User talk:Bladesmulti/Archive 2

Mercury minds

Hi Bladesmulti. You might want to take a look at User talk:Hafspajen, User talk:74.192.84.101‎, and User talk:74.60.29.141. Also mercury minds; they may set an example. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bladesmulti

You are an honorable person, with strong convictions. That in itself is NOT a liability, it can be a strong asset. But, what has been shocking for me, and other editors is, for example, how you remove fully referenced material that seems to go against your own view. To take a particular example from AN/I that I wasn't involved in myself, you have removed content referenced from Human Rights Watch on the pollution of Ganges.

Such edits from your side is NOT contributive to good-will towards you, although I think you DESERVE such good-will, on basis of many other edits you make.

Be CAREFUL with removing other people's edits they may have worked a long time on, conscientously adding sources. Without being a mentor or anything, I would say: Why not raise discussions on the Talk Page when you become concerned about a well-sourced statement, rather than seconds-quick removal of it?Arildnordby (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Good advice. Remember pillar two. Here on wikipedia, you must wear a cloak of neutrality. You must stick to reflecting what the wikiReliable Sources say. Others must stick to what the wikiReliable Sources say. If the wikiReliable Sources are contradictory, we do not remove them! We must stay neutral, and reflect what the sources say. Therefore, if source#1 says one thing, and source#2 says another thing, we do NOT pick a winner: we describe the conflict, never *decide* the winning source. "According to X blah,^[source#1] but according to Y bleech.^[source#2]" That is WP:NPOV. That is how we AVOID SIDES here on wikipedia. There *are* sides, in politics, in religions, in what people say is true, in what people say is false. But on wikipedia, we do not take sides in what we write, and we do not take sides against other wikipedians. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is pillar number one. Stick to it like a rock. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bladesmulti, I have seen your contribultions, you intentions are good and started a honest motive. It's sad, things didn't right way. Although you were right but you entered in the editwar and reasonly punished, your extreme reactions made easy task for your opponents or those who entered into editwar with you, you only ease the way for them. So have patience, if any one challanged your edit then take a positive way, if you feel that is right then do work and try to provide many citation from reliable source to prove them. If the thing is a fact or truth, no one can deny that. Hope you understand!!! KLS 09:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswarrior (talk • contribs)

Some further personal views. Without me being particularly experienced, perhaps you will find it valuable to see how an another editor looks how to proceed if you are strongly dissatisfied with another editor's contribution that you see has a reliable source? (I'll write this only for the case where the source is judged reliable, how to judge whether or not a source is reliable is up to the mentors!) Now, is it always wrong to remove an edit with an attached reliable source? My view is that is almost always wrong, but there are some exceptions, and often alternate procedures to outright removal. A case where it to remove a source can be right, and keeping basically the text as it is, is if you find an equally reliable, but UPDATED source that says exactly the same thing. For example, if the original source was from a 1950s Harvard History professor, while you find the statement ALSO sourced by a 2002 Cornell History Professor, then Mister 1950s can go into oblivion, in my view. Wikpedia shouldn't rush after the latest news, but should strive to be updated on research, even in those cases where "updated research" validates "old" research, and says the same.

That was perhaps an easy case of source (if not text) removal. But how about the case where the source is reliable, but the editor has bungled representation of it? Prior to charges of misrepresentation and outright removal, why not rewrite the text, keeping the source, and explain in edit summary why you have done so?

You also have cases where the source might be perfectly reliable, but you feel the edit is irrelevant and out-of-place. Should you throw it out? At the very least, see if it is merely sectionwise irrelevant, but not at all articlewise irrelevant. (Was it placed in wrong time period? Wrong geography? Or similar sectionwise misplacing). Then, a better, more helpful procedure is to replace the previous editor's entire contribution to its proper place, rathen than reach for your hatchet (or, if the problem is that "the middle" of the contribution really is irrelevant where it is placed, pick that middle out and insert it in the appropriate section).

But, what if you have strong, cogent grounds that the whole paragraph is irrelevant to the principal topic of the article? Can't you remove it then? I would say yes, provided it is a really short edit you are removing (and explaining why). But, what if you come over a fairly long paragraph, clearly the labour of love of some other editor who have worked really hard to substantiate it, but that you think is too off-topic? Wouldn't it be rather harsh to play the hatchet man here? I will make a concrete specification, relative to Sati (practice) Suppose you or I one day open that article, and someone has made a really conscientous, somewhat longish section of what he feels is a similar ritual from another culture, but, when we read closer is about burning after death, rather than burning alive.

Should we just strike it? Here's one alternate technique: See if a page already exists on that practice (or that culture), and see if you can TRANSPLANT that editor's work onto that page. Another "mild" alternative is to open up a new subsection on Sati (practice) calling it something like "Other funeral practices involving burning".

Although neither you or I perhaps want a single case of dead-wife burning on Sati (practice), we cannot play the monopolists on edits. I, for one, would like to have removed from the present article the reference to Ibn Fadlan, since it only really is about a horrendous case of stabbing a slave girl to death prior to throwing her body on the funeral pyre of her master. But, I have deliberately chosen NOT to remove that account, because it is extremely well-known, always cropping up in discourses relative to human sacrifice and joint funeral burnings (alive). Instead, I chose to add explicitly that this isn't really about burning anybody alive. Now, that's quite a wall of text I've made, and it really is just to show you how I think; do not, as such, feel obliged to regard this as advice to you for editing, but mostly as a window into my mentality upon the issue of removing text that is reliably sourced. Cheers!Arildnordby (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

On too old charge. Relative to me, and some others, I have seen that you think that simply declaring something to be "too old", then it MUST be unreliable, and can be removed outright. Now, I think, Bladesmulti, that your basic motive here is laudable, in a distinct preference to keep Wikipedia UPDATED. But, you can enter into pitfalls here as well, and come across as rather frustrating. For example, English specialists in the 18th and early 19th century had as large understanding of 18th century French language as any similar English specialist today ever will have. What THAT means, is that you cannot simply say that an English translation of Voltaire from 1824 as "too old" in showing a particular point of what Voltaire wrote. There is no reason to suppose that a modernized edition of Voltaire will contradict that older, available translation on that particular point! You most definitely should chuck out the old edition as redundant, if you have access to a modern edition, using that edition as the preferred reference. But, you shouldn't throw out what is quoted by the 1824 edition with declaration of it as "too old".

To take another hypothetical example, concerning Roman history. The 18th century historian Edward Gibbon and the 19th century historian Theodor Mommsen are historical superguys, whose immense output remains relevant framework to many nowadays working historians. Does that mean you can't oppose to some editor who thinks Gibbon's or Mommsen's opinions on the forces and dynamics guiding Roman history still are top-notch? Of course not! But: If, for example, the only reason why the editor included Gibbon was as being an access to a particular fact in Roman history (which is distinct from accessing Gibbon for Gibbon's views and interpretations), then Gibbon is NOT, in general "too old"; because he had mastery and command of practically ALL AVAILABLE, PRINCIPAL SOURCES modern historians work with today. And, most definitely, Gibbon knew Latin as well as any historian working today, so he doesn't misunderstand the basic texts and primary sources, even if his ideas and historical models on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire cannot be regarded as authoritative today. The LAST point (Gibbon's model of society as "Truth", for example that the emergence of Christianity was a driving force behind the decline) is something you definitely should oppose to, not the excerpts and facts he brings onto the table. See the difference?

If not, I'll proffer a specific example. The "old" Roman punishment of poena cullei for those who killed their parents typically consisted of tying the guy into a leather sack with a few live animals as well (for example a viper, cock, dog and monkey), and then throw the sack onto the sea, with a few other attested ritualistic details in this gruesome execution mode. Now, Mommsen has an excellent, concise description of these attested ritualistic details in his 1899 Römisches Strafrecht; his description is STILL what many modern scholars refer to for "interested readers". Thus, adding Mommsen (1899) as a reference for those details is perfectly in order. What is NOT, however, in order, is to merely cite Mommsen's view on the evolution of this practice. Mommsen thought that this had to be an age old ritual, from the very beginning of Roman times, but modern historians often dispute that, saying the fulll ritual described by Mommsen was a fairly recent invention, and inconsistently applied as well. THAT modern view is the one that should predominate Wikipedia discussion, NOT Mommsen's static, age old idea. But, this doesn't make Mommsen's enumeration of attested ritual detail into an outdated reference (it is not)

There is another point on why an editor would include a quote on Gibbon, namely that aesthetically, Gibbon's writing is extremely entertaining, and beautifully written. That an editor has included a beautiful passage from Gibbon shouldn't mean you automatically reach for the hatchet, but you remain FULLY ENTITLED to make, say, an introductory passage like this: "The renowned 18th century historian Edward Gibbon made his own personal view on the matter in the following manner" (Gibbon quote following).

HERE, with such an explicit caveat from YOU, you are basically saying (don't take Gibbon as your major authority, but enjoy him for his ability to give shape to his views in a beautiful manner). Wikipedia should ALSO include diverting, beautiful language notable for its aesthetic worth, but be strict hard on explaining when this cannot be regarded as, for example, current consenus on the dynamics within the decline of the Roman Empire. I hope you see that also a "too old" charge is something you need to think carefully about, before you pull it out of your sleeve. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

How to improve "really old" references. Suppose an editor seems to regard a description from the 17th century as the unvarnished truth, introducing the description like "how it really was done is described by Mr.A like this" (quote following). Here, that editor has made a MISTAKE in making an age old description into the Truth And Nothing But The Truth, and you are totally WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS, for example, to REWRITE that introduction to "According to an alleged eyewitness report by Mr.A, it happened like this".

Here you make an EXPRESS intial reservation on the full reliability of the source used (words like "alleged" are really useful!!), but at the same time, you are open to reach consensus with the previous editor that his included description has notable worth, but ONLY if we have your included reservation that this might a better illustration of how people reported (and possibly, distorted) on an actual practice, rather than being a faithful Godstrue description of the practice.Arildnordby (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, obviously, you definitely SHOULD remove long, "too old" referenced paragraps. Suppose you find a modern reference that DISTINCTLY says that particular source is unreliable. THEN, it is not only right to remove it, but required of either you or me discovering this. BUT, here make an edit summary (unreliable source, see talk page for modern refs). With the follow-up on Talk Page why the passage should be stricken, complaining editors have now the burden of proof to come up with improved sources for their claims.Arildnordby (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As a last point, never feel any compunction against adding a tag like Better Source to what you think is really outdated. You can use the "reason=" parameter to explain your reason. NOW, having added at one stage the "better source" tag, you are in a lot better position LATER ON to remove the paragraph if no editor rises to your challenge. THEN, remove it, and your two-step editing behaviour cannot in any way be regarded as disruptive, as long as you have made the tagging properly, expressing your reson clearly.Arildnordby (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And to make matters perfectly clear: I stand by my apologies I gave to you in a previous debacle. Those were entirely required. Furthermore, although somewhat harsh, your revert from Death by burning concerning sati, on basis that I just duplicated the material from Sati (practice) (i.e, content forking) was entirely justified by you. That was a GOOD edit from your side, that I, unwarrantedly, got pissed off about.Arildnordby (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Arildnordby, you are helping permanently resolve these disputes by your good-faith actions. It's appreciated. We already have three co-mentors, so maybe adding one more would be too many cooks in the kitchen? But if you think it will help, you are welcome to join us on the mentorship page.

  Or if you would rather, maybe you can keep the articles that led up the AN/I on your watchlist? It sounds like some of the content-opponents are taking advantage of Bladesmulti's five-edit-per-day limit, and deleting reliably sourced material from mainspace, rumour has it. Anons like myself cannot have watchlists, or I would help with that effort myself. Bladesmulti, if you see anything like that, please leave a note here on your talkpage and I will look into the matter. Thanks to you both. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is unwarranted for me to mess up as an additional mentor. But, I felt the need to explain in some more detail to Bladesmulti the principal two points that had annoyed me, i.e a) trigger-happiness in reverts on reliable sources and b) A too simplistic charge of "oldness". I am done with my "advice" here, but I felt it incumbent and deserving to Bladesmulti not just to lodge complaints against him, but clarifying my own position. That I have done, with probably a bit too huge wall of text. Mea culpa on that as well! I'll keep a running check on pages both Bladesmulti and I have an interest in.Arildnordby (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you would not mess anything up, you would help out. And besides, we existing co-mentors can mess things up all by ourselves, no problem.  ;-)   Heck, just *me* messing things up is normal, I do it all the time. But that is the advantage of wikipedia, the special feature which makes it one of the top ten websites in the known universe — if one of us makes a mess of something, the other wikipedians help out. People become wikipedians *because* they care, and want to improve things. That is a huge advantage. It makes this a good place.

  p.s. Yes, you created a pretty bit WP:WALLOFTEXT here. But it was very readable, and compared to me, you keep things short & sweet, right to the point.  :-)   Sometimes complex issues require more than a few words, I've found. However, I've also found they can be summarized at the end. #1. Don't delete Reliably-Sourced sentences, remember that reverting is a challenge which should only be made when necessary. #2. Notability is not temporary, and the *history* of what Reliable Sources have said over time, is something worth keeping. We keep information about old ideas, and we keep information from old sources, because we want the readership to know the whold story. Ideas are a deep tapestry, and wikipedia is for the ages, not just for today. Thanks for improving wikipedia Arildnordby, it's appreciated. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Than you for your kind words, 74. Personally, I feel that on the issue of Reliable Sources, on Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources, the topic and problematization of old sources could be a benefit to expand upon within the guidelines of Wikipedia. For example, for LOTS of local city studies, the principal source may well still be some work composed by the city archivist back from the 19th century. The reason for why not modern historians can't be accessed on that particular city/town, is just that there have been a shift in research interest, rather than that modern historians regard the work as un-reliable. But, that work might contain gems illustrative, as a local variant something still valuable to be read at Wikipedia today. Hence, as I see it, an encouragement for editors on old sources (but where the author clearly was a professional archivist or historian) is to add labels of the type "better source needed" or "old source", rather than reach for the hatchet and delete content just because it isn't 21st century (there existed intelligent, critical people before our times as well, who MUST be regarded as having been capable of meeting Verifiability criteria today!). Those editors today who utilize some old sources must accept that other editors "contaminates" their contributions with say an "old source" flag, but in many cases, they should not simply accept deletion of their included material. A typical example happened just today at Execution by Eeephant where an extract from (what happens to be still the standard translation, from 1856) 12th century Petachiah of Ratisbon on the practice was deleted. I assume good faith on the reverting editor's behalf, but his removal was unexplained (presumably because he thought 1856 was "too old"). It was not my prior edit that was deleted by him, nor did I revert him. But, I've seen these types of good faith, but simplistic edits of the type "old is ALWAYS bad&unreliable" rather often, and I think the pages on Wikipedia concerning verifiability and source handling could benefit to a discussion of this particular sub-topic.Arildnordby (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Reason for posting here than elsewhere, is that Bladesmulti seems to have a bit of the same good faith, but somewhat simplistic view on "old sources". Such edits should principally be thought of as good faith, I think, rather than vandalism. But, Wikipedia ought to develop more clear guidelines on this particular sub-topic, so that editors see how they ought to reflect, and behave, relative to what THEY feel is "too old" material.Arildnordby (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

checking checked WP:PUPPET info

Extended content

Somebody has opened the WP:SPI request now. This is nothing to worry about. It will take some time to finish. We have to wait for a very special sysadmin called a checkuser. These special administrators can see "inside" the usernames, and find out the truth, usually. They try to make sure each human, has exactly one username. You can watch here — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bladesmulti If you need to make a comment, and you have used up your five comments for the UTC_day, then you should make your comment right here at User_talk:Bladesmulti. You can send a message to one of your mentors to help you post your comment — they will help you write it in clear plain words. But my advice is not to worry about the SPI and the special checkuser administrator. They will do their best. They will be very fair. They are very careful people. In the meantime, you can work on answering your lessons, please. Do you have some thoughts on lesson three? Put them in the mentorship-page, please, and I will see how you are progressing. It is okay to be incorrect, or if you do not understand. The policy-pages are long. Best way forward, is for you to tell me what you see already, right now. Then I can guide you to the correct path. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Dougweller left me a helpful note. They wanted to be sure you understood. You can leave a comment at the checkuser-page,[2] if you want to. You do not have to. But you can if you want to. Hope this helps.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Case closed because there was no evidence of any mis-use. No evidence of multiple usernames by one single person, just evidence that more than one person lives in India. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

If you don't like the pictures, you should remove them of course. User:Hafspajen infected me (and now I've pinged him, so expect a Zoo to open here ). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

wikiJustice

Hello Bladesmulti, this is 74.  :-)

1th+2th+3th	~70 edits/day
4th+5th+6th	~55 edits/day
7th+8th+9th	~40 edits/day
10th+11th+12th	~55 edits/day
13th+14th+15th	~40 edits/day
16th+17th+18th	~55 edits/day
19th+20th+21th	~150 edits/day
22th+23th+24th	~140 edits/day
25th+26th+28th	~130 edits/day (AN/I thread started on 26th; skipping 27th)
29th	9 edits/day
30th	2 edits/day
31th	(???) edits/day

This is your table of effort in 2014. It is very impressive! You are helping wikipedia a lot. You are averaging 74 edits per day, so far in 2014. (My favorite number. :-)   That is better than me. I only make about 16 edits per day. You are about five times more important than me, for improving and maintaining wikipedia. Of course, even just one small edit, if done well, can change everything. When I became your mentor, it only took three edits. I asked you if you wanted a mentor, you said yes, and then I posted that you had accepted a mentor, over at the AN/I noticeboard. Suddenly, people who were angry, people who thought you would have to be banned because they did not know what else to do, became happy again. They were happy, because now there was a way to make wikipedia better, with no people being banned. That is always a good thing.

