Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mayasutra

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mayasutra (talk | contribs) at 15:33, 11 August 2016 (August 2016: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:33, 11 August 2016 by Mayasutra (talk | contribs) (August 2016: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archiving icon
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.

Archiving icon
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.

Re: your personal attacks and forum-y use of article talk page again

@Mayasutra: No incivility in wikipedia, please, with comments such as "You see Ms.Welch, you have a peculiar problem...." as you did here. You have been warned by @SpacemanSpiff, @RexxS, @Bishonen and others, in April 2016, for a similar behavior on Talk:Maya (illusion). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 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 Kapila.--Mayasutra (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

August 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 11:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 here are totally unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 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 explained here as also the introduction of the additional statement (also explained in the same link)? How would you rate the use of stfu on a noticeboard, 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 Chaturvedi source 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 tenous, is plain ?????(what to say).
Anyways, after the 48 hour period, I would like you to moderate the talk page and let me know if suggested changes are acceptable. Thanks --Mayasutra (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra