User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Archive1.1 18.02.2008 to 07.07.2009

Welcome to my chittychat page. I welcome dialogue and discourse.

"Whatever is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil."
Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche

Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual people, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_metaphysical_sciences but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)

Well, that is simple, ain't it? Just as any wikilink, sort of like this. Is this what you were referring to? :) Mspraveen (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikimedian,

I am writing to you as your named is listed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia under "People interested in helping to create a local chapter". Wikimedia Australia's draft rules have been approved by the Wikimedia Foundation, and we now intend to incorporate in the state of Victoria. You are hereby informed of the intention to hold a Wikimedia Australia meeting on 20th April 2008 with the intention to

(a) authorize a person who has attained the age of 18 years and who is resident in the State to incorporate Wikimedia Australia under the Victorian Associations Incorporation Act 1981; [that is, elect a Public Officer](b) approve a proposed statement of purposes of Wikimedia Australia; and(c) approve the proposed rules of Wikimedia Australia.

A majority of members must vote to pass the motion to incorporate as an association, for it to meet the requirements of the Act.

The proposed rules, and proposed statement of purpose, can be found here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia/Draft_Rules_for_Wikimedia_Australia_Inc

Details of the incorporation meeting, including local meetings (to be joined up by teleconferencing, with any luck) and the agenda, can be found here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia/Incorporation

In particular, you are invited to attend the Melbourne meeting:

• Time: 3pm
• Date: Sunday 20th April 2008
• Location: Computerbank, North Melbourne
• RSVP (optional): at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia/Incorporation/Melbourne or http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=12283635078

I also encourage you to take part in discussion on the mailing list:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/Wikimediaau-l

If you are unable to attend, you can vote by proxy. Please copy the proxy form at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia/Proxy_form and send it to me in an email. (It is better to appoint a generic member, e.g. "Meeting Chair" or "Acting Secretary", both of whom will be of Melbourne, rather than a specific member, but the choice is yours.)

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.

Yours sincerely,Brianna LaugherProvisional Secretary, Wikimedia Australia

special:emailuser/pfctdayeliseskype/irc/wikipedia/meta/commons: pfctdayelise

FYI, there is now a Vaishnava project located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism. Any Vaishnava related discussions can be listed here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism. Any edits or comments you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor I like to draw your attention to that specific article, Dorje Shugden, which was substantially changed by a group of three new editors, without any discussion on the talk page. Rather one of the new editor revealed: "Many of these changes were discussed between at least three of the editors." which must have happened outside of WP, because there is no discussion on the talk page or their WP-accounts. One of the new editors claimed: "You seem to be the only person who accepted this article as it was. If you check you will see that the changes made make this article more neutral and unbiased then it was before previous edits." If I check I see the article omitted different POV's, deleted verified passages, included passages from anonymous websites and turned the article to a more bias Pro-Shugden POV. I'd like to ask you to check that and to give your opinion or to collaborate if there is a need for improving the article, so that we can have an unbiased, neutral, well-informed article which fairly presents all POV's. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Join WikiProject Krishnaism

How should the Krishna-centered traditions of Hinduism should be represented?

• Help us improve related to Krishna-worship!
• We need to talk it over!
• Ready to join? See the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Join WikiProject Krishnaism. There are many traditions where Krishna is worshiped and His names revered. The purpose of this project is to join forces and create more beautiful and well sourced articles. The traditions are not limited to one or two; there are many and all should be given equal attention. Leave a few words here and we will discuss it further.

I have nominated Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs for deletion as suggested. Please comment and support/oppose the nomination there. Thanks --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi B9 -

I hope you don't mind but I tried to better integrate your recent addition to Trailokya into the existing article, mainly by:

• moving the Tibetan term ('khams-gsum) to a revamped opening parenthetical list of non-Sanskrit terms
• moving the translation(s) ("three planes of existence" as well as "three realms") to a revamped list of alternate translations
• moving specifics to the source (Berzin archives) to an end note
• removing subheader of "Nomenclature, orthography and etymology"

The main basis for my changes was the format of several other WP Buddhism articles (though I guess another alternative would be to use template:Buddhist_term). If you disagree with any of these changes, please feel free to contact me on my talk page or Talk:Trailokya and, of course, if you like, feel free to revert. (No offense will be taken.)