  But I think, that maybe, right now you are not very happy, Bladesmulti. Is this true? Are you unhappy? Maybe because you feel bad about the checkuser investigation? Or maybe because you feel like too many people are watching you now? You made 9 edits on the 29th, which was good. But only two edits on the 30th. That is not as many as you usually make. There are many questions on your mentorship-page, some of which have not been answered yet.

  There is no WP:DEADLINE here on wikipedia. You do not need to feel rushed. You are not WP:REQUIRED to make lots of edits, like you usually do. But it will help wikipedia if you can make edits. And I know you like helping wikipedia. Also, it will help *me* if you make more edits, especially on the mentorship page. I have given you some hard lessons to think about. But I cannot read your mind. You have to tell me your thoughts. Do the lessons make sense? I can explain them, if you will tell me where to start. Are you worried that only you have some co-mentors to help you, and the other people at the AN/I thread did not get any co-mentors? Do not worry. The wheels of wikiJustice grind slow, but they grind very fine. That means that it might not be today, it might not be tomorrow, but someday people who do not behave correctly will be corrected.

  You should just focus on your own self. You have been acting very maturely, which is good. You have been going slow, as we asked you to do, which I know is hard for you. That is also good. I would like to increase the number of edits you are allowed to make. Right now it is 5 edits per day. Probably it should be increased to 10 edits per day: you have been very good since I became your mentor. But it will help me, if you can give me more feedback. Tell me what you are thinking. Is the mentoring not to your liking? Do you want another mentor, a different person? That is no problem, I will not be offended. Do you want to change the way mentoring works? That is no problem, tell me your ideas.

  If you are just busy, with tasks in real life, and that is why you are not making more wikipedia edits, that is completely okay. You do not have to make lots of edits. I can wait, until you are ready. But if you are not making edits, like you usually do, because you are sad about something, then please tell me. Maybe I can fix it. I have mentor super-powers that can correct some kinds of problems.  :-)   Okay, not really. I don't have super-powers like batman. But I will try hard to help you. Please give me your thoughts on these matters. Thanks as always, for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Man, do you never sleep? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Man, do you never sleep? You keep us up all night - fascinated - just to watch how you perform, 74. Hafspajen (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Man, that is not me!  :-)   The table is Bladesmulti, who performs many edits. I just create LARGE edits.  ;-) Hafspajen fears me, and hides amongst the imagefiles. But I find out where, and then it is too late. Whack! Another wall of text. The moral of the story: Hafspajen cannot escape! So ends the reading. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fish - it suddenly dawns on me what's been going on. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow.. I made 150 edits sometimes? I remember, during sept, august, etc. Couldn't even make 5 edits whole day, even after reading massive amount of books. I would love this table to be updated everyday. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Playing puppy

Bhairava with his dog.

You've got an incredible speed - that's also a reason why so incredible many persons showed up to comment on you, I think. It's also a reason why I thought you might be a sockpuppet: so many edits for a newby. And it earned you credits: someone who edits so much, on so many topics, must be an intelligent person (the clashes I ascribe to your enthusiams, as you've noticed. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Dougweller had good point, that it took me a while to understand wiki rules. For example, I really didn't even know about AFD and Speedy Deletion, I messed them before[3]. And it was advised by one user aroundUser_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#Explanation that

"you should added your edited artiles into your watchlist." So that I can see if they have been edited by others or not. Added almost all articles to watchlist. And certainly many of them were improved everyday, as well as edited by other users. Also, there is no problem with dogs to me. See Dogs in religion, interesting. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Watchlist function is really nice, our best tool, I think, to see that in overall (but obviously not always), Wikipedia articles progress in quality. I see that Dogs in religion does not mention the old Roman festival, where they impaled a dog alive on an elderberry branch, and carried it about in procession. Possibly, I'll add a note on that..:-)Arildnordby (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A question on widow sacrifice, as per Shastri, Encyclopedia Indica, p.200-204

Hi, Bladesmulti! I post my concern here relative to an assertion based on Shastri, Encyclopedia Indica, in assertions on other cultures' widow-burning. I believe you have direct access to Shastri, and the claim: " it was followed by the ancient Egyptians, Thracians, Scythians, Scandinavians, Chinese,[8] as well as people of Oceania and Africa"

Posting here, rather than at the talk page of Sati (practice) is that you can make unlimited edits here

My concern is that when I have searched, I sure get in some works that general list, but sometimes, it concerns "widow self-sacrifice" in general, not, specifically, burning alive of the widows.

In some cases, the Ibn Fadlan account has been mentioned, but that's just plain wrong, since the sacrificed slave girl was stabbed to death prior to being burnt, and when I have searched some other specifics, suddenly phrases like these "buried alive", "burnt after death", "hanged herself at her husband's mound" and so on turn up.

That is, I feel that many of the imputed cases of sati similarity is really, more general attested cases of widow self-sacrifice, not that of burning alive.

My question to you is therefore: Do you have Encyclopedia Indica, can you check p.200-204 and see if it comes up with a few specific cases of widow sacrifice by live burning elsewhere attested?

I think it is perfectly right to include some mention of general widow sacrifice in context of sati, but if it isn't burning alive we are talking about, the reader of Wikipedia should not get confused on that issue.

Agreed?

Arildnordby (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If Ibn Fadlan compares 2 things, it can be notable. Because this is not only about burning of, but also burying of. If burning involved the will of burned one, it has to be mentioned. But there was no will of the victim, it should be added as well. Many of these, such as australians, africans, etc, wrote down the history after a while. It is hard to find their accounts. But they makes it clear enough that they had similar incidences, due to the wars, whether they were waged by foreigners or their own people. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I am not saying we shouldn't briefly mention cases where the widow self-sacrifice was in the type of burial alive, say (that's a sub-tradition within Hinduism as well). I also agree with you that a principal focus should be that of self-sacrifice, rather than traditions of forced killing of the widow. As for Ibn Fadlan, the selection for which girl should be chosen was one of question: If a slave girl said "I will!", she was selected (but afterwards guarded so she couldn't escape her fate if she should change her mind). That last facet should possibly be included when mentioning Fadlan??

My question to you was: What specific traditions does Shastri mention? Or does Shastri simply produce a list, without specifics, of those cultures that are "said" to have done something similar?

Do you see what I try to differentiate between?Arildnordby (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

JUst to be clear. I'm not really interested in removing any of the mentioned cultures; I just want to see what details Shastri has on them. I have added, for example a precise analogy from Greek mythology of a wife who throws herself on the funeral pyre of her husband. If I find similar incidents, or the ability to expand those already mentioned, I might do so, as long as the section does not become overly long..:-)Arildnordby (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sashi had got those lines from other book, who he has mentioned, they are reliable source. I will look about it, let you know as well, or I will add just more sources to that statement, making it strengthened by multiple sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'll show you one particular custom, that of Thracians. This comes from the Greek author Herodot, who writes the following:

Each has several wives. When the husband dies, a great contest arises amongst them, together with a violent stir upon the subject amongst the deceased's friends, as to which of the wives was most beloved by him. She who is adjudged to have enjoyed this honour, is adorned by the men and women, and sacrificed by her nearest relation on the tomb of her husband, with whom she is then buried; the other wives considering this as a great misfortune to them, for they hold it to be the highest disgrace to survive

Note that this is most definitely a description of voluntary self-sacrifice of a particular widow, but it is certainly not a burning alive

Do you see my point?Arildnordby (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And, just to make it clear. In Carolyn Dewald's 2008 translation, it is expressly said the wife's throat was slit by the relative, not burned: The Histories. And no, we do not have ANY other scriptural sources on the Thracians than what Herodotus has told us, relative to widow sacrifice.Arildnordby (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Herodotus is also our source on the burial customs of the Scythians. In this case, when a king dies, one of his concubines is throttled, and buried with him (other attendants also killed, none burned).p.258 Do you see why I raise these issuesArildnordby (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thus, I really would like to hear. Does Sashi say that Thracians and Scythians a) burned alive widows/concubines, b) did something similar to wife-burning, OR c) performed widow sacrifice?Arildnordby (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Got no access to his books anymore. It is very huge, a state library can help though. I hope I will gain its access someday. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's sad. If what he says exactly is b) and c), then he cannot be said to have been incorrect in saying so. a) on the other hand, is wrong, for Scythians and Thracians (but NOT for Chinese, where burning alive happened). I think the list of other cultures is STILL valuable, but we need to find specialist reliable literature on each of them, to know exactly what ritual is referred to. Agreed?Arildnordby (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And a separate article too. Even small articles are informative sometimes. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Even though a now non-existent main article Widow sacrifice starts out in the small, it will be of benefit. Although I think the topic is potentially much huger in geographical spread than Sati, it can start out in the small, anyway! :-). I will start to collect sources on how to make an improved comparison section on Sati (practice), though; such a subsection is really justified to include within it.Arildnordby (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pages of interest

Note: If there are some particular pages Bladesmulti feels now are becoming skewed away from his own good faith edits, please let me note which pages he want to get a well-minded watcher on, in particular looking at reverts of Bladesmulti's edits.Arildnordby (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me, after some rough checking, that the page created by Bladesmulti, Persecution of Traditional African Religion is one undergoing major reconstruction away from his views. But, it would be nice to hear from Bladesmulti if that is one of the pages he is particularly dissatisfied how evolves.Arildnordby (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, slight clarification so Bladesmulti does not become confused, the question is not whether a page matches Bladesmulti's view. It is not supposed to work that way. The question is whether WP:NPOV is being followed, pillar two, right? Right. So this is a good time to do the mentorship thing, and explain the pillars.  :-)   Bladesmulti already knows them, but as their co-mentor, maybe I can illuminate them pillars in a different light today.

the five pillars , a koan for Bladesmulti to ponder

NPOV means "neutral point-of-view" but it is more than that: it means that our articles are supposed to fairly reflect what the Reliable Sources say, in a neutrally-written just-the-facts prose. Wikipedia is built on pillar two; without the clear definition of how to achieve neutrality as embodied in pillar two (just mirror the sources), there would be no hope for the WP:NICE of pillar four, because wikipedia would become battling-viewpoints. That is not what wikipedia is about. See also WP:NOTFACTIONS and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and also WP:NOTFORUM.   There are plenty of places on the internet to engage in debate about WP:The_Truth, and to go on a crusade to WP:RGW. But wikipedia is not one of them! This is a lesson that Bladesmulti is learning, but we must also teach that lesson to the content-opponents. That goes especially for those who are relative beginners, like StuffandTruth, but also for those who have been around a long time (but may have become frustrated and forgotten). The only way to avoid angry noticeboard-threads is to explain what the pillars mean.   Pillar three: the *readership* owns the pages we work on here. Pillar one: no fighting allowed, just work on improving the encyclopedia. Pillar four: no being mean to each other. Pillar two: tells us how to build the encyclopedia, without fighting, and without being mean to each other. Pillar five: those four things are all you need to succeed. NPOV means sticking to what the sources say: just the facts, because facts are neutral.   Doing it that way means, instead of fighting to WP:PUSH our own viewpoint, or to WP:9STEPS the people that disagree with us, we can instead work together. We can work on finding Reliable Sources. We can work on writing neutral prose that reflects the facts in those Reliable Sources. We can work on creating new articles that are wikiNotable in the wikiReliable Sources, and we can work on improving existing articles with wikiNoteworthy facts from wikiReliable Sources. *That* sort of editing is collaborative, rather than confrontational.

  Best of all, that sort of editing makes wikipedia more fun, because instead of only *one* side winning... there are suddenly no sides anymore. Everyone is on the side of the readers, an of each other, and of the five pillars. A big relief, with less wikiStress, and less edit-warring, and so on. There will still be *some* stress, with new people that have not yet learned the way of beboldo and the five pillars. There are also good long-term contributors like Bladesmulti, who will sometimes be frustrated from time to time, just like all of us! That is okay.

  Bladesmulti can probably tell us more, but at the moment, there are some content-disputes going on at Pantheism, Carvaka, and maybe Voltaire#Islam. We can find out what articles are likely-slash-historical hotspots, with the editor interaction wiki-tool. Here are articles where Bladesmulti has been active, and where other people specifically mentioned in the AN/I thread and/or the SPI were also active:

http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?user1=Bladesmulti&user2=OccultZone&user3=hkelkar&user4=indiasummer95&user5=74.192.84.101&user6=StuffandTruth&user7=Itsmejudith&user8=Dougweller&user9=NaturaNaturans&user10=The_Rahul_Jain&ns=none&startdate=&enddate=

1. Bladesmulti 215 hits + Dougweller 265 hits + The Rahul Jain 23 hits, userpages == User talk:Bladesmulti, User talk:Joshua Jonathan, User talk:Abecedare, User talk:Dougweller, User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom,
2. Bladesmulti 182 hits + Itsmejudith 1419 hits + Dougweller 325 hits + Hkelkar 104 hits + StuffandTruth 63 hits + The Rahul Jain 46 hits, dramaboards == WP:RSN, WP:ANI, WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics, WP:FTN, WP:ANEW, WP:DRN,
3. Bladesmulti 153 hits + Itsmejudith 18 hits, Voltaire#Islam, Talk:Voltaire, Criticism of Islam,
4. Bladesmulti 142 hits + The Rahul Jain 303 hits + Itsmejudith 12 hits, Criticism of Jainism, Talk:Criticism of Jainism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Jainism, Jainism and Hinduism, Talk:Jainism and Hinduism,
5. Bladesmulti 140 hits + Hkelkar 104 hits + StuffandTruth 45 hits + Dougweller 5 hits, Hinduism, Talk:Hinduism, Persecution of Hindus, Talk:Persecution of Hindus, Criticism of Hinduism,
6. Bladesmulti 98 hits + NaturaNaturans 370 hits, Pantheism, Talk:Pantheism, List of pantheists, Talk:List of pantheists,
7. Bladesmulti 83 hits + Dougweller 20 hits + The Rahul Jain 14 hits, Shiva, Shivaji, Karma,
8. Bladesmulti 57 hits + Dougweller 5 hits, Human sacrifice, Talk:Human sacrifice,
9. Bladesmulti 55 hits + Hkelkar 64 hits + The Rahul Jain 33 hits, India, Talk:India,
10. Bladesmulti 31 hits + The Rahul Jain 4 hits, Dharmacakra, Talk:Dharmacakra
11. Bladesmulti 28 hits + OccultZone 42 hits + Itsmejudith 5 hits, Sati (practice),
12. Bladesmulti 18 hits + Dougweller 1 hit, Caste system among Indian Christians,

There may be other pages which matter (and other people that matter... e.g. Paul Barton would not fit into the wiki-tool because only ten names are allowed), and some of these pages may be *resolved* disputes already. The usernames here are included by the computer, based on who was working on the articles at about the same time. Some of the people will share the position of Bladesmulti in content-disputes, and some will not. But the point of this list is it will give you some good places to start. Hopes this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a bit of a problem with using the tool this way. For instance, my edits to Shivaji so far as I know weren't related to Bladesmulti edits. The tool only shows that editors edited the same pages, not that their edits were related in any way. This particularly applies to noticeboards. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if there was a better tool I would definitely love to use it. This is just the "interaction tool" which is, as you point out is highly flawed. All that it says, is that you and Bladesmulti edited the article within some timeframe... and yes, usually may not have *actually* interacted with each other, any more than an aircraft flying over California and a car driving in California at the same hour have "interacted". (That was also the point of my list-o-caveats at the bottom; the list is just a place to get started looking for disputes, i.e. articles of potential interest, and is not a list of disputants.) What I'd really like to see is some kind of wiki-tool that gave me a list of factions in the hot-zones; your behavior at the noticeboards was solid, but to my eyes there are definitely editors trying to take advantage of Bladesmulti's situation to WP:WIN.

  The only flaw I would point out, about your otherwise-strong work Doug, is that you (like many other folks on the FTN board so this is not a criticism of you personally) are very happy to outright delete WP:RS when you judge them factually incorrect, e.g. your comments about the BBC 'rarely' being lowercase-reliable over at Talk:Pantheism (15:48, 29 Jan). This is bad; it sends very much the wrong message to The Rahul Jain, and to Bladesmulti, that any source they *decide* is not "relevant" can simply be deleted. Do you see where I'm coming from here? I don't want *any* editors picking and choosing which WP:RS are WP:The_Truth. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Important restatement of NPOV as rock pillar, 74. BUT, Bladesmulti can feel that some of those edits HE made were actually furthering NPOV, and that his aim in adding refs was to bolster that. Or, that there were cases were he really thought he had made a good, fair representation in HIS OWN WORDS, but that was unaccountably deleted. That latter point, that an editor has worked hard to make a good presentation, and his own words are just deleted (whether or not skewing of content follows) is also as I see it, a legitimate source of frustration ("why are your formulation so much better than mine??" is, I think, many times, a legitimate complaint.) Those were the issues I thought would be beneficial to watch over for Bladesmulti, and if I agree with a new edit, give my reasons explicitly here at Bladesmulti's talk page.17:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, and thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Users, that I had interacted, more than any of these(excluding dougweller) are Abecedare[4], Sitush[5], regentspark[6], Joshua Jonathan[7]. No edit warring or content dispute though. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What about articles? Are there other articles where you were involved with revert / un-revert / re-revert / un-un-revert / re-re-revert during the last couple months? The content-disputes are the main places where you will learn lessons from your co-mentors. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

None really, other than the 2 or 1 that you already know. Voltaire especially. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

policy-lesson six, on pillar three

Hello Bladesmulti, I was looking at your userpage, and saw this article:

• "Saat Phere (not basically, but technically)"

Most of the information was originally in an article called Satphere, which is now a redirect to Saat Phere. Here is what the existing content looked like.[8] As you can see from the edit-history[9] the material was created by Ankit23patel. But those names are not shown, over here.[10] (See also this intermediate page.[11]) The television series with the same name as the ritual, is now at Saat_Phere_-_Saloni_Ka_Safar.

