User talk:Indian Chronicles/Archive2007

Current 2007 2008 2009 2010

Request

Please review WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Please be cautious in pushing a particular POV. It is not that your edits provide bad information. However, you need to be more careful in how you present that information. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me or place {{helpme}} on your talk page to get questions answered. Be well! Vassyana 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Legalese 17:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC) hey, thanks for your message on the Dharmic Religion Talk page. haha, just FYI...the first line that you quoted, was actually written by me. hehehe...yea, i know the SC revised its version for good. but do you know, there is still a BIG VOID in terms of perception, and perhaps the facts still need to be writ large. in solidarity, rishabh plz write to me at rsanchetiATgmail i logged in after a loooooooooong time on wiki...exams around the corner, dont know if i'd be able to log in too freq. here before april. i have some material which i researched/obtained from some scholars/jain saints on the differences. need to organise it and "publish" it,

Discussion with IAF

The title says it all. Refrain from using my talk page for posting in-general opinions or discussing with third parties or for posting your declarations and pronouncements. User:pages are not meant for that. It's clear that you are a product of the English media's campaign against Hinduism. I am no oldie, but a Gen Z guy who knows that the BJP/Shiv-Sena are a bunch of crooks. I also know that these 2 nutcase parties DO NOT and will never represent Hinduism. They are not the torch-bearers of Hinduism. My idol Einstein says it all here.

Also, for Mahavira's sake please read what I have written in response to Legalese in the section on "On IAF's response to 10 times...". Reply there, coz now the onus of clarifications on your edits is on you as I have already posted my rationale on various sections on that talk-page already. I am not going to revert what you've just edited because a) I wanna avoid an edit-battle and b) I want to discuss and reach a consensus first. For this, I am willing to repeat all that I've written to respond to you all over again and c) I am very tightly busy nowadays. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Dear IAF,

If you are willing to listen to reason then there is no problem. I would like to come to a consensus, that's a best way. I have always believed in making friends who talk with civility. But I would rather prefer that I know whom I am addressing to rather than some anonymous person.--Anishshah19 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I too have given numerous reasons and now the ball is in your court to respond (at the second-last section started by Legalese). The kind of civility given will be the kind that will be given back; if you feel squeamish on my username and contribs, I too will assume genders after all we're all anonymous aren't we ? There is no need of "knowing" anyone personally here. That's not required for discussion. I've had hundreds of discussions with hundreds of people here and I've known about only 2 (and that too when they chose to tell). Indian_Air_Force

I think legalese has replied to your issues pointwise.--Anishshah19 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

/Discussion_with_IAF

I am putting up the discussion on the new page so that my talk page is not cluttered. I have replied on the new page--Anish (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

April 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Karma, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Buddhipriya 07:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What content without citing sources aqre you talking about. Dont undo any changes without revisions. If a citation is required then tag it as such. --Anishshah19 07:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. Please refer to WP:Verifiability which says "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If you wish to add material that is unsourced, one approach is to put the information on the talk page for the article first to try to get help from other editors to find WP:RS. Perhaps that approach would be helpful to you in the future. Buddhipriya 07:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

question for you, dear sir

i can see u have lots of knowledge on Jainism. had a simple question - can women achieve nirvana/liberation in jainism? b/c somewhere or another i read that they couldnt, and only men could, b/c they are at a higher spiritual evolution, and women had to wait to become men before being liberated. Sadartha 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

are majority of jains followers of digambara or svetambara? Sadartha 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

okay, thanks for your answers. also dont put up email address where anyone can see - it could become a privacy issue. so what do women say to the digambara philosophy that women are lower than men? i'm sure theres some kind of controversy over equality of gender and feminist stuff right? but i guess since digambara are a minority, women dont pay much attention.... Sadartha 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks very much on the information for liberation of jain women. Sadartha 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Karma in Jainism

Hi, Thanks for your edits on Karma_in_Jainism.

• However before putting disputed neutrality tag please discuss as to why you are disputing the neutrality on the talk pages.
• Please discuss where cleanup is required.
• Please discuss why it has been put as Class B Article and not Class A as put by me.

