| Revision as of 03:20, 21 October 2005 editThomas S. Major (talk | contribs)837 edits →Done: Opus Dei membership financial profile← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:17, 16 November 2005 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,696 edits →Thank you for the encouragementNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| Thank you, Mozzerati, for your encouragement. I only opened my account now, after taking some rest. Whew, I needed it. Anyway, I will look into what you said lately. As I can see it, even from the first suggestion you made, there is a difference between how I and others are working on this and how you think this should be written. No offense meant. I am just trying my best to understand where you are coming from. The contributors are taking whatever they are writing from what is written in the books. As far as I can see, there is nothing original here. It is almost all quotes of prominent representatives. In fact your latest suggestion can even be more POV because no one has said them. Anyway, let's see what I can do to keep on improving this article. Thanks so much for your encouragement, Mozzerati! ] 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC) | Thank you, Mozzerati, for your encouragement. I only opened my account now, after taking some rest. Whew, I needed it. Anyway, I will look into what you said lately. As I can see it, even from the first suggestion you made, there is a difference between how I and others are working on this and how you think this should be written. No offense meant. I am just trying my best to understand where you are coming from. The contributors are taking whatever they are writing from what is written in the books. As far as I can see, there is nothing original here. It is almost all quotes of prominent representatives. In fact your latest suggestion can even be more POV because no one has said them. Anyway, let's see what I can do to keep on improving this article. Thanks so much for your encouragement, Mozzerati! ] 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| I think you may be interested in this nomination. It seems to have caused quite a stirr - and more voices would be appreciated. --] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 22:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:17, 16 November 2005
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
This page has been blanked; for old comments please see
Mozzerati, thanks for your comments on Madhvacharya. Everything except the five fold differences from that web site are quoted from original references. Even that extract from the web site is not original to the web site and is simply a quote from the web site. Those quotes of five fold differences can be found in any Madhva book. Acknowledgments as you correctly point should have been attributed to that web site. I did not put the web site in and had I created it, would have quoted the web site. However, such use can be protected under fair use standard in copyright law.
However, if you want to delete stuff, if you don't want to quote the web site, then you can delete statements such as "This is the reason why some refer to the doctrine of Tattvavâda (the preferred name) as 'Dvaita'. However, 'Dvaita' is thought to be inadequately representative of the true grain of Tattvavâda." and "The doctrine of Tattvavâda is considered to be eternal (in a flow-like sense, just as Creation is eternal); in historical times, it was revived by Ananda Tîrtha, who is also known as Madhvâchârya. Because of this, followers of Tattvavâda are called Mâdhvas, meaning followers of Madhva." This is defiitely original to the web site. Five fold differences are nothing new.
Paragraphs starting with souls are not created from God and after is definitelty my works and I had used the reference, Bhakti schools of Vedanta.
Raj2004 00:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
footnotes in another page?
Hi Mozzerati, Thanks again for your comments in the Opus Dei talk page. Sorry I couldn't do much analysis at that time. I was quite exhausted that day. Anyway, my friend R Davidson did something to your comments. I hope they were ok.
Now that I have discovered from your User Page that you are the footnote expert himself, I have a question. Can your automatic reference footnote be collected in another page? I am asking this because the Opus Dei article already has 53 kb, and since it has around 52 external links, plus perhaps we might have around 20 more footnotes, I doubt if they will all fit in the same page. Hope there is hope... :) Thomas S. Major 09:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Done: Opus Dei membership financial profile
Hi Mozzerati, thanks again for your suggestions at the Opus Dei page. Kindly see what I have done to heed your suggestion. Thomas S. Major 07:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement
Thank you, Mozzerati, for your encouragement. I only opened my account now, after taking some rest. Whew, I needed it. Anyway, I will look into what you said lately. As I can see it, even from the first suggestion you made, there is a difference between how I and others are working on this and how you think this should be written. No offense meant. I am just trying my best to understand where you are coming from. The contributors are taking whatever they are writing from what is written in the books. As far as I can see, there is nothing original here. It is almost all quotes of prominent representatives. In fact your latest suggestion can even be more POV because no one has said them. Anyway, let's see what I can do to keep on improving this article. Thanks so much for your encouragement, Mozzerati! Thomas S. Major 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt
I think you may be interested in this nomination. It seems to have caused quite a stirr - and more voices would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)