  There are two problems here. The first problem is that you did not actually create the article Saat Phere, you just renamed it. That is why you said "not basically" since the article-content was created by other editors. Technically, you *did* create the current URL *name* of the article, but that is not enough reason to put it on your userpage as an article you created.  :-)   If you want, you can make a section of your userpage called Redirects I have created for things like Saat Phere. I myself am the proud creator of semolina durum, although my name is not shown in the edit-history.

  The second problem is a potential legal problem. It is important to give credit to editors. That is part of pillar four: WP:NICE says that we should say who really created the content of Saat Phere. However, there is also pillar three: wikipedia is information for everybody because we use a very special copyright-license. This license was invented by Richard Stallman, one of the great computer hackers (in the morally-good meaning of that word — the old school meaning). It is called the GFDL. Recently, wikipedia has also been using CC-BY-SA v3 licensing, which is functionally similar to the GFDL, but requires slightly less problems in terms of copying small portions of wikipedia.

  So what is the second problem? Basically, the only way that wikipedia's special copyright license works properly, is if we make sure that we keep track of who is contributing content to the encyclopedia. That means that we have to have one person per username, so that those people can contribute content under their own legal consent. (That is a surprising additional reason behind policy-lesson three!) However, another thing that wikipedians have to be careful with, is not to accidentally delete the edit-history. You have accidentally deleted the edit-history of Saat Phere, because the usernames in the old edit-history are missing now.

  The fix for this second problem is called a history-merge. It requires special powers, only an administrator can make it happen. There is a special tag to add to the new Saat Phere article, at the very bottom. An administrator will see this tag, and fix the problem for us.

{{Histmerge|Satphere}}

Here is an example of how to use the tag.[12] You can read about the instructions for the tag too, if you like. {{Histmerge}}, over here. Does this make sense? It will give credit to the other writers. That is important for moral reasons, and also for legal reasons. See pillar three. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was surprising that I got the credit, didn't knew how it was possible until I read this reply from you. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, can you put the tag in, please? So that the history will get merged? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I would value your ideas on Articles for deletion, Anumarana, Bladesmulti!

Hi, Bladesmulti! By consideration of a) the sources presented (not good!) b) scholarly understanding of Anumarana (and original misunderstanding), c) general criteria for notability, d) inclusion within Sati (practice) for noteworthy points, I have nominated Anumarana as worthy for deletion at Wikipedia.

I would really like to hear your personal views on this particular matter, feel free to use your own Talk Page here, if you think that separate article ought to be kept!!Arildnordby (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Much more material have appeared, in particular a number of cases on anumarana as retainer sacrifice. I have therefore changed my mind at this, thanks for your very relevant comments at a stage when that additional information was not present in a practical form.Arildnordby (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the details of ANI close

Bladesmulti, I have closed the ANI filing against you here. As noted, it is recommended that you make no further edits to the project until you have found a sufficient mentor. Please be advised that even during mentorship, your actions could still lead to a block, as mentorship is not a protective measure. Please let me know if you have any questions about the close ES&L 12:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

He's found three mentors, actuall; I'm one of them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi ES, there are 3 mentors I think, see User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship. And obviously there is no protective measure in Wikipedia for getting rid from block. Correct? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I did review that page, and appreciate that you have moved forward with mentoring. As the ANI was being formally closed, I wanted to ensure it was highlighted here. And correct - there's no such thing as immunity from blocks. Take care ES&L 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm still in the co-mentoring business as well. I'm a bit more lazy than JJ and Bladesmulti though.  :-)   ES&L, the way that the mentorship got started was by Bladesmulti's willingness to edit slowly enough, that the co-mentors could try and keep upt. Currently the 'official' rule is that Bladesmulti should not edit more than 5 edits per day, outside their own userspace, and my own talkpage. I was planning on reviewing their editing-history for the past 24 hours, and if it was adequate, loosening the reins a little to 10 all-purpose edits per day (plus unlimited in their userspace-region as before). However, in your close you specify that you recommend Bladesmulti "make no further edits to the project until they have found and begun a proper mentoring program." Bladesmulti is currently in a mentoring program, though I would stop short of dubbing it proper in the victorian sense. EatsShootsAndLeaves, do you prefer Bladesmulti not directly edit mainspace, just yet, given their edit-history since Jan 29th?

  p.s. As for your other main point ES&L, that is a good one to make, hard and firm, tough but fair. Bladesmulti should be very clear on this idea. Bladesmulti was within a hair of being blocked. Such a block may still happen! Time to be very cautious, and learn carefully from Corinne, JJ, and the rest of the helpful people. Stay very serene at all times. Assume good faith at all times. Of course, if the block happens, it is not the end of the world; I have experience getting people unblocked. Blocks keep wikipedia safe, from problems and from conflict; blocks are not a punishment. Blocks are like a suit of armor, for defending the encyclopedia, from anger. Still, better for nobody to get angry in the first place!  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

10 edits? I'm already busy enough with 5, if I also want to do some editing just for fun end keep my fans at bay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we would only review the first five edits on other pages (statistical sampling rather than brute-force quality assessment). Which I have been lax, in helping out, recently. I would still try to read them all, though, and point out problems as I saw them. But above, EatsShootsAndLeaves suggested Bladesmulti make no further edits, and I'm making sure 5 is okay with ES&L.  :-)   Co-mentors will discuss the count before bumping it up, however. No worries on that score. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The current process appears ok for about 1/3 of what Blades (was going to shorten to BM, but that has a different meaning altogether) needs to be working on - and that's content/sourcing/etc from what I can see. The second third should be around pre-positioning regarding community expectations, behaviour, and where togo for help; the final third should have Blades fully explaining CIVIL/NPA/DR and exactly how they plan to respond to future issues, challenges to their edits, and "angry moments". ES&L 11:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite some work to do... Thanks for the feedback. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed ES, Thanks for your advise once again. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

New lesson

To expand a bit....

Part 1A == what is a wikiReliable Source

Part 1B == how to *grammatically* summarize WP:RS

Part 1C == how to find a helper if the source is complicated

Part 1D == how to stay NPOV and avoid WP:EDITORIALIZING

Part 2A == what is an edit-war

Part 2B == how does WP:BRD work

Part 2C == is removing WP:RS okay

Part 2D == how to solve content-disputes collaboratively

Part 3A == how to stay serene in general

Part 3B == how to stay serene when disagreeing with others

Part 3C == how to stay serene when attacked by others

Part 3D == how to stay serene at noticeboards

Part 3E == how to stay serene when mainspace is wrong

Part 4X == WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, WP:DEADLINE, WP:-D, and other useful things

By my calculations we are at part 1B, grammar. Bladesmulti needs to practice the following steps.

i) Bladesmulti finds a WP:RS

ii) Bladesmulti writes a sentence summarizing the source.

iii) co-mentors give advice on grammar.

iv) Bladesmulti re-writes the sentence (with improvements).

The last step, is the key. Re-writing with improvements is the practice-sessions that will help us find where Bladesmulti is strongest. Re-writing with improvements will show the co-mentors where Bladesmulti needs to ask for a boost. At first the co-mentors will provide the boost, but later, Bladesmulti can get a boost at the Teahouse / RefDesk / HelpDesk / GoCE / similar. Right now, though, Bladesmulti is not doing any re-writing.

  Bladesmulti now listens to advice, which is good. But it is necessary for Bladesmulti to listen to advice, and then show that the advice was understood. This means, Bladesmulti must re-write the sentences (with help!), until the co-mentors approve the grammar in the sentences. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Very nice 74, I don't want to make any noise, but there are some issues, with multiple pages, they need attention. I have sources, and reason. But next user won't agree at all! I find this one quiet hard, it is not like that I am disagreed by others on these pages, no. But particular user. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Hinduism and Judaism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hinduism and Judaism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and Judaism (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello blade i have a very important wiki page for you to create!