I hope you are well,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize if I placed the term "Wylie" in a way that you find wrong-headed. Please correct if you are so inclined. Also, did you previously add the Purucker and Blavatsy references? If so, are these actually one and the same? If not, is there a specific place where Purucker is used? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the thoughtful and helpful response. I'll keep the blogspot article in my queue. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting the WikiProject Systems. I noticed you mentioned the term Cognitive systems theory. It should be interesting to write an article about that? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I was doing New Page Patrol this morning and I came upon your new article for Bshad pa dang cha mthun gyi rgyud tantra sde bco brgyad. I just wanted to take a moment to commend you on the fine article and to thank you for bringing it to Wikipedia. Peace be with you. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I see you've a lot of experience with Vajrayana topics. There is a discussion underway about moving "Ishta-deva (Buddhism) to "yidam"--if you'd care to review the arguments pro and con on the talk page, your input would be appreciated.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi B9: I tried to add a disambig page for the two texts named 'Tattvasamgraha'without disturbing your (quite excellent) article on the tantra of that name -- However I was not successful in moving pages to have the proper diacritics; Would you have a look at them? We'll need a different name for the [stubby] article I created dealing with Shantarakshita's TVSG, over and above the diacritics since I think the dab page should be just 'tattvasamgraha' (with diacritics) since that's what people are likely to search on first. Also, I have additional references to add for both which I'll get to shortly -- Thanks!Zero sharp (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that there are _two_ works named Tattvasamgraha, the tantra and the sgrub-mtha text by Shantarakshita. While I am aware that Shantarakshita was also a tantrika, he is most certainly _not_ the author of the Tattvasamgraha tantra. Zero sharp (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

from "The Ornament of the Middle Way: A Study of the Madhyamika Thought of Shantarakshita" by James Blumenthal, Snow Lion Publications, 2004 (pp28-29):

"TS (Tattvasamgraha) is [Shantarakshita's] encyclopedic tenet system siddhAnta, grub mtha') style text which surveys a host of Buddhist and non-Buddhist views, offering criticism of opposing view throughout."

This article was cut down because of the consensus reached in the discussion at articles for deletion, which you did not participate in. An edit summary like "extract salient points and footnote, don't undo my scholarly pastiche: there is a grand synthesis unfolding" makes it patently obvious that you are adding your own opinions and original research to the article. Please discontinue this behavior, promoting your religious viewpoints is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, B9 hummingbird hovering. You have new messages at Beeblebrox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello B9 hummingbird hovering:

This is about your contribution to the "Spiritual" section of the article Western world.

I am not so enamoured of my reading and comprehension skills or so bold as to say that the paragraph in question is incomprehensible.

However, I will say that in my opinion it is insufficiently transparent to be appropriate in the context of a general encyclopedia.

Perhaps as a starting point you would be kind enough to paraphrase "reify the polarity" in more down-to-earth language? Thank you.

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph in question ('Spiritual' section of Western world article):

If we reify the polarity of the Occident and Orient, a historical literature review may reveal the attribution of meditative disciplines to the East and prayerful disciplines to the West. Just as the East and West are but arbitrary compass constructions of an all-encompassing Globe, so too are the disciplines of prayer and meditation complimentary, interpenetrating and essentially indivisible. The perpetuation of these cultural and historical misattributions obscures the boundary-permeable manifold experience of individuals and communities that traverse this ill-constructed ideo-geographical binary.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

self critique: lyrical but not inaccessible...

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm writing to let you know that Wikimedia Australia is now accepting members. Membership is $40/year or $20/year concession. There is no joining fee, only the yearly fee. To read a description of the process, go here: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia/Membership>

The membership form is here: <http://membership.wikimedia.org.au/memberdb/index.php?page=signup> After completing the form and after the committee approves your application, you will receive an email with instructions on how to pay membership fees.

I am writing to you because you have listed yourself at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia> as someone interested in the Wikimedia Australia chapter. If you are not longer interested in WMAU I recommend removing yourself from this page.

If you have any questions or encounter any difficulties in this process please contact me. blaugher@wikimedia.org.au or just reply to this email.

thanks,

Brianna (pfctdayelise (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)), interim WMAU secretary

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bodhipathapradīpa, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not notable, only 168 google results, of which some are unrelated

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Guy0307 (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You cannot yourself propose a theory as to how the metaphor of water developed, if it did. That is original research. Check out Stream of consciousness (psychology)#Buddhism. Mitsube (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Then please quote from him explaining how that quote from the Rig Veda has something to do with Buddhism. Mitsube (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The citta sanatana isn't about Buddha Dharma it is about Sanatana Dharma all of which is about the problem of one and many which is to do with the Dharma. I don't need to quote I have cited. Read the book and article. BTW, James developed the concept of stream of consciousness from the mindstream. Read his biographical notes in a million volumes...the stream of consciousness idea developed as a direct result of his immersion within mindstream literature, disciplines (vipashyana, etc.) and contact with the meme.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what you really want for your stats, but have placed three alternatives on your user page. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DBF Zero sharp (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. DFS454 (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. DFS454 (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Candi Sukuh? Bit like walking in the dark against the wind - candi sukuh is not on many watch lists - try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia and do not expect to get an intelligble response in the short term SatuSuro 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the translation of buddhist/tibetan based items into sumatra, and java and possibly balinese traditions - very unlikely there is anyone there who would even understand your question :) as about much luck as we have on good sources on Atisa.

Ratu Boko (just west of Candi sukuh by about 50 km i think) which shows some very obscure items about the buddhist and hindu texts and things which might help. but hey you are in some rather obscure territory. SatuSuro 01:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please kindly check User_talk:Mitsube#Very_bad_editing_style.... Thanks. NazarK (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference to your edits to Culture of India. Please note that this is an English encyclopedia and the use of common, English terms should be preferred. Thanks --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just starting another attempt to stop the NKT people from 'taking over' the Wikipedia with their continuous edit-war to promote the Shugden practice. If you agree, please leave a note at Administrators noticeboard. rudy (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Adzom Drugpa (1842-1924) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines on using edit summaries for your edits to Wikipedia. Try to use summary text that is descriptiveof your edits as this is helps other editors review changes that have been made to articles without having to diff them. Thank you.

Which applies to my edits as well, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.3.95 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are exactly that, they do not bind.

Shrivatsa

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced commentary and disclaimers to this article. You may be interested in reading the discussion during this AFD which resulted in the deletion of the article titled Dharmic religion, after it was established that this term (and its variants) are non-notable as an umbrella terms for Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc. Abecedare (talk)

Yes i wasn't invited, where is the probity in that? And i have no contention with Dharmic religion (when it is understood that categorizing Buddhadharma as a 'religion' is problematic). Dharmic tradition is inclusive and to say that 'Dharmic' is a neologism is fallacious as it may be parsed into "Dharma" and the grammatical post-position "+ic" that follows morphological construction in English.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Philip Almond (The British Discovery of Buddhism, 1988: p.13):

Buddhism, by 1860, had come to exist, not in the Orient but in the Oriental libraries and institutes of the West, in its texts and manuscripts, at desks of the Western savants who interpreted it. It had become a textual object, defined, classified, and interpreted through its own textuality.... By the middle of the century, the Buddhism that existed "out there" was beginning to be judged by a West that alone knew what Buddhism was, is, and ought to be.^[1]

Notes

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indian religion. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Abecedare (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dharmic Traditions such as Sanatana Dharma, Jaina Dharma, Buddhadharma and Sikha Dharma, for example are traditions of Dharma. Often glossed Indian religions by Western discourse, where the term 'religions' is understood as an acculturation and culturally colonizing attribution following post-colonial discourse. In addition, to categorize Buddhadharma a 'religion' is culturally insensitive and incorrect given it is at core non-Deistic and non-Theistic. There is a need for meta-analysis on core assumptions. There is, and has been, and continues to be; an agenda in the -isms and the obscuration of the relationship of the manifold traditions of Dharma.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So source it, and state sourced content clearly. Mitsube (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This editor is incapable or unwilling of stating _anything_ clearly. To him/her WP is apparently some kind of performance art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.46.253.42 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

*Glows* at performance art: and there I was inappropriately feeling misunderstood when all the time they know. This performance art approached process art!

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is self-centered to use a public encyclopedia written by volunteers as a venue for some kind of self-pleasing "performance". Mitsube (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sapiential process not performance: art as swarm. A Community process mapping knowledges in their entirety evolving and mutually iterating each other as they dialogue. Wikipedia Editors iterating one another through contact events that mirror their contributions, as the knowings of the mapped knowledges in turn coalesce and mutually inform, as the synergetic of interpenetration actualizes. Posterity pro[p]sperity: Prospero in flagrante!

And my ending is despair,

Unless I be relieved by prayer,

Which pierces so that it assaults

Mercy itself and frees all faults.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What a lot of totally unmitigated crap - you are asked to use the edit privilege to contribute as a volunteer of an online encyclopedia that has a heap of conventions that you have to acknowledge if you are editing and working by -(maybe that is not your path) - dharmabums i say, posteriority to your ideas - not the place old chap - you want to rearrange dharma issues - you gotta have some damned good refs or otherwise drop it while the going is not specific SatuSuro 00:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Are u really approaching the Dharma and critiquing me thru the Beat Generation? Though 'dharmabums' as an amplification of Shramana is an interesting point of entry to Dharma, it is hardly encyclopedic in breadth; though sound as ancillary, a corollary and tangential intertextuality. I was 'there' over 20 years ago: how condescending (self-critique)...that's the root canker of u pretend [g]literati, no poetry.

Wikipedia is 4play: Howls in rapture!

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep it on this talk page And its in your own asylum to play out your problems - let this crap out into articles and expect the chop :) simple and no twaddle with that friend it will be what happens maroon robes or no SatuSuro 09:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for the perpetuation of the arbitrary construction of Eastern and Western discourse: If we reify the polarity of the Occident and Orient, a historical literature review may reveal the attribution of meditative disciplines to the East and prayerful disciplines to the West. Just as the East and West are but arbitrary compass constructions of an all-encompassing Globe, so too are the disciplines of prayer and meditation complimentary, interpenetrating and essentially indivisible. The perpetuation of these cultural and historical misattributions obscures the boundary-permeable manifold experience of individuals and communities that traverse this ill-constructed ideo-geographical binary.

Friend, as you have been reminded many times by other editors, this kind of commentary belongs on the talk page, not in the article. I appreciate your unique approach to editing Wikipedia, but do you see how these types of edits, while intended to be helpful, can cause problems? Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3RR violation. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Per a report at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

A further note, copied here from my own closure of the 3RR report, which other admins might want to consider in the unblock dialog:

B9 appears to be treating Wikipedia like a plaything, which fits the definition of disruptive editing. (Read over a few of his edit summaries to get the flavor). He is toying around with important articles. This is B9's fourth block.

If he does not see that as a problem, it is something for us to reflect on. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

There is no question that you have been a solid contributor to Wikipedia and I want to acknowledge that. 3RR is by far the most common policy violation that otherwise great contributors run in to. I have a question and perhaps a suggestion:

Are you referring to this which was labeled as uncivil on ANI? If so, i didn't interpret it to be particularly uncivil.

I might be willing to shorten the block if you indicated that you understood how you had violated the policies on both sockpuppeting and edit warring and agreed to:

1. never sockpuppet again
2. limit yourself to a 1RR on buddhism related topics for 2 months from release of block

Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

His contributions fall into two categories: untrue and unintelligible. There is significant overlap. As you can see from this talk page and any article he has edited, his overall contribution has been a negative one. I would ask him to please try to write clearly instead of trying to write unclearly. That defeats the point and makes a lot of the sourced material that I and others work to state clearly become of no use to anyone. One of the reasons for his first block was that as this talk page shows, he views wikipedia as his personal sandbox and has ignored repeated requests to stop approaching it that way. Mitsube (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Mitsube is overstating the case slightly re: B9's contributions being wholly negative but I think there's a real problem here. Please see [2]. Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): admission of sockpuppetry, promise to not do that again, promise not to edit war again. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Attn: Toddst1

With clarification I now understand that I sockpuppeted unknowingly. I thank FisherQueen very much for informing me. I will not do that again. I did not break 3RR unknowingly though, I don't know why I did it the third time, I just did. I really appreciate experiencing how the administrative mechanisms and safeguards work. May I ask why editors do not have to declare a conflict of interest? Zero Sharp and I have had a protracted editing relationship and he often is bested and hence is sore, I am so pleased he got a chance to sink in the boot. But as a second opinion in a matter such as this, it is my considered opinion that an administrator should have to declare a conflict of interest if there has been a prior history; or there should be a clear contradistinction with a caveat staying their involvement in a matter in which they are not objective. Did Zero Sharp follow protocol or is there not a safeguard? I have been tagteam bullied you see and they are working information and conveying what is definitely not my experience of events or a neutral conveyance. I tender my word that I will endeavour to not enter into edit waring and will endeavour to dialogue more with conflicted editors to establish common ground and prospect administrators for assistance instead in the eventuation of unresolved dispute. Hummingbirds are not an island. I do very much respect this community. Mitsube though has deleted my edits wholesale on Buddha-nature, what is the forum to have this investigated to see if that was an appropriate action by him? There were valuable edits embedded within what was unamenable to him. I agree to the special conditions made in regards to my writing/editing reinstatement and would be happy to honour them but also affirm that removal of the lock is not required and I will gracefully endure the penance with enjoyment and fortitude.

In beauty it is done

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, B9. I almost thought we've lost you for long, which I'd really not like to happen :) Don't get into conflicts with technically skilled group of editors who do not value the efforts and positive personal input into this project. Let them go their own way, as long as it lasts... Stay with us! I greatly appreciate your edits :) NazarK (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You are, unsurprisingly, confused; I'm not an administrator and it is _clearly_ stated at the header of ANI (for anyone who takes the time to read it): "Any user of Wikipedia may post here." Therefore, any bleating about conflicts of interest or failure to follow protocol are wooly thinking on your part and wholly a non-starter. Moreover, I went out of my way to qualify my comments to the effect that, even given the above, they may not be in the correct venue, inviting anyone who had a problem with them (including you) to say so. What's more I came to your defence above re: Mitsube's uncharitable overstatement that all of your contributions are negative; I don't think that; have never thought that. We've had our difficulties in the past, to be sure (something I didn't make a secret of, but neither did I make a point of it as anyone with more than a brainstem can see it from our respective edit histories) -- but even given that, my boots are for walking, not putting in anywhere. And I assure you any soreness on my part is only in my sides... from laughing so hard at your valiant attempts to spin things -- the dervishes themselves doff their fezzes. Zero sharp (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the half-barnstar, which I will take to mean that you respect and appreciate my efforts to protect "the Realm" from your editing. I do find much of what you write to be funny, but I wouldn't spend time on wikipedia if I didn't think it was important, and not a joke. Mitsube (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}Two editors have removed a cited direct quotation from the Soliton article (an article that has precious few inline citations) stating that the quotation is not relevant. I consider that it is relevant, they consider that it is not. They have suggested creating another article but that seems ridiculous to me considering the article is still little more than a stub. May I please have some advice about how to progress this stalemate? Please refer article talk page. Talk:Soliton.
Thanking you in anticipation
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution outlines your options in resolving a content dispute with other editors. I suggest you start by discussing the issue on the talk page and if this does not help, request a third opinion as the first step of dispute resolution. Regards SoWhy 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the request for a third opinion on soliton because at least 3, possibly 4 editors are involved in the dispute. May I suggest an request for comment instead? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.36.89 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
[4]60.242.36.89 (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message on my talk page while I was on Wikibreak. I hope you have been well. I just removed a reference to "twilight language" that you placed on the article for Bhaskararaya. You may recall that we had dialog about that term a long time ago. I felt that the term was unclear there and since there was no citation for its use in relation to Bhaskararaya, I felt it would be best to remove it pending further dialog. If there is a citation to a text using that term specifically to refer to the work of Bhaskararaya I would be interested to see it, as I have read his commentary on the Lalita Sahasranama with great interest. Best regards to you. Buddhipriya (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you are under the weather. Thank you for your flexibility regarding that one edit. I failed to thank you for making the other edits to add links, etc., all of which were improvements. Since we have worked together in the past I look forward to further collaboration. Buddhipriya (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What a nice thing to do! And for such an obscure contribution. You're very kind. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring and POV pushing at Indian religions. This issue has been discussed extensively including at the related AFD of Dharmic religions, where it was clearly established that your preferred terminology is not very notable. If you have any new reliable sources supporting your POV, discuss them at the talk page and establish new consensus. Your edits have already been reverted by numerous times by multiple editors over several weeks. If you continue down this path it will only lead to possible blocks or topic bans. Hopefully you'll avoid that. Abecedare (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello B9 hummingbird hovering. You have restored your preferred version of the Indian religions article five times since June 24. During that time, you have not posted on the article talk page or made any effort to get others to support your version of the article. When your last block was lifted on April 28, you promised to stop edit warring. If you continue to revert at Indian religions you will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have entered into conversation so that charge is false.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to the place where you found consensus to support your change at Indian religions? You have made no comment there since April 10, which was before your last block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted certain editors directly. Until I have fully formulated my case I will not revert again. I was just being gloriously petulant.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Contacted editors directly", for which we have only your word. And at the time the (justified) statements that you were edit warring w/o so much as a note on a talk page were made, you had not made so much as a note on a talk page. So much for 'transparency' I guess. And for 'gloriously petulant' I will read 'with blatant disregard for Wikipedia norms and standards and with no care for consensus or working with other editors to improve the encyclopedia'. That's just 'my interpretation' after all. 71.139.0.59 (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have clocked in excess of 8000 unique pages edited, not to mention the number of articles I have qualitatively developed and iterated with citations and direct quotations. You, why do u not have a user login? Mental note to register with a senior Admin to see if your IP has been barred for sock-puppetry. Why no login, especially when you are so well versed in Wikipedia 'guidelines', standing orders and operating procedure. You are successfully employing my honesty and transparency against me and that is fine. I concede and your sophisticated tactics and their execution is to be commended. My purpose is not to win nor am I here for popularity. I contemplated deleting ur entry but then I disfavour deleting information and truly embrace and favour inclusionism. You with your selective compartmentalization of knowledges, that separatism is also evident in your mind as well as ur covert activity. My reversions were not edit warring, that is a misnomer, there is no contest even though there is contestation. The purpose of my reversions was and is to demonstrate that my mental fight will not cease, either in evolving my own consciousness nor in disseminating quality information. The intention was also to keep this matter in the mindstream of certain editors.B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Since I left a comment here, I've also received this talk message which complains that you have been edit-warring at Apperception. It would be sensible for you to pay attention to that feedback as well. Glorious petulance can lead to blocks if it is part of an overall pattern of disregarding others' opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I will address Apperception further in future as well. Red Rouge here I come!

14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)