 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Untitled
editthe lexical meanings of Sanskrit utpala are offtopic, and belong moved to wikt:utpala. dab (𒁳) 11:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- This article already contained what is now headed under 'Lotus' (in it, I added a clause associating Tārā to Hinduism too). Since this article was totally unsourced, I added citations from MW. But I think this article should contain material pertaining to the astronomer only, who is more famous as Bhaṭṭotpala in India (I have linked that). Material about Tārā with a lotus can be shifted to a new article Tārā which is a major goddess in Vajrayāna Buddhism as well as in modern Shāktism. Nobody will search Tārā under 'utpala'. Rest of the matter should be shifted to either "Lotus' or to Wictionary or deleted. Or this proposed article Tārā may be merged into Buddhism. Vinay Jha 12:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of "Bhaṭṭotpala (Bhaṭṭotpala)"? The bracket "(Bhaṭṭa-utpala)" is supposed to explain the name by dissolving sandhi. dab (𒁳) 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
how silly is that? VJ, your behaviour is completely erratic. --dab (𒁳) 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to remind that Bhaṭṭotpala is more popular among traditional scholars that Utpala, hence I created another article named Bhattotpala withot any matter and redirected it to present article, which I indicated, which you failed to see and interpreted that I was repeating the same word twice, although I did not repeat the same word. If you misunderstood, you could discuss it, without abusing. My students are heads of departments, but I never call even my students silly, erratic, nonsense, etc. God has given me a long tongue but I do not use it for lashing. I have carefully studied your behaviour with others. It is a curse to work with you for those whom you do not like for reasons best known to you, because one must either become accustomed to your abuses or leave Wiki. I will do neither. Now you will say that you did not abuse me but merely pointed out the fact that I was really silly. This is your mode of working. This was my last attemt to develop a collaboration because I felt you are a good editor provided you behave with patience (less revertings and more discussions) and civility. ---Vinay Jha 17:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
in this case you want to {{move}} this article to Bhattotpala. I have no objection, fee free to do that. Liking or disliking you has nothing to do with it. If you're going to stay around (I encourage you, too), you would do well to familiarize yourself with WP:MOS, since that will reduce friction with other editors. dab (𒁳) 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are again mininterpreting what I said. I never intended to move anything. Try to read the message carefully before posting an answer. ---Vinay JhaVinay Jha 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- you said "Bhaṭṭotpala is more popular among traditional scholars". If that's true, the article should be moved. Otherwise, I am afraid you are making no sense whatsoever (but I'm getting used to that). dab (𒁳) 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- All I meant was that I did not want to take any decision myself and left it on you. You may move the article ,which may be better. If anyone searches for Bhattotpala, he/she will come to Utpala, hence present scheme is also workable. Do as you like it.
- You have given me three medals in half a day : silly, erratic, nonsense. What do you think of yourself, esp. with regards to your civility? My language was worse than yours a couple of decades ago, but I gave up spices and salt in food and completely abstained from sex , and now I can easily tolerate your abuses without retorting. Your abuses does not harm me, but it is not good for your spiritual well being . ---Vinay Jha 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)