Relax!

No write up on Wikipedia about The Bhartiya scripture!

The Bhartiya scriptures Is like a thousands rivers all meeting into one ocean, this is the concept of The Bhartiya scripture, the vedas represent one of the rivers.

I've noticed that yogas history is slowly being broken away from Hinduism due to westerners using this name vedic which personify the vedas as the Only bulk tradition of hinduism, in this way indian culture starts to gain holes in history and age, Bhartiya scripture is The indus culture blended with vedic culture, this is why hinduism is both classed as Dravidian & vedic.

When you do this we can link the "Bhartiya scripture" into the hinduism page, This will be used to help sow up patches which have opened up in wikipedia, all vedic means is a person who study's vedas, this is of course no representation of hinduism and this western idea must be put to rest. See thevedicfoundation.org, The Bhartiya scriptures. 82.38.160.13 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Ved

Interesting, I want to see what Jethwarp thinks about it. BTW Jethwarp, see my update on Anumarana. That afd can be closed anytime I guess. Appreciate your efforts! Bladesmulti (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. One problem: there are almost no books on this topic; I found altogether 8 (eight!) books which mention this term, and several of them seem to use The Vedic Foundation as their source. 82~13, I've also responded at your talk page, and I'd like to ask you to calm down. It's nice that you have faith in Blades' writing capabilities, but to demand a huge amount of changes based on the insights of one organisation won't be accepted here at Wikipedia. Your opinion is relevant, but will not automatically being accepted. To be really heard here around, you'll have to use reliable secondary sources. Which, I'm afraid, will be problematic, since most (virtually all) academic research does not confirm the traditional c.q. orthodox Hindu point of view. Instead, it gives a historical point of view, with all the contingencies which lead to the development of Hinduism. I understand (partially, not completely) that this is offensive to orthodox HIndus, yet, the heated responses I've seen here at Wikipedia are also offensive to westerners. Independent academic scholarship is a token of a free, democratic society, where people can afford to ask questions and to unsettle widely accepted ideas and points of view. and have the nerve to choose the uncomfortability of real knowledge above the "certainty" of revealed truths. Read Karl Popper, if you want to know more about the importance of critical thought for western society. And no, India won't be spared the disillusionment ("entzauberung") of modernity, just like the western world is struggling with the loss of traditional values and beliefs. It's one of the reasons "we" westerners are so interested in India; we thought that India was the magical Paradise were long-forgotten truths are still alive... Yet another disillusionment.... Whic reminds me: if you want ti udnerstand more of the western way of thinking, read Richard King, Orientalism and religions. A pdf can be found at the web, when you search for it. Good book, insightfull. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably, changing every single page will cause massive amount of conflict. If there is notability, we can find any other way, if it is about imposing, obviously we wouldn't be editing every page, because we have to go by Commonname policy. Can be merged too, but where? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hinduism and Judaism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• book|title = Between Mumbai and Manila: Judaism in Asia Since the Founding of the State of Israel (Proceedings of the International Conference, Held at the Department of Comparative Religion|author=
• book|title = Between Mumbai and Manila: Judaism in Asia Since the Founding of the State of Israel (Proceedings of the International Conference, Held at the Department of Comparative Religion|author=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hayagriva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Aryan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

joshua seems to be stalking me :) im very flattered.

I recently asked the wiki editor on the indus valley civilization to give the current findings which date the indus at 6,200bc-7,500bc, the information was taken from a news artical subjected by the the hindustan times Hindustan Times, Indus Valley 2,000 years older than thought

The event was funded ad organised by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) & was discussed at International Conference on Harappan Archaeology which is the very organisation which controls dating of the indus. The dating was done with radio-metric analysis From Bhirrana with BR Mani, ASI joint director general and KN Dikshit who is the former ASI joint director general, It was confirmed that the indus valley is dated older then Egypt.

Indus valley Is given the date of 7500 BC to 6200 BC The neolithic city has been found to date from as early as 9000 BC

Current indus valley civilization page is stuck at 3300–1300 BCE mature period 2600–1900 BC)

(aceramic Neolithic)is given 7000bc-5500 BCE

Whats funny about this is that Joshua stated that this report from the globalpost is not reliable , what he failed to see though is that the writer of the wikiedia page on the indus valley civilization added the same link but just popped in at the lower portion of the page while keeping the debunked old dates at the top, so now im confused as to what to do?

On recent activities i gave a oxford dictionary reference for the sadhu page, Joshua denied the actual oxford dictionary references after i tried to take out the word monk which is actually related to the greek linguistics rather then the Sanskrit terms.

Maybe you could look through the indus valley civilization page and maybe repair the top page dating with the current radio-metric dates from Bhirrana (Haryana), it seems the current editor of the page is accepting the global post as reference so if you have some time maybe you or someone else could take hold of the situation & pop the new dates at the top where it can be noticed? See also:

• globalpost, Archaeologists confirm Indian civilization is 2000 years older than previously believed
• Hindustan Times, Indus Valley 2,000 years older than thought

82.38.160.13 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Ved

WP:TPS

Globalpost? I see. We certainly use the dates, that are much more common.

Hi 74.192.84.101, right now kinda busy with Hinduism and Judaism, there are some issues, it can be observed, if you compare 2 days older diff, with the current one. You busy these days? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure I'm stalking! What's more: there are more! But those you haven't noticed yet . Okay, serious: I'll take another look. Meanwhile, 82~13, you might consider creating an user-account, and read a few policies, WP:RS and WP:OR to begin with. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Where's the actual report? I note that the phrase ""pre-early Harappan" is used, ie before the early Harappan phase. That doesn't push Harappan culture further back. And this should be discussed on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And to add to this, what this means is that, as someone else said, "the origin for the culture/s that would eventually become the IVC are that early in time." We find similar evidence and dates in Egypt and Mesopotamia. I still can't find anything but these preliminary dates, no update which is interesting. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi dougweller " We find similar evidence and dates in Egypt and Mesopotamia."

Speak to you on the indus valley page82.38.160.13 (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Ved

Food

One can eat breakfast with a sword too.

Listen, Blade - do you know anything about Breakfast in Arab countries? Or so. If you do, please expand the section Arab countries. Hafspajen (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Oh, and, Joshua Jonathan, the section Duch breakfast might need some work... Hafspajen (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC) All this was deleted from the article, you know, a big shame. Try to find some references on this, too, please.

Middle East

Mashriq

In the "Mashriq", breakfast varies greatly according to taste, but a typical breakfast consists of tea or instant coffee, juice, a morning salad (cucumbers, tomatoes, onions, mint and olive oil), pita bread dipped in rich labneh, a type of yogurt, or in olive oil and za'atar. Hummus, Ful medames and Falafel are more common on the weekends. Other breakfast items include a variety of olives, cheeses, especially Goat Cheese, variety of vegetables, cereals, jams and pastries.

Iran

In Iran, varieties of Iranian flatbreads (naan), Iranian feta cheese (panir-e irani) or Persian feta cheese, butter (kareh), a variety of traditional marmalades (morabba) or jams, honey (angebin or asal), cream (sar sheer (سرشیر)) and hot tea are essential breakfast foods. Other foods, such as heavy cream, walnuts, hard and soft boiled eggs, and omelettes are also popular for breakfast. Traditionally, a choice of butter and cheese, butter and marmalade, heavy cream and honey, butter and honey, or cheese and walnuts are rubbed on fresh bread and folded into bite-sized sandwiches and are to be consumed with hot tea. The tea is preferably sweetened with sugar. Another breakfast food, which is usually consumed between the hours of three to five in the morning, in winter, is called halim. Halim is a combination of wheat, cinnamon, butter and sugar cooked with either shredded turkey/chicken or shredded lamb in huge pots. It is served hot and cold, but preferably hot. Almost everywhere in the country, especially in colder regions, a lamb head stew (kale pache) is consumed, usually on the early hours of weekend (Friday mornings).

Lebanon

In Lebanon, there are several types of breakfast, including include labneh, mankoucheh, lahm bi ajin, kichek, and knefeh.

Egypt

Flat bread is the universal bread throughout Egypt, similar to pita. It can be made with either refined white flour, or whole wheat flour with bran added. In Egypt the traditional breakfast is ful medames: slow cooked fava beans (sometimes with lentils) dressed in olive oil, lemon juice and garlic. Falafel made of fava beans are also very popular as a breakfast. Eggs prepared in various ways are also consumed, such as hard boiled, fried, scrambled. When fried, they can be accompanied by fresh sausage (bought from a butcher) or spicy dry sausages (available at groceries), or bastirma. People on the move can have a variety of sandwiches for breakfast. These can include feta type soft cheese, romano type dry cheese, various jams (dates, fig, strawberry, orange, bitter orange, mandarine oranges, quince, carrot), honey, halva made from tahini and even a combination of butter and sugar sandwiches.

