Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:37, 14 March 2016

Userboxes This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 13 years, 3 months and 14 days. This user has made over 44,000 edits on Misplaced Pages worldwide. This editor is a Senior Editor II and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star. This user has been blocked at Misplaced Pages 1 time. This talkpage is decorated by Hafspajen

Alien Mentor collection Thanks Hafs! Now what kind of grammar was that? Be POLITE!! Darth Vader Misplaced Pages:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them I don't like the way you do your citations... That sentence, you need to reword it. It's too near original'. File:Kalachakra el paso 2012.jpg

Please add info

ANI's entered India between 40,000 years ago to 12,500 years ago. See HERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoriaGrayson (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 March 2016‎

Ha! I haven't opened th elink yet, but see my section on Reich et al. (2009) at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory#Reich et al. (2009). It's really a 'Wiki-whodunnit'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Murty Classical Library of India

... is under attack. Please take a look. I am tied up this evening. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hinduism

JJ, I was reading comments about the Jainism article at the GA review, Talk:Jainism/GA4, and out of curiosity, to see whether lists are used in other religion articles and, if so, how many, I looked at the Hinduism article. I saw several lists. Then I looked at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hinduism, and saw that the article is a former featured article. It gave a link to see why it was removed as a featured article. I clicked on the link, and I could not find the Hinduism article among the articles beginning with letter "H". Can you help me find the discussion that removed it as a featured article? I'm curious to find out whether the presence of the lists was a factor at all. I'm now going to look at other religion articles.  – Corinne (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that Buddhism is also a former featured article, but, again, I cannot find the discussion.  – Corinne (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: as far as I can see, the Milestones-part only contains links to the discussions on attaining GA-status. I think you should ask at the Teahouse; I know close to nothing about the GA-procedure. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adiagr (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for inadvertent error. Should have posted on your talk page. Adiagr (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And at the right section, instead of at top, between the userboxes... I moved your apology downwards. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Notice: Please do not enquire as to editors' identities, as you did at WP:ANI. This is, as you are doubtless aware, contrary to WP:OUTING. Have a great day and ☺ happy editing! 08:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)08:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.65.134 (talk)

@151.230.65.134: I don't care, and don't want to know, about your real-life identity. I was wondering if you've got a Wiki-account, or have been editing under other Wiki-identities. Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Google Preview now available for BoS

See HERE.VictoriaGrayson 20:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: thanks; I noticed. It's not the whole book, though? Funny, in Holland "BOS" means "Boeddhistische Omroep Stichting," that is, "Buddhist Broadcast Organisation." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I should have said BfS.VictoriaGrayson 20:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A vey nice slip of the typeboard! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Critique of Pollock

Scholarly critique of Pollock.VictoriaGrayson 21:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I just wrote "I'll read it," but there was an edit-conflict. Meanwhile, I took a look; 69 pages! I'll scroll through it, at least. Thanks anyway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI loans

There are no language remnants in the world going that far back.VictoriaGrayson 22:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI and ASI mixed between 4,200 and 1,900 years ago; there are Dravidian and AA-loans in the Rig Veda; the ANI's lived in northern India; yet, there can't be ANI-loans? Hmmm... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is my understanding:

• ANI = IVC
• Dravidian = ANI + ASI.

So if there are Dravidian loans, that already includes ANI.VictoriaGrayson 22:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Christian Aryan migrationists say Buddhism never existed in India

Christian Aryan migrationists say Buddhism never existed in India.VictoriaGrayson 18:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

They do? Nuts! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

WP MANIKHANTA

Any idea why Pelican and Egret should have Telugu names added to their articles? Doug Weller talk 12:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Enthusiasm? See also diff IVC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Sheldon Pollock

Kautilya3 deleted all the Ramayana info. If you read that paper, you will realize that whole paper repeats these same ideas over and over again. There is absolutely no cherrypicking.VictoriaGrayson 13:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)No comment on what Pollock does or does not believe about the Ramayana, but Kautilya3 is correct. Pollock's own articles are primary sources and you shouldn't be reading them at all. Look for interpretations of Pollock's writings from reliable secondary sources instead. --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: JJ added material based directly on Pollock already. See the article. Why the double standard?VictoriaGrayson 13:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article, just at the diff you point to above. If JJ is adding OR, you should definitely call him out on that. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I don't mind JJ's info at all. But we should all play by the same rules. Since citing Pollock directly violates WP:PRIMARY, I deleted JJ's info as well. Sorry JJ!VictoriaGrayson 13:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As a clarification, primary sources are allowed in certain circumstances so there is no blanket ban on those sort of sources. The intent of WP:PRIMARY (well worth a read) is to avoid adding our own interpretations to the article. That said, if JJ is directly summarizing Pollock, you and JJ should both look at those summaries very carefully. --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Reverts by Kautilya

OK Joshua, will have a revised look at his reverts. However, I do see the same user deleting en masse as seen in the above section

• Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen