User talk:IPSOS/Archive 1

This link WP:EL contains a lot of guidelines for what are considered acceptable links. Generally commercial links are discouraged, unless they are primary sources for information on a topic (e.g. Amazon.com's article contains a link to amazon.com, but we don't link to amazon in other articles.) We discourage linking to forums, unless they can be shown to be meet guidelines about reliables sources and we don't link to google or yahoo groups (for the same reason as forums). The first link contains a greater explanation. Also, I remember reading, that some editors prefer to use "Further reading" rather than "External links". Further reading is a broader category and allows for things like book and/or journal citations. TheRingess 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you just created it, you can get it deleted by either using the "speedy delete" template {{db|"Give your reason here"}} or the "proposed deletion" template {{prod|"Give your reason here"}}. TheRingess 03:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely looks like a copyright violation, since it has been around for about a month, it can't be tagged for speedy using {{db-copyvio|url="source url"}} so I tagged it with {{copyvio|url="source url"}}. Basically, Wikipedia has a zero tolerance policy in regards to copyrights.TheRingess 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD contains a lot of good information on when/how/why an article can/should be deleted. TheRingess 05:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of policies floating around, too many for any one person to know. I believe in adhering to WP:BB and WP:CIVIL and that I'll learn other policies as I need them. TheRingess 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to "my preferences" and "user profile", there's a field there for the signature. Danlo Wi Soli Ringess 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to remind you that 3RR policy prohibits reverting a page more than three times in 24 hours. Admins may also decide that the spirt of the rule has been broken even if the letter of the rule has not; in other words, reverting 4 times in 25 hours can still be construed as a 3RR violation. Don't let him pull you into that.

At this point I tend to agree with your position, but edit warring isn't the way to solve the problem. Since the anonymous user's changes aren't simple vandalism, they can't just be reverted out of hand. I'm going to look into the situation and see what we can do. In the meantime, remember: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. It will all be fixed in due time. Kafziel ^Talk 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Do you have any evidence from a reliable source that Monier associates a lingam with a phallus? I'm unable to find independent verification of that. Kafziel ^Talk 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless:

• The web site itself is the topic of the article, or
• It has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website.

I think google books has relevant content of higher quality than any other website...--Joostvandeputte 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for taking the time to explain wikipedia policies to me. I will change my linking behavior accordingly, but i must say that i regret that we at wikipedia forgo an excellent open content source (google books that is). Sincerely and thankfully --Joostvandeputte 10:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not sure about the nomination sytle. It says to contact the originator, who seems to be anonymous. I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29 and it doesn't mention critics in NYT, which any good publisher can arrange a few. I also didn't search too diligently for awards. It does say any decent award will qualify. I also couldn't find any best sellers awards, but that could mean he has a bad publisher. Tmcsheery 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you are right about the best seller on that one. So does that mean all of them qualify?Tmcsheery 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I get them all? Tmcsheery 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acc. to the Wikipedia guidelines on external linking, it seems appropriate to add this established fan site to the list of fan sites for this article: no registration is required, the site is free and accessible to all, its representative of a section of the Dune fan community, there is no advertising, and the content relates to the subject matter of the wiki article. I fail to see the objection. If fan sites are deemed inappropriate to list, then remove them all from the article. 84.71.43.63 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not consider the link I added to be an inapproprite site to add to the external links. I do realize that Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, and I was not intending the link to be for advertising or promotion. If you took the time to have a good look around, this site holds more information on pisces all within the site, than any I have seen so far, and I found it very helpful.

As for reading the external guideline links and spam policies, I have read them, and I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, so I have a good understanding of what it is all about.

I will ammend my link to take one directly to the Pisces information page and other informational pisces links. I have found an abundance of useful Pisces information on this page and believe it truly would be benificial for others to read it. Yes this site has some wonderful pisces artwork, but it also contains a very comprehensive collection of pisces information. I sincerely hope this clears up any confusion you had as to why I added this wonderful site for others to read...

Yup, that makes a difference. Now it is specific to the article as required. Before it just didn't seem that directly related to the subject. I'd have put it at the end of the list of links myself, but no worries. IPSOS (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for messaging me. It is wrong that templates should only go on articles which are included on the template. For example, the Buddhism template is on Buddhism articles which are not on the template, the only criteria being if it's Buddhism or not. The same applies to most other templates. --Bondego 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that most articles benefit if they have 1 or 2 templates on it - and here the template fills a gap, because many of these articles have no template at all. I didn't add the template to articles like "Rabindranath Tagore", which already have 4 or more templates on it - that would be too many templates. I do not believe that templates should only be used for articles that are on the template itself - because that is not how the other religion templates are used. The templates "hinduism" and "buddhism", for example, are on all kind of hindu/ buddhist articles which are not on the template itself. Most templates do also have corresponding categories - but the template helps navigate between the more important of the articles and between subcategories. The template is young, it will mature with time. I am not yet familiar with the writings of Goldberg, but I agreee that the template should focus on writers that are known for their writings about Dharmic religions. --Bondego 10:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IPSOS. In regards to your removing the external link to http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/mysticalexp.html titled: Nirvikalpa Samadhi (triggered by sexual ecstasy)

It would seem that anyone interested in Neotantra in which the core feature is attaining a transcendent awakening through sexual ecstasy would be vitally interested in a first-person account of such an experience - particularly one that has substantial epistemological credibility. Considering the ambiguity of Neotantric practices, the fact that this rare episode had no religious context suggests that the principle of reducing or even omitting doctrinaire constructs from the sexual protocol has validity- provides a unique, integral insight to the subject.

NeoTantra is one of the most ideologically controversial topics in Wikipedia as it offends anyone attached to any religious tradition even Vamachara Tantrikas. Presenting substantive information on such a volatile topic without drifting into negative bias is a major challenge. I'd appreciate your letting me know if you have actually read my account and why you feel it is not relevant to the Neotantra article. Thanks and regards Mayagaia 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IPSOS- OK- I understand Wiki can't start making exceptions to the spam rules that everyone else can jump on to justify their case- thanks for the input Mayagaia 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to give you a friendly reminder of a newer addition to policy. Due to the reversion on your userpage, I'm sure that you weren't aware of it, it's a rather new addition. The new section states that The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided. As a guideline, it is not set in stone, however it is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, which links to Ignore all rules. IAR requires that the rules prevent you from improving the wiki, however some slack is given to this wording as long as your edits either reflect consensus or improve the wiki. Please make the necessary edits to your userpage so it abides with community consensus! Thanks, ST47Talk 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of the extremely silly dispute. I'm also aware that the section is not new, and that you are not the first person to go around editing other user's user pages based on it. I am also aware that the last person to do so was reprimanded. It is "frowned upon", not forbidden, and doesn't give you the right to remove it from my user page. Do all the "frowning" you like on my talk page (might I suggest that you use an emoticon for the purpose?), but please do not edit my user page again. The rule says that it is to be "avoided", not removed. Please follow the rule and avoid looking at my user page and it will cease to bother you. Have a nice day! :-) IPSOS (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IPSOS! I've re-edited your unfinished reconstruction of the first paragraph and replaced the reference section and some listings and a sentence in the Practice chapter that were inexplicably deleted by their author- Delicasso

regarding your deleting the phrase "open-source process": The phrase would seem to be particularly appropriate as analogous to the wiki phenomena which permits anyone to contribute and accuratly emphasizes that neotantra is an evolving process rather than a fixed belief system.

What is the reason to dull the sentence by elliminating it?

regarding the citation tag at the end of the second paragraph: The paragraph states these facts: 1. Neotantriks embrace the notion that sex is a path to transcendent experience. 2. They modify traditional Tantras - elliminating deviant transgressive features as in Vamachara Tantra. 3. They are exploring how far an integrative approach can take them to ultimate realization.

Can you provide me an example of a hypothetical citation that would justify this as a fair characterization of the entire neotantra community-landscape-movement? If not- let's forgo

the need for a citation here.

regarding weasel words tagged in the following paragraph: Many other teachers have pioneered their modern understanding of tantra as it relates to its ancient roots. Some [tag] believe that tantric knowledge or teachings can be directly transmitted from teacher to student through the modalities of eye contact, playful conversation, touch and sexual contact. Others [tag] consider tantra as a way to use one's body to connect with the Divine without the need for a spiritual leader.

