User:Freedom skies/Sandbox0
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Response to Paul B
DavidCBryant and David Eppstein have judged my knowledge and actions during my editing on Indian mathematics. I'm not proud of my actions there but I honestly can claim that I backed out as I was lacking. I let everyone else edit in peace. I sent a note to all parties involved, explicitely stating that "I have reviewed my future with the Indian mathematics article, and have come to the conclusion that since I am under time constraints and am under such pressure in real life that adequate responses or editing actions on "Indian mathematics" are just not possible for me right now." and pulled out despite the other party asking for a fresh start and explicitely stating "I am happy to work with you on this article". The other editors have not heard or seen from me yet. I know that they have very legitimate grivances with me and in my opinion they have been very cordial to me.
On the other hand, I'll differ entirely with Paul when it comes to the question of Zen Buddhism.
an editor posted this to me, bringing my attention to Zen.. He questioned the Taoist foundations of Zen.
I did not mention Hinduism at all and mentioned Taoism. I could have made a case for Hinduism since Zen is a branch of a Dharmic faith, Mahayana Buddhism. I did not do that despite having stumbled onto a citation from the excellent Alan Watts as well. Kindly search (CTRL+F) for I also did not mention Hinduism, which was a quotation from one of the authors JFD cited. and I have not mentioned Hinduism at all, as the other side may not find it palatable. on talk:zen
Yet I'm being tried for being uncompromising.
My attachment is to Buddhism and martial arts. This very real and very strong attachment has seen me making pilgrimages to Dharamshala in real life and practicing martial arts (boxing) as well.
I also did not put in an early history of Zen Buddhism in India found in the excellent books by DT Suzuki and Heinrich Duomlin. I thought the opposition was likely to dispute any mention of Zen's early history and it's Dharmic nature unpalatable. This is a topic related to Buddhism. If you find that my sources are lacking and my stance of accomadating the opposition by not mentioning even the name of Hinduism and even the early history of Buddhism in India and it's relationship with Yoga as found in Heinrich Duomlin's book is rigid, uncompromising, and "Hindutva" motivated then ban me here and now by all means.
Paul on the other hand, chose to participate in the discussion after admitting that "I don't claim any specialist knowledge on this." (press CTRL+F on the talk:zen page) I, emphatically claim knowledge on this Buddhism related topic and I have yet to either put in the actual Hinduism part or Zen's early history in India. Even then I am blamed of being a vitriolic Hindutva POV pusher on Zen by Paul.
I'm accused of being an uncompromising Indian patriot who will not relent to reason and will not listen or adjust to the other's needs (legitimate or otherwise) even though I have yet to mention Hinduism or early history in India. I surrendered all too willingly to the scrutiny of the neutral third party, Saposcat, as I was convinced of his unimpeachable neutrality.
I have been called here as I was found uncompromising and personal opinions were that I will not engage in discussions. I was found to be a jerk. I requested JFD to engage in a discussion on Zen . I'll type it all out for everyone's benefit:-
Many thanks for complimenting my work. Coming from you it means a great deal. Since no support seems to be forthcoming on Zen may I propose that we both work this out between ourselves? We have done it before and our relations have rarely been more cordial. Since both our positions are known and we have worked on similar topics multiple times before I don't think it's going to be a problem at all. Kindly let me know. Also, I can't find time for long discussions on multiple articles in foreseeable future. You watch my contribs and you'll note the many messages I sent indicating either uninvolvement or hinting a wrap up. Kindly help me do just that, wrap up prior commitments and not make any new ones that I cannot keep due to constraints of time. Extending genuine regards,
I request the arbitrators and all involved to judge my knowledge on Buddhism by taking a look here. I do not produce inferior sources nor do I misquote here. I even held back the very mentions of early history in India and Hinduism as the opposition will not find them palatable.
Note that I honestly backed out of Indian mathematics despite the other party showing a will to work together. I was admittedly lacking there. Paul admitted "I don't claim any specialist knowledge on this (Zen)." and then went on to sign up for a mediation in which I did not see him playing any constructive part. I did not want to be a part of this charade so I backed out.
My work on the Zen discussion was even praised by JFD, who has filed this RfA.