For any changes please discuss on talk pages first or else it would be considered as POV and reverted back. I would appreciate your contributions a lot. Looking forwarding to constructive contribution to ensure that this article(in fact all jainism articles) is rated as featured article.--Anish Shah 05:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I rated it down to B-class because it does not match the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism/Assessment standards for A-class articles. I realize that not all WikiProjects add Good Article status to the B-A-FA continuum, it is also important to remember that a poorly written page with many grammatical errors and clear, or even disputed bias cannot be A-class. I also added a POV tag because it seems to hold Jainism above other religions in its principles, saying that it is the only religion which does a certain thing, when that is not necessarily true (though technically I could delete such claims under WP:V, I would not due to the fact that some of these may be nominally true). I will copy this down on my talk page for record-keeping purposes. --queso man 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with you and your way of functioning. Either you do some constructive contribution and not be a member of Jainism Wikipedia project for name sake. I said point out the cases which require the necessary changes and we will make the necessary changes. As the name of article suggests it provides the Karmic theory from jainism point of view. I have taken all the sources from respected authors who have researched jainism deeply. So kindly do not impose your POV on others. If you see the tag taht you have put, it requires "more specific message" and "discussion on talk pages". If that is not forthcoming I will have to revert back. However i am open to making substantial changes wherever required.I am copying this on the talk pages of Karma in Jainism so that it stays on record. I am inviting improvements from you and other members of this project. If there are no contributions then I will rate the Article as per the wiki guidelines. Thanks--Anish Shah 04:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but not agreeing with me is not a good nor a valid reason to change something. The WikiProject Assessment guidelines clearly show that an A-class article must meet some guidelines when it comes to referencing, NPOV, and grammar. It is debatable whether an A-class article must be better than a Good Article, but in this WikiProject, GA status is necessary before promotion to A-class. I suggest you study these guidleines. Also, just because something is above Jainism, it doesn't have to be written from a Jain point of view. All Wikipedia articles MUST be written from an objective viewpoint. Just because Dr. Jaini is a respected author, the source is not automatically unbiased. Even Acharya Sushilkumar is biased, no matter how respected he is. The constant referencing of biased sources (the Tattvartha Sutra being one of the few ones that is not used in a negative way) is one of the main shortcomings of the article. Wikipedia articles are not designed to support their subject; they must instead simply shed light on the topic. As for any lack of constructive edits about Jainism I have made, I am quite an old-timer on this WikiProject as the second person to join. By looking at my contributions and articles I have edited or created on Jainism, it is quite clear that I have not added my name to the Jainism WikiProject just for the status. --queso man 03:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes, mostly grammatical, as I see fit. Please look this over and add your opinion on the talk page or change it as you like, in which case I will look over your edits and see what we can compromise on. I also moved the tag for bias to a specific section where the bias seems to be concentrated. I have also written something on the talk page, mostly about reasons why the WikiProject has been declining in some ways, and why it is not as good as it should be, which you inquired about. There are also some proposals on how to improve the article.Σ --queso man 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reintroducing unsourced content

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Addhoc 11:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Addhoc 12:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of Vandalism, Original research and Citing Source ? Please understanding it aand then warn others. Original vandalism was done by you on the pages of Legal status of Jainism. There is an wilfull attempt to subvert the truth on these pages in the name of "Unsourced section" and "original research". Bal Patil Court Judgement has been modified to advocate a NPOV and other court Judgement that proves Jainism as distinct judgement - Committee of Management Kanya Junior High School Bal Vidya Mandir - has been purposely deleted. I fail to understand why ? Where is the question of Original Research for court Judgement which are public documents. Is a court verdict delivered by a Judge a Original research ? Then delete all Judgements from Wiki.--Anish Shah 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In the above you said "Is a court verdict delivered by a Judge a original research?" The answer is the court judgement is a primary source. My concern is that you are removing all the secondary sources and only using primary sources. Also, I have stylistic concerns - I suggest you have a look at WP:LEAD, for example. I've looked at some of your other contributions and you are clearly a good faith editor. Your edits to ahimsa were impressive, for example. In this context, I've struck through some of the above comments. I hope we can resolve this and find a compromise soon. Addhoc 15:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar proposals?

Propose or vote for a barnstar for WikiProject Jainism at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jainism#Barnstar: Propose.2Fvote. --queso man 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I put your last barnstar suggestion up on Wikipedia:WikiProject awards. Here's an award for helping to create our barnstar:

Image	Name	Description
	The Barnstar Star	The Barnstar Star for creating the barnstar for WikiProject Jainism. --Qmwne235 14:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic Religion Talk Pages

There is a talk of deleting the Article of Dharmic religion so I am archiving the talk pages here. /dharmictalk

I've responded to your message on my talk page. Some people like to correspond on each other's talk pages back and forth; I prefer to keep a thread all in one place. rudra 05:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pujyapada

Hi, in response to your message on my talk page, this article was not completely different from the source from which it was copied. It still contained a lot of the verbiage of the source.