Each of these terms refer to the subject "teachers" in the first sentence. I could follow with a repeat of "teachers" which would be boring or use synounims like "instructors" or "pedigogs" or "gurus" but these are all awkward and less appropriate than "teacher". 
Isn't it sufficiently clear that "Some" and "Others" refer to "teachers"? 

regarding citation tag for the following: Such extraordinary episodes manifesting so unconditionally and inexplicably relate to religious concepts of Christian Grace, the anugraha of Vedanta and anupaya of Hindu Saivism.

I'm not sure beyond providing a wiki link for each of the words Grace, anugraha and Saivism what needs to be cited. The term "anupaya" although not in the wiki Saivism article is easily Googled so is this what you are requesting?

I'll appreciate a reply to all these issues so we can clear up all those distracting tags. Thanks and Cheers Mayagaia 22:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste. I would welcome your support in the overhaul of one of the worst articles on Wikipedia: Vamachara. Regarding order for the end matter, I noticed that the featured article today used a different approach that I think solves some problems with confusion about what the sections are. See: The Turk. I welcome your comments on that alternative format. I find the terminology of "Notes" and "Works cited" more clear, and keeping the two subsections togethers helps enforce the idea that one is dependent on the other. What do you think? Buddhipriya 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IPSOS,

Thanks for the overview regarding wiki protocol for verifiability which I am preparing to study and apply to the Neotantra article. Of course many of your tags are on material that I did not originate however I'll do my best to satisfy your requests. Of course I could easily tag about every other sentence in the article as not being sourced since by it's very nature Neo anything is indeed an open-source process rather than a stationary identifiable artifact like scripture or doctrine however I'll do my best. Of course you're free to improve or delete the entire article- whatever you feel helps wikipedia. Cheers Mayagaia 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just noticed that you have renamed Ganesha outside Hinduism. The name of that page has been changed before, and finding the right idea for it is something you probably can help with. However the reason why it was named the previous way was an attempt to deal with two different issues, namely 1) Ganesha outside the religion of Hinduism, e.g,, in Buddhism, and 2) Worship of Ganesha by Hindus or other people outside of India. Many people tend to think of India and Hinduism as interchangeable, and the geographic spread of Hinduism was one of the factors involved with the spread of Ganesha worship. I wonder if you would be willing to discuss this change further on the talk page for that article so the best name can be agreed upon by additional editors. Buddhipriya 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User:Philosopher1 who has been vandalizing Christianity and Lingam is a suspected sock puppet of the notorious User:Maleabroad, whose exploits are documented at: User:Abecedare/Maleabroad. He has a long pattern of religious hatred and those who are disrupted by his continuous new socks are encouraged to report new incidents so he can be quickly identified and controlled. Due to extreme pressure on him from within the Hinduism project he appears to be moving out to secondary targets, and I believe that Christianity has been vandalized in connection with that. If you wish to help with control of this vandalism don't hesitate to post new evidence. He has certain themes that come up again and again which are documented on the control page for him. Buddhipriya 19:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop placing your practical jokes about on Wikipedia. We are trying to create an encyclopaedia, not a comedy show. Thebestkiano 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the edit you made to your userpage was not vandalism, very sorry, I was being too harsh. I just left a quick note to tell you to stop playing around with practical jokes. It wastes a lot of time for wikipedians, like yourself, which has a lot better uses. Thanks, Thebestkiano 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not realise that it was permitted. Thanks for teaching me something. I apologise for the inconvience I have caused. You may, by all means continue with this little joke on your page.

P.S. I might put it on my userpage too now! Thanks, Thebestkiano 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the awards sentence to avoid edit warring. There was no destruction of content at hand. I'd rather have a neutral and mostly comprehensive lead section than a lead section that's comprehensive but suggestive of bias by mentioning Oscar nominations or wins to define a film at the start. In the future, I'll see if I can remove the bias and be comprehensive at the end of the lead section in explaining how the film was received at awards shows. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in what additional wikification is needed for this article. It seems to have appropriate links (though admittedly too many are red) and enough citations for the Hindu section, as well as a clear layout. The Buddhist secton remains unreferenced which is why I added the citation tag to that section rather than the entire article - but I think this justifies the cite tag rather than the wikify one.

I don't mind leaving the wikify tag on, as it encourages people to come to the page. Overall, however, I think the aricle is not bad. What are some specific things it still needs? Euryalus 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Euryalus 04:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The article sites the Roman missal and gives a link to it. The Roman missal is the guide for all Christian usage. Each church adapts its ues, but it all came from the Catholics. Why is that not citation enough? It has as much as the majority of articles that I see. Thanks. Sarum blue 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to end up filling Ma'at up with mainly Budge as a source, do you happen to have any other good works that you could counter Budge with?

KV(Talk) 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you are fine with the edits so far then

KV(Talk) 01:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all Budge. I'm thinking in the mean time of making a template for all the aspects of Egyptian religion but I don't remember what those are even called.

KV(Talk) 01:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not like Egyptian Soul..... one of those templates at the bottom that link to the major outlines of Egyptian Religion... one would link to Egyptian Religion, another to the list of the gods, etc.

KV(Talk) 01:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I'm going to fix that right now. Sorry Captain panda 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with the Bhairavi issue. Gautam ^Discuss 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion for raga has an idea of mine. Please see if it interests you. Maybe you want to join in? Best regards, Gautam ^Discuss 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I am familiar with the guidelines.

I did not consider the link I added to be an inapproprite addition to external links or as a reference. In fact, the Welcomed Consensus fits within the current guidelines as a notable organization. Their research is not original, their information is readily available free by simply posting a question to their forum, they have had chapters written about their research and technique in two different sex manuals. Some of their videos are available on Amazon My main question is: If a books written have similar information as what is offered by the Welcomed Consensus in video format, why are the books acceptable and not the video? Considering the subject matter it could be considered a superior medium for learning. Please don't tell me it is because the authors have a PHD by their name. I was not intending the link to be for advertising or promotion. I find their information an incredible contribution to our understanding of the female orgasm, while it maybe outside of the mainstream of acadamia. Should I simply wait until it has been accepted as a notable organization or do you have any other suggestions? Thanks again. 208.31.88.53 01:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Rich[reply]

Personally, I've never objected to the use of the word Hindu on those pages. Upon consideration, I do believe it's too vague to be userful. Please understand, that no one is suggesting that we be "ridiculous" or "impractical". Try to think in terms of moving the discussion along in a fruitful direction. The old maxim "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" is very applicable here. Your edit summaries that imply other editors are impractical or desire to be impractical are less than helpful. I seem to remember that even Muktananda said that if you can't be helpful and least don't be hindrance. I think that you are too close to the material to understand the effect your words are having on the fellow editors who disagree with the inclusion of the word Hindu. Personally I think that referring to SY as a branch of Kashmir Shaivism and including the word Hindu is a very acceptable compromise. If you continue to label other people's suggestions as impractical or ridiculous they will merely dig in. They are, after all, only human. Their desire is to improve the article, they simply have a viewpoint that differs from your own as to what constitutes improvement. Peace.TheRingess (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for asking about the term Gurumayi. I'm surprised that you weren't aware of that very basic bit of knowledge about Gurumayi, after seeing your investment in the way this article is written. May I ask what your interest in the topic is? MahaDave 02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable question. Her birth name is given, and Gurumayi is not in it. I believe it is a title, but want to be sure. IPSOS (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I wasn't very clear. I wasn't talking about that question. Not that it's any of my business, but I thought it might be helpful to know why you're interested in editing an article about Gurumayi at all. It might make it easier to collaborate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MahaDave (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Here's a link that you might want to read and absorb don't bite the newcomer or be welcoming. In essence, we all make mistakes that can be easily misconstrued as more sinister than they actually are, and we get nowhere making allegations. Peace.TheRingess (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! IPSOS (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider the part "research on genius and illuminati" it is important to the kundalini article because gopi krishna was the fist to propose this research. The rest of the part is not about mr krishna at all, but on the research (however small) has already been made, so it is not biographical. If you have a suggestion on rewording, I am open for remarks. Teardrop onthefire 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you deleted the contact info on the ashram page. Is this a Wiki policy ? What about the address on Brickman Road. Is this treated as contact info?

