism, but I believe these are based on cultural attitudes. My understanding is that the historical Buddha did not specifically address homosexuality, and I can think of no Buddhist teaching that would call for homosexual relationships to be treated differently from heterosexual relationships."

Here is another reference[3]

"the Buddha did not leave any teachings on homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior. He strongly encouraged his followers to "be a lamp onto yourself" -- to examine and test the truth of religious teachings before accepting them."

"Buddhism is most concerned with whether an action is helpful, based on good intentions, and freedom from harm. Thus, a specific act can sometimes be either permissible or not permissible, depending upon its context"

"Many women, gays and lesbians have been attracted to Buddhism because of its relative lack of misogyny and homophobia, when compared to some other religions. But others report "virulently anti-gay sentiments and teachings from religious teachers in Tibetan and other Buddhist" schools"

" the Pali Canon, which documents the teachings of the Buddha, do not include any direct reference to homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior. Some have interpreted this to mean that the Buddha believed that the same rules governing sexual behavior apply to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples."

"From the Theravada Buddhist standpoint, all relationships: gay, lesbian or straight, are often considered personal matters of mutual consent. If a relationship promotes the happiness and well-being of both parties, then it is positive and acceptable. Many Buddhists agree with most therapists, human sexuality researchers, religious liberals, etc. and believe that sexual orientation is beyond a person's control, as are race and gender. They feel that gays and lesbians should have the same civil rights and benefits as do all other persons. "

"Another Buddhist practitioner, A.L. De Silva, writes: "As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept."

"Zen Buddhism does not "make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual" sex. It encourages sexual relationships that are "mutually loving and supportive." "

And another citation [4] "The sayings of the Buddha, as recorded in the Pali Canon, do not I believe include any explicit reference to homosexuality or to homosexual acts. This has been taken to mean that the Buddha did not consider that one's sexual orientation was relevant to his message, which was how to escape from suffering and achieve enlightenment. If it was not important enough to mention, homosexuality could not have been considered a barrier to one's moral and spiritual development. "

"From my readings of the Buddhist texts, and from the answers of the Buddhist monks I have questioned on this issue, I have concluded that, for lay Buddhists, any sexual act would not be breaking the third precept: where there is mutual consent, where there is no harm done to anyone, where the breaking of a commitment to another person is not involved, and where our intention is to express affection with respect, and give pleasure to each other. This would apply irrespective of the gender or sexual orientation of the parties involved. The same principles would be used to evaluate all relationships and sexual behaviour, whether heterosexual or homosexual. "

Paul Watson

Hi, I reverted your edit because the term is linked a few sentences up, in line with the policy at WP:OVERLINK. Thanks, --Terrillja _talk 02:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I missed that one. Alatari (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I appreciate your note but I am afraid you mis my point. The policy page already has a section summarizing NPOV. My aim is not to change anything, but simply to make that section less bloated and clearer.

Your point, that Wikipedia needs "the creation of a numeracy for calculating the size of a faction promoting certain POV's" is an interesting point. Were we to have such a numeracy, it would belong in a different section of the policy page. If you have concrete ideas I suggest you propose them on the policy talk page. But we are talking about two different things - you are talking about a more effective means for enforcing balance and WEIGHT. I am just trying to clean up the section that summarizes the principle ideas behind the policy.

Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Time (2)

Most of my work was done in 2008 and 2009, actually. Unfortunately, I'm spending less and less time around here every month... Also, it looks like you asked me this before. Gary King (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you get to know people and then you do something nice for them, they will feel compelled to give you a barnstar. You can read the descriptions for each of my barnstars by clicking the "[show]" link to see why that particular barnstar was awarded to me. Gary King (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Alatari. You have new messages at Northumbrian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, Northumbrian (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith

Hi there. I just came on because I saw someone added the transformation of Lilith into a goddess in Mesopotamia. Unfortunaley this is very inaccurate. Lilith was never a goddess in Mesopotamia. This is modern revisionism ideals.

Xuchilbara (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurwitz is not a bad source. You just have to watch what he says in his ramblings. (He often went off topic.) For example he went in depth on the Arslan Tarsh amulet which Patai didn't cover that much. There really is not much on Lilitu in ancient Mesopotamia, simply because she was a minor spirit (People were more afraid of Lamashtu.) & also a word for owls. Things that I recall the wiki article does not have is like the mention of a lilitu demon snagging a sheep from Dumuzi's flock in his bad omen dream right before he was sent to the underworld by Inanna.

Kramer is a good translator but he is not good at interpretating the Burney relief. There are similar reliefs, including one he uses in Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth at the beginning of the underworld chapter which clearly is the same figure and it cannot be Lilitu, because it also depicts human worshipers. Jacobsen was the one who inserted why its Inanna and its been academically accepted ever since.

Things that I think would better help explain to the lay person Lilitu is how the demon concept is set up in Mesopotamia. Delirium's realm has a good article on it here. Lilitu demons were under the anthromorphic types.

I think the article needs more on Ardat lili, the Akkadian/Assyrian Lilitu. I recall a text somewhere that mentioned what the ancient's thought about lili and how a man took the precautions against her. Similar to later Jewish texts about not sleeping alone in a house or Lilith will get you. But I have to re-find this because its been years.

I belong to a study group called Enenuru which has a compilation of Sumerian and ANE study texts. Their message board is really helpful.

My biggest problem though, is most of my source on Lilith resides back at my other place of residence. Thus I have no access to them and won't for sometime. I did write an article about Lilitu, but I need to update it and honestly I can't remember exactly where I got what information from. I remember things like Patai mentioned Lilu & Lilitu were storm demons, later became night demons. Now he says this is due to mistaken etymology, but recently I have found out the connections with the word lil2 occur earlier in Sumer, rather than Hebrew. However, it'd take some source to get to this. I'll have to re-check the Lilitu thread on Enenuru.

Anyway I hope that helps. You can email me at xuchilpaba@gmail.com if you want to further talk about Mesopotamia/Lilitu. (I just don't feel like Wiki is always the best place for this.) Xuchilbara (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forks

Fraid i do not know - I am not very up on technical matters. For what it is worth I thinok the policy page on NPOV really needs cleaning and tightening up. We ought to have a consistent view of different kinds o forks. So the Fork guideline neds work too - I cleAned it bit some time agoo but people watching it thought I misunderstood some issues. In short, it strill needs improvement. Maybe really overhaulin the fork guideline will be the first step to fixing NPOV ...?Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look though the edit history

Hi, can you please look though the edit history for Desktop computer and check that I am not vandalising anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I saw some bare url's and provided descriptions!! Jim

How was I supposed to now that! I can see why people are pissed with this wikipedia... Thank you and have a great day114.76.69.147 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those URL's are to blatant spam sites or companies promoting their products. They aren't allowed in Wikipedia. Review the policy at WP:EL. It is hard to assume good faith when anonymous editors add spam links. If you were just trying to fix a link that was added by another spammer then I'm sorry. Just leave the further reading section off and discuss it on the talk page. Alatari (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMNS

I don;t know much about them but they appear easily qualified to report that the boat went under. I remember trying to find a secondary source awhile ago and if this is as good as there is then throw it in.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A star

Thank you. I hardly deserve it. But I am thankful for it. Perhaps others will think it's deserved. Silly them. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama, Sr.

I would reccoment revrting the edit citing WP:Bold and WP:AGF though large scale cahnges need talk page consensus per WP:BRD. if he gives you more trouble then shoot me a message.Lihaas (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama, Sr./jan21rewrite

Did you mean to create this in mainspace? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alatari. You have new messages at Volpane's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It was a version that had badly flawed sources intentionally combining legitimate sources with very questionable conspiracy sources. I left it there for in assuming good faith to allow that editor to correct his 'mistakes'. Alatari (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and binary prefixes

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Computing --RaptorHunter (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]