Israel

An Israeli breakfast typically consists of coffee, orange juice, fresh vegetables salad, goats/cows cream cheese, fresh bread or toast, olives, butter, fried eggs, and some small cookies or slices of cake. For an even fuller breakfast it might include hard-boiled eggs, cottage cheese, quark cheese, and Israeli salad. Another type of breakfast would be jachun or fried dough, malawach served with sweet fruits or something spicier. Hotels with continental breakfasts, in addition to the aforementioned items, will usually serve many different kinds of fish and yogurts, as well as a dish of egg and spicy tomatoes known as shakshuka.

Dutch

Voltaire Narrating a Fable

Le lever de Voltaire de Jean Huber (vers 1768-1772)
Voltaire enfile sa culotte en dictant une lettre.

• Netherlands. The Dutch typically eat sliced bread with three choices of toppings: dairy products (numerous variations of cheese), a variety of cured and sliced meats, or sweet or semi-sweet products such as jam, peanut butter or chocolate toppings (hagelslag (chocolate sprinkles), chocoladevlokken (chocolate flakes) and chocolate spread). Some typical, but less common products are apple syrup, honey, stroop (lesser known as bebogeen, a very sweet caramel topping made from sugar beets) and kokosbrood (a coconut product that is served thinly sliced like sliced cheese; also known as Cocosbread). Furthermore are breakfast cereals or muesli popular, served with milk or yoghurt. Tea, drip coffee, milk, and juice are the most popular breakfast beverages. Breakfast may also include (for instance on Sundays) boiled eggs, raisin bread, pumpernickel, ontbijtkoek or croissants.

This was the Dutch deleted part. Hafspajen (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen We will continue this party, but right now it is time to get on Voltaire's page again. Check Talk:Voltaire#On_Section.2C_Islam and you can ping :Sitush as well, he had previously cleaned up Max Muller. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What? Haven't we talked enoug about that? But as I said before here, 7 August 2013 the Islam section here, was only three-four sentences, and now we have a section on Islam that is longer then Voltaire's prose works section. Kind of unproportional. (However I strongly feel we need both those pictures in the article. Voltaire loooks too good in those depictions.) Hafspajen (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Some nice girls for you

[1]

We did yes. I liked that it was just 3-4 lines before. Because it was actively edited then. Right now, just no idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• That section swallowed like a dough, and it should be cut down to half or third. There is no indication that Islam was of such enormous importance for Voltaire. Even if he said some nice things about Islam, and some not so nice, that does not mean that he was overly occupied with it. By the proportion of the section one may think that this was something he was occupying himself with it every day of his life. There is plenty of other stuff that is much more important about him. Hafspajen (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Check my last comment, their. Quiet obvious that there are no reliable sources for all those things that have been pushed since last few months(like 1 or 3). And There are 100s of quotes by Einstein as well, that he never said. Yet we can find reliable sources for them. Voltaire should be much easier, only if someone stop pushing tumblr or facebook comments. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User boxes

Shiva, Jaipur

Userboxes en-2This user can contribute with an intermediate level of English. hiइस सदस्य की मातृभाषा हिन्दी है। This user is a native speaker of Hindi. This user has been on Wikipedia for 10 years, 8 months and 17 days. This user has made over 5,000 edits to Wikipedia. This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know. Non nobis solum

Hi Blades. How about adding a few userboxes to your userpage? See also Wikipedia:Userboxes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have seen that before, it is not really attractive or surprising. I will think for a better one. Interestingly, I think that I may need to remove "Major Pages I have created" from main page, because people seems to be picking from them, for causing trouble. Now you remember this AfD? Betting a million, anyone who will read it, he/she will surely laugh! I agree that after AfD, the article became much better, and I really learned a lot as well, after reading so many related books. So I wouldn't think of removing list at the same time. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Modern humans

Joshua_Jonathan. Very nice edits on Hinduism, but your dates are old. One thing, the recent discoveries about the arrival of Anatomically modern humans to South Asia are considered to be 73,000 years. [13], [14] How you will be adding? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I did similar edits before but recently 1 person regarded them as fork[15]. So you are sure, that your edits are not WP:Forked? If they are not, how? Thanks, I have doubts here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What's up with Talk:Nirvana?

You were correct hatching out the part, on horse worship. If I saw any more conflict, I would suggest you to replace that whole subsection with:-

"..

Main article: Hayagriva

Horse worship in India dates back to 2000 BCE.{refs} .."

That's it, there will be no need to expand.

I think it is quiet easy to implement when you have sources and basic understanding of using sources. But some people have no patience. They deny the books from Californian University, Oxford. Multiple Archaeological evidences, and revert because of "Mesolithicum", which could had been replaced with "Mesolithic" or "Iron age". Their demand of 'solid evidence' like yoondaue is irrelevant and irrational. Or any edit that places broken isbn, dead link.

I know it can be difficult sometimes. But we should be capable of finding better ways. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blades.

• Arrival of modern humans in India: you might be correct. I didn't dive deep into this topic yet; so no matte rof dispute, just trying to be careful/conservative.
• Talk:Nirvana - prologed clashes with one editor. Smart guy, read a lot, but notorious POV-pushing. Please stay out; the users that I've pinged are specialists at Buddhism.
• Horse worship: good idea, to give a link. I'll have another look, but not today or tomorrow. Just let it rest for a few days.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Notorious pov pushing? That was laughable. JJ, I've seen your recent activities, you should visit these sites -> [16], [17] they may help you as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Laughable - you mean him or me? Thanks for the links! I've copied them to my grammar-page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am also interested in such links. Grammar is hard for me, also. Corinne reminds me how little I know.  :-)   There is supposed to be a wikiversity project, that creates books to teach people. It is like wikipedia, but for textbooks. Is there a good book about grammar at wikiversity? If not, maybe we should write one. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No offense to you or the IP guy, but I found those words to be laughable. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It is okay to find the words laughable. But it is not okay to talk this way on wikipedia. You have to assume good faith. You have to be nice. The words might be wrong. But that does not mean the person who wrote the words is bad. The person might be pushing a POV. But again, that does not make them a bad person. Bias is unavoidable, in many subjects: politics, religion, and commas. There are edit wars about punctuation, really! That is almost worth calling laughable... but I don't call it laughable. Because people take wikipedia seriously. That is good: wikipedia is a serious project. But wikipedia is nothing, without people to help keep it strong. Bladesmulti, be careful what you say about people. Do not hurt their feelings. Does this make sense? Try really hard to be WP:NICE. This is the best way. Especially if the other person is not being nice. See this, WP:IMAGINE, a good friend of mine. They are a robot, but I still respect them.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

requesting further reason for revok e of edit

Hello, You had revoked my edit adding HDI in India's lead section stating that it is in the infobox. The same holds good for GDP which has also been added to the lead section. Hence I would want to re-add my line on HDI in the appropriate place in the lead section

Thank you

Anupama Srinivas (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Anupama Srinivas No you don't have to, because the section doesn't include anything about the GINI, GDP Per Capita, Area, either! Just post your suggestion on Talk page. And see if people agree or not. Page is quiet complicated, that's why it was protected, indef. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Anupama, welcome to the Bladesmulti talkpage. You can call me 74 please.  :-)   I think your sentence is helpful, thanks for adding it. The source that you used may not be the best one for that factoid, however. Maybe we can find a better one? Also, there is also already a mention that India is a "newly-industrialized country". I suggest we try to combine these ideas, into one revised sentence, rather than adding a brand new sentence.

Here is the sentence added by Anupama Srinivas to India.

India ranks 136 out of 187 countries in HDI and has been placed in the medium development category.

References

Reverted by Bladesmulti with the following comment.

source : "last update : February 2003", irrelevant, no consensus on talk, check society section.. And HDI is listed on infobox, don't repeat it.

At the same time as reverting Anupama's insertion, Bladesmulti also deleted this information.

India has the largest number of child labourers under the age of 14 in the world with an estimated 12.6 million children engaged in hazardous occupations.

References

Bladesmulti, why did you delete the second sentence? Also, Bladesmulti, please re-write the reason you deleted Anupama's sentence, using the best grammar you can. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted it because he is repeating what has been said on infobox. I removed the Unicef's figure, because it was inserted by a user who had edit war over that information 1-2 months ago, even though he had no consensus. Figure is irrelevant now, most of "under 14" from 2003, are probably adult now. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the 2013 UNDP Human development report which I think is a better source to cite directly, than a newspaper reference. The HDI table 1 is at pages 143-147. UNDP report With not taking sides here, I just wish to say that repeating factoids found elsewhere in an article is perfectly in order to frame a mainly new discussion in an alternate sub-section. For long articles, such as this, you can NOT expect that the reader has imbibed everything else on the page, you have to allow for to create local contexts for new material, and that may well require the re-inclusion of stuff also found elsewhere on the article. Thus, a "repeat" charge isn't really, on its own, sufficient for delete, but you definitely should be critical towards a given repetition, thinking: "Is this info critical to include in order to enlighten the local context of the paragraph/sub-section?". "Could it equally well be inserted by putting it into a reference, rather than keep it explicit in the main text?"