Sardaka 09:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a look at the link you provided and cannot see anything that necessarily stops us from providing contact info for Fallsburg. Travel Guides, maybe, or Directories, maybe, but they're borderline. Can't see why we can't BE BOLD, as they're always saying at Wiki, and provide the contact info. If Wiki don't like it, I'm sure they'll let us know in due course. Anyway, I'm giving up participating in the SY articles. Too many wankers.

Sardaka 13:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phone numbers are mentioned only in the context of providing a list or directory of events etc for a particular business. In other words, in the context of using Wiki as a business directory. I see nothing there that stops us from mentioning the address, email address etc of Fallsburg. That's not a directory in the sense they mean. Deleting things the way you did just stops us from providing useful information, and the possibility that Wiki would object is remote and could be dealt with IF it happened. It's not a good idea to delete people's contributions for no good reason. They might get the impression that the SY articles are run by a bunch of wankers. (Don't worry about replying. I'm not interested anymore.)

Sardaka 13:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could tone it down and be more polite to other users, regardless of what you think of them or your past interactions with them?

Well, because you asked me...no. That last clause might have been a tiny clue. The tone of your User Page "Problem with Wikipedia" also tells me how seriously I should take your advice.

Now run along and edit an encyclopedia or something. --Calton | Talk 14:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the kind of guy Calton is, and he was much worse when he was interacting with me in the past. What can you do?

BTW, the Prac J on your user page is hilarious! It had me sctatching my head and clicking back and forth til I sussed it out. Rosencomet 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to look at the Gurumayi Chidvilasananda and Siddha Yoga articles — but an RfA combined with real life pressures are keeping any constructive editing down to the bare minimum right now. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I put my comments on the wrong page. I thought it was the right thing to do if I wanted to comment on your Wikipedia comments.

Sardaka 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spam link does not belong at the beginning. See the Wikipedia rules on spam. There is already a link to that order in the appropriate section. Moreover, the link to Van Leuven is clearly in violaton of veriviability rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hogd2007 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's not vandalism to follow the rules. Is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.49.226 (talk • contribs)

You're wikilawyering. IPSOS (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

au contraire — Mirror, Mirror on the Wall who is the editor at war. An editor who intentionally reverts the same article three times every day is not breaching the letter of this rule, but violates the spirit of the rule - and can thus be sanctioned for revert warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.49.226 (talk • contribs)

Please do not post on my talk page again. Post on the article talk page where other editors can contribute their opinions. You are incorrect about Wikipedia policy, it does not prohibit linking to online versions of publications such as newspapers, journals, etc. as long as the content is accessible without logging in. It is not considered spam simply because you can subscribe to the publication on their site! That would prevent linking to all online magazine and newspaper articles, which is clearly not the case. It's not "vandalism" to clean up after an inexperienced editor who's read the rules but clearly has no idea how they are typically applied. In the future, please discuss article content on the article talk page. IPSOS (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not explain why I should not post on this page. You are very quick to assert your interpretation of what the rules are but make no effort to compromise, explain or discuss. So, you want the links in question (which I think are somewhat spurious) as a compromise I can accept their inclusion but you now insist on linking them to a commercial site when a non-commercial (and authorised by Fortean Times) alternative is available. So tell me, why won't YOU compromise?

PS Don't do as I do, do as I say. You posted your comments and threats to my 'user talk page' and ignored the articles discussion page — why do you expect me to any differently to the example you set.

The warning was prefixed by why leave this! You are nothing short of a bully without a point. If I owned the site why would I remove the repeatedly remove the links you insist on including???? I compromised with you over their inclusion so why do you insist on linking to a commercial site when there are authorised copies on a non-commercial site. If I were t judge you by your own standards I might accuse you of having a commercial interest in Fortean Times?

Why do you refuse to link to a non-commercial version

In case you hadn't noticed, I switched to your links several versions ago, and you continue to vandalise the article anyway. You are about to be blocked. IPSOS (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you keep linking back to Fortean Times if as you say you are using the non-commercial ones

I've asked you to stop posting on my talk page. I will not respond to any further comment here except to delete them. Use the article talk page. IPSOS (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing -- my apologies for the typo on the link it was a genuine error and not vandalsim as you claim.

