User talk:TheRingess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives through February 14 through February 24 through July 19 through December 16 through February 17

Contents 1 Re: 3RR on the CBC Guy Page 2 Thanks for welcoming me 3 Please help regarding diacritics in Indian mythological names 4 you caused the deletion of the IPEC page 5 NA status 6 I must object... 7 Thanks for your welcome 8 Zoonami restored 9 MOS 10 Linking compound nouns internally 11 About revisions to the 11:11 article 12 NPOV debate in Kundalini article 13 Copyright 14 Expansion of SY article 15 MedCab 16 Vagyoga

[edit] Re: 3RR on the CBC Guy Page

I don't think 3RR is of concern in page blanking or vandalism situations. It's just considered vandalism. I'm just not keen to get on The Hour for "unilaterally" blocking George Stroumboulopoulos. Logical2u_{Review me!} 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for welcoming me

It is nice to see somebody welcome you to Wikipedia.

Thank you. Ssri1983 17:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help regarding diacritics in Indian mythological names

Can you please help me regarding the use of diacritics in Indian mythological names used in articles? I am trying to find a policy page (if it exists) on the usage of names that have diacritics in other articles. Some articles include the diacritic information when non-English words are used while others don't mention them. This sometimes leads to incorrect pronunciation. For eg: in this article Vishvamitra, "Puthrakameshti" is mentioned in the section "Kaushika". In "Puthrakameshti" the first "a" is short while the second "a" is long thereby requiring a diacritic. As you can see, the diacritic is not used in any part of this article. But in this article Valmiki it is used, "kāṇḍas". Do you know if a policy page exists on this?

What is a nice balance between making it simple and following proper pronunciation? If I include diacritics on every previously unspecified non-English (in this case, mainly Sanskrit) word it would become difficult to read the article. The other extreme is also not very desirable.

Thanks a lot.Ssri1983 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you caused the deletion of the IPEC page

you caused the deletion of the IPEC page and i cannot read your reasoning because the page has already been deleted.

i would appreciate if you could explain (on my user talk page) why you did such a thing

surely, i only provided a brief sketch of the Instituto de Permacultura e Ecovilas do Cerrado, and since i only received notice from wikipedia today about your proposal for deletion, i was unable to inform you of the importance of IPEC. the place is vital to the global sustainability movement and culture change in general, and has already been recognized by being chosen as the site of the International Permaculture Convergence for this year.

i don't know how to recover pages, or if that is even possible, but you made a mistake and i'd appreciate if you could explain why you did this and help me restore the page if possible

thanks, mkbnett

There are deletion reviews, your best bet is to bring it up there. TheRingess (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NA status

04:56, 2 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Category talk:Hindu temples in Indonesia (rate as start) (top) This can only' be NA not start- cheers SatuSuro 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Made a mistake in my edit summary. I really did change it to NA. But thanks anyway for bringing this to my attention.TheRingess (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I must object...

move to close this one. A mediation case does not concern itself with content, but rather process. I visited the article's talk page, and there is no discussion going on that needs mediation.TheRingess (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I must object:

As one of the more liberal site Catholics,I don't raise a stir. 1. NPOV requires that the dictates of a Faith be taken seriously, not mocked.

Lowering the bar on this opens the door to mischief.

2.Of the serious offences that can separate the soul from the divine, can Ringness explain why masterbation was chosen as as THE mortal sin example? regards Opuscalgary 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/mortal_sin_acrticle." 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please object on the case page. As I mentioned there are two main reasons for closing this case:

1. Mediation is not about content, but about process.
2. There has been no discussion between you and any other editors. There is nothing to mediate.

I have nothing further to add, please direct all comments and questions on the case' page. TheRingess (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.I will consider this closed. The case does fall under 'Sneaky Vandalism.' a number of articles on Catholic, & wicca, have been vandalised lately,& may have to be sealed.

I am on the Catholic wiki review,& this article is under my watch. I do appreciate that your valid concern is process, Ringess. Mine is to combat a mystery vandal.

warm regards Opuscalgary 00:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your welcome

Hi,

Thanks for your gracious welcome :-). Are you the official greeter for new Hinduism-related pages and/or contributors?

I will have some discussion on the Guru Gita page after some time. Will you automatically know when I add my comments to the talk page, or will I need to notify you somehow?

Thanks,

71.75.19.219 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No I am not any official greeter of any kind. No you don't need to notify me.

TheRingess (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoonami restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- nae'blis 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS

What is MOS, as in 'remove second link per MOS'?

Thanks,

MahaDave 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking compound nouns internally

Hi TheRingess,

I wanted to discuss internal links after you told me that, 'The basic Wikipedia style is to link the first time a word/phrase is used and not again.'