In many, many cases, making the repeat into a reference the reader may choose to browse then and there will be a milder, and better form of editing, than simple deletion.Arildnordby (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

See Society section, Fowler, Abecedare, etc had told that such information can be added to other Indian articles, that are related. And it happened, Slavery in India, Debt bondage in India and like 5 other pages have these information. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have checked (for first edit only) and think that it is an essentially justified delete you made. But, remember, making a really good edit summary for a revert is ALSO a very difficult task (I am no master here, "language competency" is just a minor factor!), and that making a cryptic edit summary can be MORE infuriating for the reverted editor than no edit summary at all. I am NOT saying this particular delete of you was wrong, but this bit about cryptic edit summaries has been earlier something other editors have felt you have done. Thus, I just left this message here; I thought it contains somepoints that are relevant, not simply to you, but points we all need to keep in mind from time to time! (I have loooked at many of your recent edits, and must say I am really impressed at how you are working now. I like your Horse Worship, for example!)Arildnordby (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciation! Bladesmulti (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Abel Bergaigne page looks very promising, Bladesmulti!

I just checked your most recent project, Blades. This looks VERY good; an Orientalist regarded in his own time as very important deserves his own Wikipedia page, and from what I glanced from your sandbox, you keep this in a very professional style, without any "undue weights" or other flaws. Keep up this type of good work! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Be sure to include Abel Bergaigne, though. Being Norwegian, I can read the Danish and Swedish spin off pages on Bergaigne, in case you would like collaboration here.Arildnordby (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In case you wish to make an article on Ramatsariar..

Then you'll need to familiarize yourself with the work by Jacolliot; The Bible in India. Jacolliot's work remains the provably first mention of him, and in addition to modern scholarly evaluations of Jacolliot, for Example: Handbook of Religion and the Authority of Science, you'll need to be the "best authority on Wikipedia" on the content pertaining to Ramatsiriar in Jacolliot, if you want to make this a good article. Good luck!Arildnordby (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Types

• 
• 
• 
• 

File:Stuffed Capercaiile.JPGHafspajen (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen is good at finding images, which tell a story. Hafspajen, please help me find some images, that tell Bladesmulti the story of teamwork, and playing a role. Some kinds of teams are sports-teams. Other kinds of teams are military units. Businesses in the publishing-industry have teams, separated out by job-title. Graphics artist, copywriter, journalist, fact checker, editor-in-chief, novelist, vice president of marketing, and so on. Wikipedia has roles, also; Bladesmulti needs help understanding the kinds of roles we have here. Can you illustrate? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

On Rafinesque

Bladesmulti asserts that Rafinesque is a "reliable source", because his book on American Nations was published at Oxford University. You really need to do a BACKGROUND CHECK, Bladesmulti; here is what his own page says about that particular work:

In 1836 Rafinesque published his first volume of The American Nations. This included Walam Olum, a purported migration and creation narrative of the Lenape ("Delaware Indians"). It told of their migration to the lands around the Delaware River. Rafinesque claimed he had obtained wooden tablets engraved and painted with indigenous pictographs, together with a transcription in the Lenape language, from which he produced an English translation of the tablets' contents. Rafinesque claimed the original tablets and transcription were later lost, leaving his notes and transcribed copy as the only record of evidence.

For over a century after Rafinesque's publication, the Walam Olum was widely accepted by ethnohistorians as authentically Native American in origin. But, as early as 1849, when the document was republished by Ephraim G. Squier, Henry Rowe Schoolcraft wrote to Squier saying that he believed the document might be fraudulent.[26] In the 1950s the Indiana Historical Society published a "re-translation" of the Walam Olum, as "a worthy subject for students of aboriginal culture".[27]

Later linguistic, ethnohistorical, archaeological and textual analyses, particularly from the 1980s and 1990s onward, suggested that the Walam Olum account was largely or entirely a fabrication, and described its record of authentic Lenape traditional migration stories as spurious.[28] After the publication in 1995 of David Oestreicher's thesis, The Anatomy of the Walam Olum: A 19th Century Anthropological Hoax, many scholars concurred with his analysis, and concluded that Rafinesque had been either the perpetrator, or perhaps the victim, of a hoax.[28] Other scholars, writers, and some among the Lenape continue to find the account plausible and support its authenticity.

Arildnordby (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Walam Olum" is unrelated here. I didn't used him as source for this particular subject, only added on "further reading". Bladesmulti (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should a forger be listed as "further reading"????Arildnordby (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Easy there Arildnorby.  :-)   Let us take this one step at a time. Bladesmulti: there are two kinds of reliable. Look up the word here, wikt:reliable. What do you see? It talks about being accurate, correct, and so on. Now, look up the meaning of wikiReliable over here: WP:RS. The policy talks about being in a publication that is fact-checked, or peer-reviewed, or similar. These are different: everyday reliable, and wikiReliable. Make sense? Wikipedia can report what Rafinesque said, but we must do it very carefully. We do not want to confuse the readership. This is a tricky topic. Read what Arildnordby found. Then tell me, Bladesmulti: what is the connection between Walam Olum, and Ezourvedam, and Adimo. (There *is* a connection.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

THanks for the reminder, 74! I have a tendency to harrumph and blow off some steam occasionally. I don't think I'm an Ancalogon the Black or a Smaug, creating desolation, but I should work a bit, for myself, on WP:NICE I can be a bit too scary..Arildnordby (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable topic on creation myths, Bladesmulti, but BEWARE!!!

I see that at Bladesmulti/Testing, you are beginning to make an article on creation myths related to Hinduism.

That IS, most definitely, an important topic, and ALSO, asserted creation myths that aren't really from the genuine Hindu tradition (such as Ezourvedam).

This will be a very challenging article to make, Bladesmulti; in particular, we must be extremely cautious on keeping reliable sources requirement.

But, if you (in colaboration with others?) pull this off, you will have created what I think, a very important article! I suggest you keep on working on it at the sandbox level, and invite others to scrutiny it.Arildnordby (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You make a specific claim about RIg Veda provenance, so that MUST hold, or be stricken altogether!!

concentrate on the Adimo sources, Bladesmulti. Collapsing this to help you focus.

And, Ramatsariar is a complete fiction as well, but even if he weren't, your claim on Rig Veda had to be stricken nonetheless.Arildnordby (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Stephen Fitz-Stephen writes that.. "For the solution of my theorem, we have but to consult 'Texts and Commentaries on the Vedas,' by Ramat- sariar, to have our eyes opened to see that the comparatively", he is not referring to any Muller or Balavtsky at all. For making bold claims you will have to present a reliable source. And I never claimed anything about "rigveda", only said "veda", and there are 290 results for ".."vedas" "adima".." Bladesmulti (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, you did.Arildnordby (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC) I think, I should rather make ONE page, where I can write about "Yama and Yami"(over 50,000 results), then Atma and Jiva, and obviously "Adima and Hiva". Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman is in poor condition anyway! Citing no sources. So this is better idea, right? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC) I think the INTENT behind the page as it stands is GOOD, Bladesmulti, but we must work together to remove false claims on Ramatsariar and so on.Arildnordby (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC) I am working on my same sandbox now.. I will inform you, once I am done. All Undue weight-age from rest of the similar pages can be removed too. We must agree that none of these theories are controversial, or refuted. Plus they are based on Fiction, not historicity, so nothing to worry about much. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC) And it is V. K. Gokak's comments who paved a way for me! Long live :) Bladesmulti (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Gokak isn't a Sanskrit scholar, and yes, it is UNCONTROVERSIAL THAT JACOLLIOTS WORK IS TRASH, with no reliability whatsoever. A specific claim about Ramatsariar isn't worth "refuting" specifically, since it only appeared in Jacolliots original worthless material.Arildnordby (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Why would we use Stephen Fitz-Stephen's statement? I can't see any reliable sources using him. Did I miss something? Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC) A good, specific reminder, Dougweller! Bladesmulti seems to have understood that some of the "sources" he used weren't that acceptable at all, yet it remains instructive to point, as you did, to yet another one of those, in this case a theologian writing something in 1909. Bladesmulti is, I believe, gradually seeing that the person making a particular claim ought to checked as well, not just the publishing company, for issues on reliability, and Fitz-Stephen is decidedly a case in point here.Arildnordby (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC) I wasn't using Stephen Fitz as source. Only discussing about him. James Fitzjames Stephen is him. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)