![]() Archives |
|
---|---|
|
|
Contents
- 1 Changes to pages
- 2 Moving Shunga to Shunga (art)
- 3 Shikhara
- 4 page move format
- 5 GOOGLEHITS
- 6 Ashoka
- 7 Speedy deletion declined: Shravasti
- 8 Move discussion in progress
- 9 August 2015
- 10 Sikkim
- 11 What's the harm in talking before making conflicting changes?
- 12 Balkrishna
- 13 Religions
- 14 October 2015
- 15 Edit warring warning
- 16 Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism does not credit Padmasambhava with the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet
- 17 Edit warring noticeboard
- 18 Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
- 19 Some stroopwafels for you!
Changes to pages
Recently, I say that my changes were reverted by you. May I know why that was done? How it is decided what is trivial? Srini (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Srinivasrc: Hi, further to User:DMacks's response, I reverted those edits as a person signing a petition is in itself not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, especially when such an event is noted without context. The relatively notable event here would be the fact that many celebrities submitted a mercy petition on behalf of Memom and this has found appropriate mention in his article. As for how something is decided to be trivial/not noteworthy, there is no hard and fast rule for it. If a decision is contentious, it is resolved by the editors reaching consensus through discussions (like this one!).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Moving Shunga to Shunga (art)
Hello, Cpt.a.haddock. You popped up on my WP:Watchlist because of your mass (WP:AWB) changes with regard to shunga. Why are you unnecessarily disambiguating the shunga topic? See WP:Disambiguation. Unless there are other shunga articles, there is no need to disambiguate "shunga." And even in a case where there are other shunga articles, the Shunga page should cover the primary meaning per WP:Common name WP:Primary topic, be a disambiguation page, or a WP:Broad-concept article. I also see that you have been discussing shunga and WP:Common name above. Flyer22 (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
With this edit, I see you note that a disambiguation page is coming. Will it link to other shunga articles? If it's just going to list other meanings without linking to other shunga articles, it's not a disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I struck through part of my text above because I meant "WP:Primary topic." Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Flyer22: Hi, the ambiguity arises from the use of Shunga when referring to the Indian Shunga Empire (as in "Pushyamitra was a Shunga emperor", a Yaksha figure from the Shunga period, etc.). This spelling (also, IAST: Śuṅga) is a recent name change (from Sunga) and has led to a number of instances where the link, instead of pointing to the 2000-year-old dynasty, pointed to a page on a Japanese art form (with salacious imagery). While I have fixed most of these misdirected links, I believe that a disambiguation page is necessary. FWIW, I believe that the Empire is/should be the primary topic for this term.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. As per this edit, I will be initiating a move request for the disambiguation page. I will ping you when I've created it. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Flyer22: Hi, the ambiguity arises from the use of Shunga when referring to the Indian Shunga Empire (as in "Pushyamitra was a Shunga emperor", a Yaksha figure from the Shunga period, etc.). This spelling (also, IAST: Śuṅga) is a recent name change (from Sunga) and has led to a number of instances where the link, instead of pointing to the 2000-year-old dynasty, pointed to a page on a Japanese art form (with salacious imagery). While I have fixed most of these misdirected links, I believe that a disambiguation page is necessary. FWIW, I believe that the Empire is/should be the primary topic for this term.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Going by Shunga (disambiguation), which is a page I overlooked earlier, it seems clear to me that shunga as a Japanese term for erotic art is the WP:Primary topic. WP:Primary topic is not about what we believe should be the primary topic; it's about what is the primary topic. It has methods to try and determine what the primary topic is; I mention those methods because you need to prove that the Empire is the primary topic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- @Flyer22: For your information.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Shikhara
Could you clarify which page you wanted moved to this destination in your G6 nomination? It's not clear to me. Thanks. —Verrai 18:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Verrai: Sorry about that. I would like Sikhara (wrong spelling) moved to Shikhara. Thank you.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. Done now. —Verrai 18:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
page move format
Having a discussion/comment section is very very common in RM's and RfC's, so I have no idea what you mean by haphazard. And your "per usual" support placement isn't usual at all. the person bringing the RM is not supposed to place a "support" since it is understood to be a support. It's overkill. Really, only if you start the RM but you oppose it (which occasionally happens) would you ever need to voice a yeh or nay. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click): If you dislike the standard RM format, propose to amend the template to add a survey and discussion section. Please feel free to point to anything that says that the editor proposing the RM is not "supposed to" add a vote. And it is "overkill" only when you have a format where you add comments, notes, and votes in three random sections. And you appear to have managed to do all three at once to add to the confusion.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Um... the template has it... it's used all the time. {{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why|talk=yes}} It is talked about under template usage at the bottom of the section right here. As for adding a your own support... I can say right this second that I'm not sure where it's located. It could just be common convention. I'll do my best to look for it but it's something (along with the template issue) that you'll see once your experience grows here on wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Hey, I found it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You had said "per usual" and I can tell you it is unusual to place a support statement as the nominator. It is not against any rules to do so, so you broke no rules or otherwise. But it's unusual. The guidelines says that "Most nominators simply allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is" and that if you decide to add it anyways that you should add "as nominator" so as not to confuse whoever closes the debate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the links. I've added the "as nominator" clarification. As for the format, that is certainly not the template that I chose to use. Even if otherwise, please move your "note" to the discussions section as per the format you prefer. Thank you.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I put it up top as a simple FYI to let everyone know the sources you gave use both formats. Many don't read the comments and I made sure to be fair in saying both styles are used in those places. It was before any other comments were added. Had I done it below it would have been a different tone in calling you out for leading people to believe that's all those news sites use. Instead I used a neutral fair approach so readers would know it right from the start. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that is simply too confusing. I'm reverting it to the standard template.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's more concise the other way, and keeps lengthy discussions in a separate section. I can create a separate discussion section at my choosing though others may or may not want to put their long comments there. That's their choice. But I did move the notice down into the discussion section because you didn't seem to like it up top (even though it was worded neutrally up top). Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that is simply too confusing. I'm reverting it to the standard template.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I put it up top as a simple FYI to let everyone know the sources you gave use both formats. Many don't read the comments and I made sure to be fair in saying both styles are used in those places. It was before any other comments were added. Had I done it below it would have been a different tone in calling you out for leading people to believe that's all those news sites use. Instead I used a neutral fair approach so readers would know it right from the start. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the links. I've added the "as nominator" clarification. As for the format, that is certainly not the template that I chose to use. Even if otherwise, please move your "note" to the discussions section as per the format you prefer. Thank you.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, I found it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You had said "per usual" and I can tell you it is unusual to place a support statement as the nominator. It is not against any rules to do so, so you broke no rules or otherwise. But it's unusual. The guidelines says that "Most nominators simply allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is" and that if you decide to add it anyways that you should add "as nominator" so as not to confuse whoever closes the debate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
GOOGLEHITS
Dammit, I throw in a link precisely so I don't have to answer followup questions, then get hit with a followup question about the link! I just can't win... Yunshui 雲水 11:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Yunshui: hehe. Sorry mate.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ashoka
Hello, thanks for your recent edit on Ashoka. Here "the great" was written in infobox, but there are pages like Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great where "the great" is used in title. What is your opinion about that? --Human3015Send WikiLove 10:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Human3015: Hi :) IMO, Alexander the Great and Cyrus the Great are their "common" names, with the epithets having become entrenched as part of their names over the centuries. This is not the case with Ashoka (or Akbar, et al.). It is however the case with other Indian personalities such as Mahatma Gandhi. Furthermore, many of the kings who are called "the great" often have predecessors and successors who carry the same name; Alexander the Great is actually Alexander III while Cyrus the Great is Cyrus II. "The great" (or "the young", "the old", or "the terrible") also serves to differentiate them from the rest. This is not the case with Ashoka either.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- You should reply on talk page of Ashoka, also read policies like WP:OR, WP:IDLI. --Human3015Send WikiLove 11:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Shravasti
Hello Cpt.a.haddock, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shravasti, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the speedy has already been declined so this is not a non-controversial move; please use the WP:RM process. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 08:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @SpacemanSpiff: I don't remember that decline at all :o I've created an RM request at Sravasti. Thanks for the note :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yogachara may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sikkim[edit]
Thanks for sorting out Cho La, were I the type to hand out barnstars you would definitely get one, but this will have to do. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 14:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
What's the harm in talking before making conflicting changes?[edit]
Father of a Thirtankara is by birth a Jain deity because he goes moksha definitely. Being a Jain at least this something I know. Further a simple infobox doesn't tell someone is a deity or person. It just summarises details of an article. Mahavira is of Ikshvaku dynasty. He inherited that dynasty from his father. He was not a salakapurusa, that I agree. Please restore the Jain infobox. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Capankajsmilyo: Wikipedia is not a blog and articles on Jainism are not only read by Jains. Everything needs to be verifiable. Ergo, please only include statements that are supported by sources. If you look at the Mahavira article, you will notice that the Ikshvaku attribution is uncited. Please copy the reference from the Siddhartha article over to the Mahavira article. If possible, avoid simply inserting the reference and try to flesh things out in the article's body. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Ref copied to Mahavira :) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Balkrishna[edit]
Thanks for the recent edits, i want to inform you that we have mentioned all the posts Acharya Balkrishna is handling right now, so there is no need for further expansion on that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashishssharma004 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Aashishssharma004: This is information sourced from a newspaper. If you have contrary information, please provide a source. I have tweaked the tense of the statement about Balkrishna being the MD of 20-30 companies as the newspaper article is from 2011. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Religions[edit]
The above information gives a pretty good idea on all basic aspects of religion that flourished in subcontient which influenced and shaped eachother for millenniums. Present religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) and Historic religions (Charvaka, Sramana, Ajivika, Indus religion) all share very common roots. I understand that it's in info box but it needs to be in 'see also' for easy access. It's important we add this information to give basic idea about what shaped religion as we know today in subcontinent.
- @59.93.72.8: Replied here.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
October 2015[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nalanda may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- complex on more than one occasion.<ref name="sankalia" />{{rp|214}}<ref name="ghosh" />{{rp|56}}) A stone inscription notes the destruction by fire and subsequent restoration at the Mahavihara
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism does not credit Padmasambhava with the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet
Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism does not credit Padmasambhava with the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Princeton dictionary says he played a role in the "NARRATIVE" of the Buddhism's arrival in Tibet, "Regardless of his historical status and the duration of his stay in Tibet".VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring noticeboard
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you!
![]() |
Hang on, and keep going! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
- @Joshua Jonathan: Thanks :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)