User talk:TheRingess/Archive 7

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.

Isses of sourcing

Thanks for your reply. Even if you cannot supply references, if you can watch list the articles for Chakra, Kundalini, and Tantra and support my efforts there to insist on solid sourcing it would be helpful. I have found that it is impossible to make any forward motion on these articles unless there are at least some other people who agree that sourcing is important, and that formal WP:CITE procedures should be followed. I have seen enough of your editing style to view you as someone who understands Wikipedia policies, which is what I think should be enforced on those articles. Do you agree with the view that addition of unsourced materials can be challenged and that unsourced statements can be removed? Buddhipriya 05:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. You can also find very strong statements to the effect, that poorly sourced or unsourced statements should be challenged, that they may be removed quickly and that the burden of supplying references falls on the shoulders of the editors contributing those statements. You can probably find statements to that affect on WP:ATT, but I'm too tired to look it up, LOL. I also agree with your attempts to ensure consistent formatting of sources per the MOS. Take care.

TheRingess (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I see you cleaned up my edit over at Siddha Yoga. Thanks, I was tired and getting sloppy. -Vritti 07:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, you sent me a 'welcome to Wikipedia' message - which I appreciate :) I've also perused your profile, and think you sound exceedingly interesting... --Darkstar9999 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)darkstar9999[reply]

Thanks for Lucid Dreaming cleanup

Thanks for your work on the LD article the other day, much appreciated. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 14:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look?

User talk:Nik Wright2

Seems to me an improper use of WP:USER, in particular disclosures about personal details.

Some other context here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Possible_Relevance_to_BoLP

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:improper use of WP:USER

I can see absolutely no infringement of WP:USER at User talk:Nik Wright2- the whole page is about Wikipedia - if it were not for Wikipedia published material that user page would not exist. All I have done is produce for the elucidation of other users, the perverse circularity that a 'non user' can find themselves in. For you to now seek to censor that record is particularly galling as you personally are a contributor to the circularity - indeed you should recuse yourself from any further involvement in this issue as you plainly have a conflict of interest having been the mediator in a failed mediation related directly to material in question.

Or are my expectations of fairness from the 'wikipedia club' simply too naieve ?

Nik Wright2 07:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the quid pro quo! :-)
I just filed an ANI report Abecedare 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. I think the best srategy is to take the fight to him or her by contacting the university and advising them of this malicious user. Wikipedia provides for such procedures and I think we should use them. Buddhipriya 02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priorities for edits

Thank you for the good work you have done in getting some attention for the Tantra article. I will do what I can to support you, but cannot put a lot of effort into that one right now. I am trying to prioritize my time to get improvement in a group of articles related to Shaivism, which has a large complex of connected articles. Can I enlist your help with figuring out how to reduce forking and to generally try to clean up the Shiva, Rudra, History of Shaivism, and subschools over the next six months? Even if you were to just watchlist the articles it would be a help. Also, I am not sure of the best way to refer to Western ideas that are based on Hindu sources. Is "new religious movement" best, or some other terminology? I do not want to give offense when interacting with some of the other editors, as I know very little about these more contemporary movements, which are quite numerous and not mentioned in the books that I have at hand. So I feel a bit at sea when trying to deal with them. Buddhipriya 05:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]