The easiest way to solve this problem would be for Manish_Modi to add a notice to the source webpage that its contents are licensed pursuant to the GFDL. That way, the text can be safely used here.

Let me know when he has done so and I will happily restore the article. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks  16:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I added an attribution note and backlink as required to comply with the GFDL requirements. Thanks for obtaining permission for that text to be contributed to Wikipedia! -- But|seriously|folks  02:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jainism and non-creationism

Please be advised that the GA rating is only supposed to be given out by independent editors who have not contributed to the article in question in any substantive way. Your own assessment of your own work above as GA class clearly does not meet those criteria. If you do believe that the article deserves that status, please nominate for such at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Thereafter, a reviewer will review the article and indicate whether they believe the article meets the GA criteria or not, and, if not, exactly where it falls short and how it could be improved to meet those criteria. Thank you. John Carter 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Jainaum.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Jainaum.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you know (nomination)

• ...that the first Jain Purva of ancient knowledge would take a volume of ink equal to an elephant to write, whereas the last would require the ink volume of 2¹⁴ elephants? by Anishshah19

Have I got this right? OK? Victuallers (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is 2¹³ as first one requires ink equivalent for only one elephant. It starts doubling from second elephant. So I guess the 14th Purva requires ink equivalent to 2¹³ elephants or 8192 Elephants. Thanks--Anish (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of Jainism

Thanks for your offer. Can you share some of your thoughts on what we need to do, perhaps at Talk:Jainism.

I have seen several of your articles. I am really impressed, they are really well researched and written.

--Malaiya (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Purvas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

assistance

I am seeking help/advice with the disruptive behaviour of User:IAF. He is making life very difficult with respect to the article on Dharma which i have been working on for a long time. I have posted two warnings on his user talk page but he responds unconstructively and continues to add information that is incorrect. Best wishes. Langdell (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nirvana

Your first concern (that my change might be vandalism) is completely off-base. If you had looked at the Edit Summaries I left - you would not have leaped to that erroneous conclusion as a possible reason for my change! What we have here is a TECH issue. Or an issue of emphasis. Not a philosophical dispute.

For the record - my Edit Summaries for the changes were:

1) "restored long-established status quo"

and when that change didn't manifest itself as I had intended - I made what I clearly marked as a TEMP FIX an in interim measure. The second Edit Summary says:

2) "temp fix in effort to restore status quo"

I was trying to restore the long-established status quo to the title of the Nirvana article - that had changed yesterday with your well-intentioned change - for which you had not sought consensus. And I encountered a tech. problem in the restoration - which led to me putting in a clearly marked TEMPORARY fix.

Allow me to explain. And perhaps you can assist in the restoration of the long-held status quo.

The "Nirvana" in question had always been the primary article associated with the word - as befits an eminent, original meaning. So the article was not titled "Nirvana (Buddhism)" or "Nirvana (state)". It was just "Nirvana". And the search for the word "Nirvana" took people to that article and not to a DAB page. There was a DAB notice at the top of the article. And that was fine and had long been accepted as such by all editors. No editor before you appears to have thought that the original meaning of the word Nirvana should not be the primary article associated with the word. (ie the default page to which a reader goes rather than to a DAB page.)

It looks as if you changed all that. Without any discussion. Re-titled the article - adding the word "Buddhism". And re-directed the word "Nirvana" to a DAB page. That WEAKENS the importance of the original concept and article. It makes the concept just one of many meanings rather than it being seen (as it should be) as the preeminent meaning of the word.

I tried to revert it to the status quo. But I couldn't find the way to get the article to be called just plain "Nirvana" (as it had been). So on a temp. basis - I changed it to "Nirvana (state)"

What should happen now is this:

The article should go back to being called simply "Nirvana". With all the details about it (including your philosophical points) in the ARTICLE (not in the article name).

There would be a clear DAB note at the top of that page (as previously) - that will take people to a DAB page for "other usages" of the word. Perhaps you can help in that restoration. Thanks. Davidpatrick (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your reply to mine.

1) I absolutely regard your comments in good faith.

2) Of course Wiki is not about "status quo". But - as with legal precedents - when making major changes - one weighs these things. Usually when changing the name of an article it is customary and desirable - though certainly not essential - to raise it first as a discussion and see what other people think rather than acting unilaterally. I think in this instance - that would have been the more pragmatic thing to do. Post something on the "Nirvana" Talk Page and ask for opinions rather than just do it.

3) As to the merits overall - there are two separate issues here.

