| Revision as of 21:33, 11 August 2016 editMayasutra (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,392 editsm →Note on reliability of publications/sources← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:05, 4 April 2017 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Mayasutra/Archive 2) (bot | ||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Blocked == | |||
| == Re: your personal attacks and forum-y use of article talk page again == | |||
| See ] --] <sup>]</sup> 04:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| @Mayasutra: No incivility in wikipedia, please, with comments such as "You see Ms.Welch, you have a peculiar problem...." as you did . You have been warned by @{{u|SpacemanSpiff}}, @{{u|RexxS}}, @{{u|Bishonen}} and others, in April 2016, for a similar behavior on ]. ] (]) 21:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Stop preaching. Take care of your civility first. Just reply to the post made to you in the talk page of ].--] (]) 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra | |||
| == August 2016 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for making ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. ] | ] 11:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)</div> | |||
| <!-- Template:uw-aoablock --> | |||
| *Adding: You have been warned enough about personal attacks, you must know that attacks such as "your statement is ''intentionally'' ambiguous or misleading," (my italics) or "Lady, there is a certain inability in you??" as are totally unacceptable. ] | ] 11:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC). | |||
| :::Is the additional statement by Sarah Welch not intentionally ambiguous (in other words using weasel words) and misleading? How would you rate Sarah Welch constantly repeating the same thing; such that there indeed seems to a certain inability in following what is expected of her; wrt to use of sources to make claims which the source does not state as also the introduction of the additional statement (also explained in the same link)? How would you rate the use of , as this? No blocking required for RexxS for that? Does that mean some are better placed in wiki than the rest? How about intentionally deleting the statement on the metamorphosis of the asura Kapila associated with the transformation of the Samkhya from atheist to idealist; and the transformation of female Kapila to male Kapila, both of which are supported by the Vaikunta inscription description of taking the Kaśmirāgama Pån᷈charatra philosophy, iconography, and other works into account? | |||
| :::BTW, Bishonen, this is our heritage; that of the natives. That Kapila is rooted in antiquity with Asuri (of the brahmana tradition) 'converting' to Sankhya simply means atheism was an offshoot of the vedic people; though Kapila was probably not a vedic period sage. Unfortunately English language uses 3 major words - theism, atheism, agnostic - for epistemological representation of orientation towards divinities. People of the subcontinent were far more complex than that. While Sankya is comparable to agnosticism; it is not agnosticism. I have read the Sankyakarika innumerable times. But have never made major contributions to the Sankya article despite there being sufficient works on similar lines in print from reputed Indian scholars (bcoz i know what to expect here). Also, the transformation of the female Kapila into male Kapila is nothing different from the yamala tradition; a tradition which incidentally is also Sankhya-like in the purusha-prakriti union with gradual transformation. The yamalas are well-preserved in the agama tradition something which the western mind does not take into consideration while interpreting everything 'vedic'. Perhaps bcoz they dispel certain notions of a certain western mind which looks down upon such practices and are hence not well received in certain parts of the western academia as mainstream ??? Well, whatever it may be. Also, everything cannot be perfect in any tradition (most of us accept as is, some of us learn to do so). | |||
| :::What am trying to say, is that deliberately deleting statements, disrupting my edits, such that I cannot continue to proceed with a sentence or two to represent a concept of Kapila, is something I cannot appreciate. Nor do I appreciate claiming things for POV-pushing (as explained above). It is nicer to have an honest representation of both sides (those who claim vedic sage and those who date him to 7th century BC) without being conclusive ourselves. I would appreciate if am guided on how much inline text in notes is permissible, or have someone working together to delete larger content to make into concise few sentences, to improve article. My mistake was to put all the text into one citation and use it as a reference for multiple sentences. I should have just used multiple citations instead (with trimmed inline text in notes). Obviously, the lady just does not permit me to work an additional day. The very day I started working on the article, she had to come on board to edit as well; thus leading to the issues. Seriously, I believe there is something not OK about the way she works. The ruse of claiming WP:Primary, assuming it is small cause, asking totally irrelevant things (like was Kapila disciple of female teachers), deliberately making it tenuous, deliberately repeating herself, is plain ?????(what to say). This despite the fact that whenever she makes an edit which is useful, I have clicked on thanks. So, seriously, I have no idea what to make of this. I will have to agree with Kashmiri on the . | |||
