User talk:Mayasutra - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mayasutra (talk | contribs) at 09:35, 26 April 2016 (saving admin conversation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:35, 26 April 2016 by Mayasutra (talk | contribs) (saving admin conversation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

1, 2

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

/Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Inappropriate comments, WP:CIVIL policy of wikipedia

@Mayasutra: This] is inappropriate behavior on wikipedia. Calling someone "childish" and making snarky personal attacks on article talk pages is not constructive. Please review WP:TPNO as well as WP:CIVIL, and respect community agreed guidelines on civility and proper use of article talk pages. Repeat of such behavior may invite an administrative review of your editing privileges. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please follow what you preach. You cannot extrapolate as you wish. I could do the same for your insulting remarks on claiming to threaten. Take care of your behavior and stick to the topic. It is obvious you are getting personal because you know Gonda is wrong in claiming mA in Sanskrit is mother and linking the root ma to maya without basis.--Mayasutra (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

April 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Maya (illusion). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If that be the case, kindly ask Ms.Sarah Welch not to get personal; for ex: with claims on threatening, which is plain childish, silly, and serves no purpose. Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

I see that you have now directly accused her of POV-pushing. That is unacceptable and I'll ask you to remove that personal attack immediately. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious you have drawn lines and function on those without seeing reason. You should have asked Sarah Welch to take back claims on threatening; as mentioned above. Have explained to SpacemanSpiff. Let the admin take a call. BTW, am glad am not active on wiki or contributing to Wiki Project Med Foundation. If such is the way reasoning functions here, its not worth it. Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Need to calm down

Hi Mayasutra, It seems that you are quite upset, and you probably need to take short break from this to calm down and take it easy. On the issue of making personal comments on others:

It should never be done on article talk pages, even though I would admit that I let a word a slip here or there. If you do so, you can always go back and strike off the comments for having done it in the heat of the moment.
You can complain to editors on their talk pages, on the talk pages of admins or on forums like WP:ANI, but you should do so only with evidence, and be polite at all times.

Ms Sarah Welch is an extremely talented Wikipedian, both in terms of her scholarship and her ability to write beautifully. She has numerous barnstars and GA articles to her credit. If you step back a little, you will learn to appreciate her editing as well as to enjoy it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall use the language of RexxS which he did here and here. Ms Sarah Welch could well be a 'noble prize' winner. I cud not 'care a rat's ass' for those who behave like this. I suggest you refrain from assuming things about having to calm down. From the way Sarah Welch goes on offensives here, it is apparent who you need to lecture to (in Sarah Welch's language). What a great tactic, first make snarky personal attacks, then keep edging them on; so that when they retaliate she can use that for her POV pushing (which she wants without common consensus; as is clear). Anyways, I already left a note for you saying am done. So, you can now relax. Thank you. BTW, now I understand what some people have been saying about western historians; although so far had dismissed them for being rightwing. If, for such a trivial thing, pressure tactics are used by Sarah Welch and RexxS, I can understand what others deal with, having had it much harder in academic circles. Best wishes.--Mayasutra (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

For the record

Copy-pasting the admin issue here for my record (Bishonen has many archives; and am not sure I can find this one when I want to).

Civility and forum-y discussion on article talk page

@Bishonen: We have a dormant account @Mayasutra that has reappeared, currently focussed only on Talk:Maya (illusion), lecturing that Jan Gonda - a celebrated Dutch Sanskrit professor is wrong and multiple WP:RS be damned, demanding that scholarly sources be deleted, article be changed and Mayasutra's OR be the basis of the article. The article's talk page is a wall of post (@Mayasutra is cut and pasting from websites it seems), much of it is all mostly WP:FORUM-y, with @Mayasutra asking me to ignore the sources and "explain your viewpoint". Both @Kautilya3 and I have tried to politely repeatedly remind @Mayasutra that we stick with WP:RS in wikipedia, and OR is unacceptable. But to no avail. There is a @kashmiri user too, not too active, who is egging @Mayasutra along. The discussion has shifted into incivility, calling me childish, and repeatedly. Is it okay to strikeout or delete such "childish" etc wording? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Latest and third instance, this time with "childish silly". I have already requested @Mayasutra to desist. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

And now a direct accusation of "POV pushing" by Mayasutra. How much should Sarah be expected to put up with? --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Sarah. I'm just so profoundly ignorant of these matters that I hesitate to intervene. I know SpacemanSpiff has been a little on again/off again recently, but right now he's editing like an angel, HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC).

Bish, Thank you for making me read that long talk page, I could've spent that time working on the CSD backlog! That said, Ms Sarah Welch, if there are problems regarding the validity of sources (I'm not making any judgment on whether there really is a problem here), I'd suggest taking it to WP:RSN and solving the issue once and for all. Also, getting the opinion of a subject matter expert like Dbachmann would be beneficial, although he has been avoiding Indic/Sanskrit articles for a few years now. As for the behavior, I think RexxS' warning is sufficient for now but I don't have any objections should another admin feel differently and think that tool usage is necessary here. I will leave a note on the talk page shortly. —SpacemanSpiff 04:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff, After discussing with Kautilya, had included content in the etymology section (without removing Sarah Welch's content) --- can you point out what is wrong in the content I added? However, Sarah Welch reverts it without common consensus as mentioned earlier. As admin, please, you have to take a call here. Please do. Otherwise this is not moving ahead coz Sarah Welch refuses to respond to requests for common consensus. --Mayasutra (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Bishonen: Kindly note the actual issue -- Ms.Sarah Welch consistently refuses to reply to issues raised (see here, here and here), assumes, sermonizes (obviously gets personal). Nobody asked her to ignore sources (does she imagine things?). If this behavior is not childish, what should it be called -- see here and here. In addition, Sarah Welch refuses to seek common consensus, and is hence doing POV pushing. Sarah Welch had ample time to respond to the 2 points, come to common consensus; but did not do so. Now, she reverts the etymology section without common consensus. What do you suggest about the common consensus? --Mayasutra (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@SpacemanSpiff: That section has 15 sources (14 cites, but one cite has two sources). Everything is sourced to WP:RS, many with embedded quotes. I am fine with RSN/DSN/etc process, because it is a due process. But @Mayasutra needs to stop calling names, casting aspersions and such forum-y lectures, with "Just because you have a reference (gonda) does not mean your reference (gonda) is correct." The (gonda) there is, of course, Jan Gonda. I have added two recent WP:RS, with embedded quotes, both by respected professors, one known for Hinduism scholarship and other for Buddhism scholarship, saying the same thing as Gonda.

Now imagine what will happen if we let @Mayasutra-types come along, fighting RS with their OR in every article, casting aspersions without evidence (such as POV-pushing, as @RexxS notes above). Top that with @Mayasutra finding it incredible that wikipedia is relying on WP:RS, rather than checking if the scholar is right, see @Kautilya3 notes here. I think this is beyond RSN, it is a Village Pump or behavioral issue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch, haven't we moved on, from the time of disusing Gonda's reference, to the current time of keeping Gonda's reference but also representing alternate meanings for ma and maya? You say "Now imagine"?? Why do you imagine things??? Is something truly wrong with you? Its not the first time you choose to assume. Yep, it is a behavioral issue, because you refuse to reason, agree to work on common consensus, and move on. Let SpacemanSpiff take a call on common consensus first; and explain what was wrong in the content I added to the etymology section without removing yours. Just bcoz you have RexxS to add to insults on your behalf; does not mean you can revert without common consensus. --Mayasutra (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

BTW, let the poor village pump be. The reference (Radhakrishnan) you use in the article (thru Donald Braue's work on Maya of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan) grew up around the village pump; and I know it for sure from a reliable personal source. Learn to be civil before you sermonize others. There is no need for anyone to get personal unless you do so first.--Mayasutra (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Mayasutra, I don't see any consensus anywhere for what you've added. Kautilya3's statement is in the abstract suggesting that reliable sources should be included, you've extrapolated that to support your content addition and don't like being challenged on it. Repeating the same thing in multiple locations doesn't make something fact either. This is not about whether the sources themselves are valid or not, that is what consensus and evaluation is for. And then you cast aspersions again. If you don't like collaborating constructively on here, you don't have to, but if you do contribute here then make sure you don't indulge in attacks and casting aspersions or your ability to contribute will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 08:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Mayasutra's edit was more in the nature of a rewrite than adding a few extra sources/comments. I was just checking to see what changes he made when I got pinged here. I am not surprised that Ms Sarah Welch reverted the edit. As per WP:BRD, a (further) discussion is needed to discuss the merits/demerits of the edit. @Mayasutra, this is normal procedure. You should not take offence for it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya, you said "If you have other sources that give better explanations, please feel free to add them". That's what I did. Now, you say this. Great. Am not surprised really. Please feel free to elaborate on the merits/demerits of the edit. Nope, am not taking offence. However, I wish that you had refrained from name-calling like village pump; which apparently emboldened Sarah Welch to go on an offensive. Addition -- I did as had told you -- mentioned each author's view separately. Added alternate meanings of ma from MW and sources that attest to it (Zimmer and Singh). Did not do more than that. As for your query, the iranian asuras did not escape the magical turn. MW concerns lexicographers (including modern ones; which is why such confusion occurs over root sound). Anyways, am done with this I guess. @SpacemanSpiff, am not active on wiki. Would not bother me for having editing rights revoked. However, if you ask me to follow rules of behavior, you must do so with Sarah Welch too. The lady got personal first, went on an offensive. The main reason is there is no willingness on her part to come to common consensus. RexxS comes along and piles on offensives. Surely, he can say the same thing in a much different way. He does not. So, it seems rules for admin is different from other editors. Neither is Sarah Welch willing to reason out normally. The above stances of her assumptions are example enough. Such being the case, it is left to Kautilya and yourself, to decide what stays in the etymology section and what goes. I do not blame Kashmiri for saying he is tired. Me too, not finding this worth it. Have nothing to gain or lose. Might as well put my efforts into building a forum with much better info than you find here. So, leave this to you guys to decide what you want in the etymology. Thank you.--Mayasutra (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra