User talk:Abecedare

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by .

.

Claims of victimhood

You claimed I was unfairly playing the victim. If you read something like this, and then compare and see that many of the opposes are actual members at Wikipedia Review, I think your claims fall flat. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK you and I have not edited any common articles, so my opinion of you has mainly formed from seeing you at the admin boards and at a few FAC discussions that I have read; I realize that those venues are drama-magnets and I may be getting somewhat of a skewed perspective. On the other hand, I have no past or current dispute with you, and am not a member (or even a follower) of wikipedia-review, IRC etc. So my opinion is perhaps as neutral-as-as-it-gets-on-wikipedia. Take the following for what it's worth to you:

You are perhaps right that some of the opposes at your RFA reflect personal antagonism of some editors towards you. But the fact that you use those instances to,

dismiss all critiques of your interaction with other editors;
assume that the opposition to your RFA is a reflection of others' hostility, rather than a reaction to your conduct;
pretend, or truly believe, yourself to be the wronged party here (while I would judge you to be intelligent enough to have foreseen the result of your RFA before you nominated yourself)

is the reason I believe that you are unable to handle criticism, tend to play the victim, and blame the critics instead. You are free to introspect over your RFA and see if there are aspects of your on-wiki behavior that you can improve; or you can use it to reinforce your belief about the "types of people" you have to deal with here. I hope you pick the former option. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dismissed all critique. Anything that seems legitimate, vague, or the rest, I have talked to directly. Many people on both sides are members of IRC and have contacted me already. My comments to Malleus, for example, were talking mostly about WR or those like Folantin: all people who have been antagonizing me or causing problems around me for a very long time. If you think I can't handle criticism, fine. However, others are capable of seeing just how problematic many of the opposes are, especially when there are random vandals, SPA accounts, and the rest along with message board oppose campaigns and email oppose campaigns. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dismissed all critique. Great! That's exactly what I'd hoped for while providing my feedback (or I wouldn't have bothered adding my !vote at the RFA, since I knew that it wouldn't actually affect the final result). Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a reason for this? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmic traditions

A third time to nail home the sapiential salience:

Dharmic Traditions such as Sanatana Dharma, Jaina Dharma, Buddhadharma and Sikha Dharma, for example are traditions of Dharma. Often glossed Indian religions by Western discourse, where the term 'religions' is understood as an acculturation and culturally colonizing attribution following post-colonial discourse. In addition, to categorize Buddhadharma a 'religion' is culturally insensitive and incorrect given it is at core non-Deistic and non-Theistic. There is a need for meta-analysis on core assumptions. There is, and has been, and continues to be; an agenda in the -isms and the obscuration of the relationship of the manifold traditions of Dharma

.

B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Almond (The British Discovery of Buddhism, 1988: p.13):

Buddhism, by 1860, had come to exist, not in the Orient but in the Oriental libraries and institutes of the West, in its texts and manuscripts, at desks of the Western savants who interpreted it. It had become a textual object, defined, classified, and interpreted through its own textuality.... By the middle of the century, the Buddhism that existed "out there" was beginning to be judged by a West that alone knew what Buddhism was, is, and ought to be.^[1]

^ Source: [1]

B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 09:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 years plus

Thanks and Regards to you --Bhadani (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aryabhata edits

Yes, it seems the new user is making too many copyvio and test edits, but please do go easy on him. Newcomers can be slow to learn, but still ultimately useful. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I cleaned up his algebra addition (copied from History of elementary algebra, and hence not a copyvio), since that was new information, not covered in the article. Also, see my messages on his talk page, starting from welcome, to encouragement + explanation of copyright, to template + request to use talk page etc. Hope he realizes that he is currently going along the wrong path and sticks around to help improve the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't know what's the best thing to do. Anyway, the net effect so far is a small addition about Algebra, which can only be a good thing. :-) Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-OR

Hey. Most of the articles I work on are highly sensitive articles where people bring lots or sources that they usually synthesis. For instance, someone brought an article from The Economist, a reliable source overall. The article said a specific country could be considered an economic superpower, and used that source to say that country was a potential superpower. Though an economic superpower and an emerging/potential superpower are two completely different things. As a country doesn't need to be a economic superpower to be considered a potenial superpower, and vice versa. Also, I just use non-Or as SYN technically falls under WP:OR. Deavenger (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undo this

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.21.172 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, I have reverted the undiscussed change to the article lead that I disagreed with, but the other two edits seemed fine. By the way, you may get a quicker response if you post on the article talk page; and of course, you can make the edits yourself once you get an account. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this link removed from Sanskrit?

I put a link to a collection of Sanskrit short stories on Sanskrit. You removed it and gave the reason only as "undue/spam". I disagree.

The link is for one of the most important collections of Modern Sanskrit on the Internet. Hence, it is not undue. On the contrary. The amount of Modern Sanskrit available on the Internet is not large, which means that a collection such as this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Including a link to such a site is comparable to the several links on New Latin which take the reader to modern Latin compositions.

I have no connection with this site nor with its authors, and I included the link on a relevant page. Hence, it's not spam.

Where would be a better place for this link? Under Further Reading, which includes sections for Introductions, Grammars, Dictionaries. Perhaps one more section should be added Readers. Would you suggest placing this link on the Sanskrit Grammar page instead? Interlingua 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interlingua, I removed the link (Sanskrit short stories by Kedar Nephade) from Sanskrit and Sanskrit literature since it did not comply with wikipedia guidelines on wikipedia guidelines on external links and was borderline spam promoting the unpublished stories of an author. Of course, if you think the writings of Kedar Naphade are amongst the most important in Modern Sanskrit, and have reliable sources that say so, we can start an article Kedar Naphade and include the link there. Abecedare (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helping in reference documentaion

Hi - thanks for helping me. Do you know any good, knowledgable editors who can help out on how to properly source and document government filings and certificates? I am with a winery and sometimes I want to edit our page to make corrections from anywhere from types of grapevines that we plant to our size. I'd like to be able to use an outside source as the reference, which are government census, certifications, filings, general bureaucracy that isn't online, but can be obtained. Know anyone who can lead me on how to reference those things? Thanks! Mowineguy (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]