Once again, I won't mince any words here. If you find that my sources in Zen were lacking and my stance of not mentioning Hinduism and even the early history of Buddhism in India and it's relationship with Yoga as found in Heinrich Duomlin's book is rigid, uncompromising, and motivated by a rabid "Hindutva" philosophy then ban me here and now by all means.
Regards,
Freedom skies| talk 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response to CiteCop
That was a long time ago. 4 July 2006. I joined on 6 November 2005 and became a regular later on. I did not know the postulates of WP:Civil then and was blocked by Rama's Arrow. I'll ask Rama if he feels that initial behaviour still has any relevance.
As for WP:RS; it's simply incorrect. Even in my initial stages of editing I bought citations from the Government of Pakistan, Brookings Institution and Stephen Cohen to the table and they were used as legit sources in the argument.
My area of interest lies in martial arts and Buddhism. My sources in the articles such as Zen have been subjected for universal scrutiny. My sources are for everyone to see on Zen; if they're found lacking then I'll gladly accept a ban here and now.
The sources in that article are for everyone to see. If your personal opinion has become that these sources, the details of which are found here are lacking then we'll have to let everyone else judge the quality of the sources for themselves.
Regards,
Freedom skies| talk 10:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Rama's Arrow
I thank Rama for the statement. Regarding the suggestion for a remedy being probation for personal conduct and editing without bias:-
I submitted completely to the scrutiny of User:Saposcat in the Bodhidharma discussion and you can judge the content just before my involvement and after my involvement. Bodhidharma is a Buddhist patriarch and I worked completely under Saposcat for this version.
I submitted yet again, to the scrutiny of User:Djma12 and worked through Holi to improve the Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts from this version to this version.
I submitted to Saposcat on Zen and explicitely stated that I have pleaded the case for the first patriarch of Zen in China. It would be of immense help if Saposcat himself crafted an introduction dealing with the outstanding features of Zen, taking into account the Zen tradition and the current discussion.
The dispute resolutions have worked in Bodhidharma, Foreign Influence on Chinese martial arts and I, willingly backed out on so much, out of sheer will to accomadate the opposition, in Zen that little disputes remained.
The Decline of Buddhism in India medcab case has stalled due to Tigeroo taking a lengthy Wikibreak, presumably due to real life commitments. My behaviour has little to do with the stalling of the process.
Finally, I backed out of the Indian mathematics article and that dispute was settled there.
I merely wanted to point out that resorting to arbitration as I never do anything to solve disputes is can be avoided as per the above examples. Dispute resolutions always work and have worked in the past.
Extending genuine regards,
Freedom skies| talk 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement about the timing and selection of editors
I cannot understand the addition of the parties either; it seems like JFD just followed my contributions and created a list of the editors which he thought would give a statement against me. Most of the editors he has added have never had any contact with him. JFD has never had contact with Nina Odell and may not have noted that she was scrupulous enough to sincerely apologize, like I was for my actions in Indian mathematics.
DavidCBryant, David Eppstein, sbandrews and Dbachmann have every right to not think too highly of me because of my actions in Indian mathematics, in which I could not participate but backed out with all honestly and sincerity; some of these editors have been exceptionally cordial to me even when I was under tremendous pressure. JFD has never had contact with most of these gentlemen either.
Editors like Crculver have been blocked multiple times and my disputes with them were based on content. Also, JFD has never had any contact with Endroit, but did not shy from spoonfeeding him the Can I trouble you to write a brief statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies recounting your interactions with him at Talk:Civilization? lines. I doubt if Endroit would even have recalled me otherwise.
JFD knew that I was on a wikibreak and will be in no position to defend myself at all in case of a full fledged arbitration case and that's why my opening lines were that I'm on a vacation (and a much needed Wikibreak) and the timing surprises me. I added these users as they have worked with me in contribs related to Buddhism or martial arts; areas where I claimed expertise. I would like to further emphasize that I have resolved content disputes with respected editors, like MichaelMaggas, DjMa12, Saposcat and many others in the past. The dispute resolutions work and the timing is such that I will not be able to even defend myself if an arbcom case is taken up.
Many regards,
Freedom skies| talk 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