This makes sense in general, but I question whether a single word that's part of a compound proper noun should be linked separately. For instance, in the Guru Gita article you linked the first instance of the word 'Guru', even though in that sentence it's only half of the proper noun, 'Guru Gita'. I don't know whether this is standard procedure and if you could point me to the Wikipedia guidelines on this I'd appreciate it. It would make more sense to me in this type of situation not to link the word 'Guru' if it's part of a compound proper noun because:

1) it makes one part of the proper noun blue and the other black. This is messy. 2) the concept of the proper noun the user is reading and clicking on is different from the concept of the page the user gets when he/she clicks the link. In my mind I click on 'Guru Gita' but I get the 'Guru' page. It would be clearer conceptually to find an instance of the same concept in the current article to link to its Wikipedia page. In other words, link the first instance of the word 'Guru' that appears by itself to the 'Guru' page and leave 'Guru Gita' to represent its own lexical idea.

What do you think?

Thanks,

MahaDave 02:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your points make good sense to me. Off hand I don't know where the link might be, I'm sure you can find the appropriate links by searching around. To me, guidelines aren't always hard and fast, and if you find a notable exception that improves an article, then go ahead and implement it. One of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is "Be bold". I think the guidelines about internal links are there mostly to prevent over linking an article, which does make an article harder to read. TheRingess (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About revisions to the 11:11 article

As requested, I have produced a reliable source for the edit so that it is now referenced (Gregg Braden). However, I STRONGLY object to the information posted about George Mathieu Barnard describing it as a message from angels in his book "Search for 11:11: A Journey into the Spirit World. His book is SELF-PUBLISHED material, meaning he could not find anyone out there who would pay enough attention or believe his theory to make it worthy of publishing. This is analagous to me printing out my ideas on paper, stitching together 100 booklets, and referencing myself as published material. Yes, it is published by your standards, but it's self-published. If self-published material is deemed "verifiable, third-party and a basis for credintials" then, I have no problem coming up with 10 different theories, self-publishing, setting up a website for 12.99 a month (Yahoo Web-hosting), and referencing myself as a "reliable" source. Hence, I STRONGLY object to the reference attributed to his name and work since it is self-published, biased, partisan, and only posted to the 11:11 article as a means to driving viewers to his site where he sells his self-published material and bans anyone from the forum and site who disputes his ideas.

---

The Ringess,

Thanks for the welcome,and thanks for pointing out the errors of my addition to the entry on Michael Chrisman.

A friend of mine recently purchased an item from Michael Chrisman on ebay, and recommended him to me as a trusted source for acquiring bookbinding supplies. My friend was unaware of Mr. Chrisman's past.

The current wikipedia entry on Michael Chrisman portrays him as a credit to the book world for his entire life. That is not the case.

There are several threads on exlibris from librarians and booksellers who were reportedly swindled by Michael Chrisman.  My Wikipedia entry was extracted from one of these exlibris threads.  You can read these threads by reading the exlibris archives.  

To do this, do a google search for exlibris archives. Scroll down on the exlibris archives page to "Search." On the search page, enter Michael Chrisman.

If there is no proper way of warning Wikipedia readers to beware of Michael Chrisman, the alternative would be to delete Michael Chrisman's article. It is an attempt at deception.

Please reply to me on my page.

Thank you, truthbewithu

[edit] NPOV debate in Kundalini article

Hi, I see that the Kundalini article has been marked as POV for quite a long time now, why do you think it is POV? I have read on the discussion page and it's not clear to me why it should be POV.

Thanks, Anton H 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm....I had to go back through the article's history to see when I stuck that tag on. I placed it there in July 2006. I haven't contributed very much to that article, so I haven't reviewed it again for neutrality. If you feel that the article now satisifies Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality I wouldn't object if you removed the tag. TheRingess (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I will do so, thank you. Anton H 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Hi, Perhaps you misunderstood the situation. I happen to be Neil Paton and the shots are my property, so naturally I'm entitled to use them. It's only if they were someone else's copyright that I wouldn't be able to use them on Wiki. A while ago I put four archival shots on the Papin sisters article, and they were all deleted because they weren't my property. The only reason I put "Copyright" on my shots was to try to discourage people from stealing them. Neilrobertpaton 09:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of SY article

Hi, A few of us have been debating a small expansion of the article, esp. in regard to Gurumayi. You might like to take part in the debate. We're trying to get a consensus before we plunge in. Neilrobertpaton 08:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab

Hello:) I have decided to take your case. I hope that I will be able to help out with it. Have a nice week:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vagyoga

Hello there. It seems to me that the page Vagyoga is still a good candidate for deletion but I do not understand the process for nominating such pages well. I see that your original nomination for speedy deletion has been taken off because the proponents have further inflated their claims. What options exist to question the continued use of Wikipedia for advertising in this way? Buddhipriya 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you begin an AFD, see WP:AFD. This brings the article up for discussion.TheRingess (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)