| :::Anyways, after the 48 hour period, I would like you to moderate the talk page and let me know if are acceptable. Thanks --] (]) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra | |||
| ==Note on reliability of publications/sources== | |||
| This is to address 2 things (1) issues on Sarah Welch's claims wiki guidelines on Kapila article; and (2) issues Kashmiri raised on ]. I had to say the below: | |||
| Frequently asking others to accept whatever respected publishing houses print will not do in certain cases. Some amount of discernment is needed. Where I live, am associated with a printing press. Its amazing to see the work so called reputed publishers send for printing. If 10 people say the same thing in 10 diff books, the 11th book will not need a reference. It will be passable/acceptable for peer review. Which is apparently why do not require to state their source. | |||
| Secondly, in today's world if you have 20 books, you can write of your own, bringing around syncretism from their work while offering your view. Your original research will pass peer review. Which is what Gonda and Pintchman's work does. Their views are WP:Primary while that of Haldane and Dronamraju are neither primary, secondary nor tertiary. | |||
| Hence, kindly review these 2 source: (1) ] is author, and Dronamraju is editor. The of the book makes a statement -- "Kapila a vedic sage, author of basic principles of the Samkhya system of Indian Philosophy" -- this in a book of semi-biographical essays by Haldane on what he requires from life (the book states no source). It is neither a journal in history nor a book on the subject matter (history). Just bcoz Oxford Uni Press publishes it, how does it become valid? As a secondary or tertiary source? (2) Same holds true for the . | |||
| Thirdly, if an author has 20 books and another has 30 books; the latter may state things differently. Is it not necessary to discern among them for reliability of sources? Just bcoz wiki has no WP:Primary does it mean the author's work cannot be acceptable for an article? | |||
| '''Its appalling Sarah Welch does not admit ] for but . Is this not deliberate?''' | |||
| I would like wiki administrators to take up this issue in their next conference: | |||
| *Can Wiki offer guidelines on books with original research for certain subject matters? | |||
| Example: If an idol follows the Brahma-yamala-tantra, it has to have certain detailing. It cannot belong to any other tantra school, unless the other school also has a similar literary tradition on the image-making and veneration procedures of the said deity. The styling of the image can differ in two different yamala-tantra schools with different literary traditions; though they worship the same deity. A temple complex can be built in either Pallava, Pandya, Chola, or Vijayanagar styles (with distinct architectural styles). There are not many researchers who studied their unique variations / contributions; be it the adisthana styles, wall building styles, kostas, toranas, vimanas, shikharas, pillars, capitals, kapotas, mandapas, and gopuras? ''Only a few have carried out original research in this field''; that too comparing architectural styling with inscriptions and literary traditions. For ex: A.K.Coomaraswamy and V.S.Agarawala produced the biggest treasure of literature on the Yakshas known in Indian history so far . Such being the case should not WP:Primary of such scholars be admissible? Why is Sarah Welch ? More so, when she admits WP:PRIMARY of Pintchman. | |||
| * If an author like Max Muller neither states "Kapila is not a Vedic scholar", nor states "Kapila is a Vedic scholar" -- does it mean Sarah Welch can construe and claim as she wants? Max Muller opines Hiranyagarbha Kapila of the vedas was distinct, and was later used to link to Kapila of Sankhya, to assign the authorship of Sankya system to Hiranyagarbha. Which of-course means he did not think Kapila of Sankhya was a vedic sage. Does he have to state it as such? What is wrong in Sarah Welch's attitude? Is it wrong to state Max Muller's view in the article? ''Do note: nearly everything about Max Muller will be WP:Primary because he was one of the pioneers who did extensive research.'' So, is Max Muller source admissible? | |||
| So, can wiki offer guidelines on which books are acceptable? Can Sarah Welch use WP:Primary sources herself; but disallow WP:Primary sources for other editors? | |||
| BTW, Sarah Welch, it is ridiculous to repeat the point on 'vedic sage' (takes density of a certain kind to continue doing that). Am saying '''both views should be admitted, those who say vedic sage and those who date him to 7th century BC''' in a neutral way; not in the way you have done, introducing an additional statement claiming "This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage" - which is deliberately additional to be ambiguous/misleading (weasel words) amounting to pov-pushing. | |||
| --] (]) 20:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra | |||
Latest revision as of 04:05, 4 April 2017
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
|
Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Blocked
See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mayasutra --NeilN 04:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)