A) You wrote: "Nirvana should point out to “both” Jainsim and Buddhism concepts."

I don't disagree at all. My point is nothing to do with the definitions etc. Only to do with whether the spiritual concept is a preeminent topic (a Primary topic) that deserves and should be accorded what Wikipedia provides for. And that is that certain articles be the Primary article. The Nirvana article has always had that status. The most ardent fans of the grunge band acknowledge that the spiritual concept existed for approximately 3,000 years before Kurt Cobain started a group that lasted all of six years!

B) Wikipedia needs to be helpful to its users. On the other hand it is an encyclopedia not a pop culture website. And it is not a popularity concept of what is fashionable and popular just in today's world and in very recent times.

There are a large number of fans of the band Nirvana - and (with two exceptions) even with that popularity - those fans who use Wikipedia have been quite content to look for the band as "Nirvana (band)" - and have not objected to the spiritual concept being the primary article.

4) If a new rock band comes along tomorrow called "Christianity" - it becomes very successful and sells millions of CDs and sellout concerts. And a lot of young people think first of the band when they see the word "Christianity" rather than the faith. Should we then change the Wikipedia article on "Christianity" from its primary article status to "Christianity (faith)" And make "Christianity" become a DAB page to appease a few young music fans who might not know that there was a faith of that name before there was a rock band?! That is what your action (though very well intentioned) has done.

5) Personally I feel very strongly that this article should be named just as it has been "Nirvana" - without any extra word in the title (such as "faith" or "Buddhism") And it certainly should be the Primary Article. The page you go to if you type in "Nirvana" instead of a DAB page

I hope you will agree. But even if you don't, please restore the article name (and its position as Primary Article - with a DAB notice at the top) exactly as it was - and open this for discussion on the Talk Page. Not a popularity poll - but a serious discussion.

If you have the same technical difficulty as I had in restoring it - then I will get an Administrator to do this. Thank you. Davidpatrick (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:Assistance

I'm afraid I don't have the necessary knowledge to effectively deal with your conflict on Indian religions, but I did what I could and added my suggestions to Discussion with IAF. Please read them and see what you and IAF can do. I think that the most important step in resolving this is to avoid assumptions of bad faith and inflammatory comments. I would suggest that you copy and paste sections from the article that are disputed onto the article talk page and change the disputed parts as you see fit, then let IAF do the same, and compromise using both of your ideas and others'. I'll try to fix the grammar, as that appears to be a recurring issue, and look it over to see if it's unbiased and well-referenced; I'll assume that both of you as well as others such as Legalese and Manish Modi will do the same and help refine it. Then it will be fit to edit in the actual article. You can contact me on my talk page if anything important happens. --Qmwne235 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC) I was hoping that you would add your bit, if you have some knowledge on Jainism.

Well, I tried, but I really don't know that much about the early history of Jainism that hasn't already been covered.

You have clubbed me at par with IAF. Maybe you have not read the talk pages properly. He has flatly refused for any consensus or compromise. I assumed that he wanted some consensus when he started talk on my talk page. But he is simply playing around. He has never claimed that he wants consensus. Its not that I was not in disagreement with other editors. But I have made many compromises when others were right. But this chap is simply pushing his POV.

I recognize that, but a sentence or two describing the theory his references propound wouldn't hurt, as long as they are well-referenced and avoid original research.

Maybe be you have not realized that I have given more than a dozen references for each and every point I made. Believe me, it is a painstaking work going thru all the books. He simply has one or two sources from websites and one source from googlebooks.

I've seen your large lists of references, but those generally promote the status quo of the article, which says that sramana and Vedic traditions were separate. His lack of sources does not prove him wrong, but he should have better sources. We can only add in the parts of his theory that he has sources to back up; if he had better sources, it might be possible to make a larger section describing these alternate theories.

He has no scruples in quoting Stephen Knapp, who is making preposterous claims that all ancient cultures like Egypt, Greeks etc. were Hindus. If Stephen knapp is admissible as a reference then I have ten dozen Jain orthodox sources that make many claims that may not be acceptable to scholars. But I am refraining from doing that.

Stephen Knapp does not claim that all those civilizations were Hindu; he claims that some of the features in their beliefs and art resemble those of Hindu art, which is possibly true. If IAF claims that they were Hindus, that would be original research.

He has a habit of alleging that I am using Manish Modis account. Then He claims I am using 2 accounts.

Well, that's a lack of assumption of good faith on his part. Even looking at your writing styles, I can tell that you and Manish Modi are two separate users. Still, there's no way to deal with that. --Qmwne235 18:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)