Your edits to the Hermetic Qabbalah page are really quite over the top. Firstly, it is policy not to make a whole series of small edits but to make as few as possible. It makes it very hard to follow the changes when you make a lot of small edits one after the other. Please try to abide by this in the future. While I will agree that this article needs more referencing, most of the things which you have added fact tags to are so well known as to be beyond dispute. Having said this I will be adding some appropriate references in the next day or so. However some things, e.g. Hermetic Qabbalah being a precursor to Wicca etc are not (as you say) bold statements but rather established fact. Also removing all the categories is not fixing 'overcategorization'. I'll agree that one or two of them were a bit spurious, but certainly not all of them. Please take a couple of deep breaths and think carefully before editing pages when you are obviously not well versed in the topic. Morgan Leigh 11:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this reference, which is at least as relevant, if not more, as this character's inclusion in a comic book series. The character in the series Millennium is intended to be the angel/demon Samael. You have no reason to remove the reference. --Bookworm857158367 03:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in joining a team effort to bring the Tantra article to FA status.

If so, please see Talk:Tantra#Team Tantra

TheRingess (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS guideline quotes "The Manual of Style does not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style—everything here should be applied with thought, not robotically".

Try not to robotically foist things onto other editors. Thanks. J. D. Redding 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, this particular user is a known troublemaker. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2. We might consider requesting a community ban for his disruptive behavior. --ScienceApologist 16:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOS ...

"These are not rigid laws, but principles that editors have found to work well in most circumstances. ... follow these guidelines with flexibility. If a rule keeps you from writing an informative, useful encyclopedia, ignore it."

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that it is inappropriate for an editor to change from one style to the other unless there is a substantial reason to do so. (note, I have done so to help editing the external articles and references or categorize see also sections ... most/all improve a page)

... warring over "optional styles" is unacceptable ....

Sincerely, J. D. Redding 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The style you are using is not among the options, it is personal. Take it up on the appropriate discussion pages. I don't agree that what you are doing makes the article better. I beleive that it makes it worse. It makes it harder to find a particular reference. It confuses the distinction between external links and references. It changes the heading levels which are clearly described as being level 2 headings in the guidelines. You have offered no convincing arguments to support the contention that your way is better. Therefore, there is no reason not to follow WP:LAYOUT. IPSOS (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please apply the ruling to yourself. I know these articles were changed by you to your style. You are doing it to almost every article you touch. I am changing it back. So please stop mass changing articles from the style described by the MoS and WP:LAYOUT to your personal style. I can go into the history of any article on which you use it and show where you changed the style. Because no one but you does it that way. So who is needlessly changing styles here? Next time you do it, I shall follow the next step in the process for dealing with disruptive editors, which is to report it on the one of admin pages. IPSOS (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robotically doing this is not good. You sir are being inflexibile. J. D. Redding 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I jsut cleared my watchlist so I don't have to see your actions. Thanks for making Wikipedia worse for me. J. D. Redding 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making it worse for yourself by ignoring guidelines unnecessarily. I will not accept responsibility for your personal problems with following guidelines. IPSOS (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IPSOS, thank you for your contribution to Antithesis, however, you have either knowingly or unknowingly embroiled into a revert war. Please refrain from further revert and post on talk page first before doing any controversial changes. Thank you! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is protected, please talk about it on talk page. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your catch on the Guru Gita page, I have to agree, that link belongs. BTW, I just wanted to say that I've appreciated your edits and comments on the articles which we have interacted on. Keep up the good work.TheRingess (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this line is appropriate for the Gurudev Siddha Peeth article.

"People who wish to stay there are asked to apply first (see external link below)."

TheRingess (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the implication that I didn't search properly. Of course I was aware of the Nous article. The original submitted Divine Nous article made a clear distinction between "Divine Nous" and "Nous": "Pythagoreanism goes on to point out that the Divine Nous is the intuitive direct grasp of ideas and is different for your own personal human nous." You're welcome to propose a merger, of course, but the article I created was obviously intended to be a separate article and not clearly a duplicate of Nous. Powers ^T 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you think that was obvious from the text of the proposed article? Powers ^T 13:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it can be frustrating. I normally wouldn't have wandered into the topic area at all, but for the article creation request. In that realm, I find it best to just weed out the obviously bad articles and let the borderline ones be vetted by the community, particularly by those most familiar with the subject matter. =) Have a nice day. Powers ^T 01:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]