User talk:Agnistus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vulgar Raymondism

Your addition of vulgar raymondism to the article on Eric S. Raymond was notable. Collard removed it, I believe, because it had very little to do with the paragraph before it. If you want to write up a 2-3 sentence summary of that article from First Monday as it's own seperate paragraph (and provide a link), I'm happy to tweak it to the point where it can stay in the article. Thanks for your contribution to wikipedia! —mako (talk•contribs) 15:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purusharthas

Hi Agnistus. It seems you are rather intent upon having the word 'sexual' included in the description of Kāma as listed in the article on the Purusharthas. I think 'pleasure' is sufficient, seeing as the description given on the Kāma page reads:

Kāma (Skt., Pali; Devanagari: काम) involves sensual gratification, sexual fulfillment, pleasure of the senses, love, and the aesthetic enjoyments of life.

Sexuality - and even amorous 'love', for that matter - is only one aspect of kāma, as I hope you would agree. But, I assume you have your reasons, and I would be happy to hear them before undertaking any further action on the article. Please either respond on the article's talkpage or on my userpage. Thanks. Varoon Arya 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You wrote:
"Pleasure can be attained through a variety of means other than sex, expecially material prosperity or Artha. Pleasure as such applies to both Kāma and Artha."
The primary issue here is that kāma is not limited to pleasure of a sexual (or even amorous) nature. We seem to be in agreement that kāma can be attained through non-sexual means (as is indicated in the Kāma article). Artha (material prosperity) is something that can be used to attain Kāma (pleasure). Maithuna (sex) is also something that can be used to attain Kāma (pleasure). But Kāma (pleasure) is not the same thing as Maithuna (sex). One is a means and the other is the end being sought or hoped for. So, I see no reason to limit the term kāma in the article to 'sexual pleasure'.
Of course, if we need to, we can start quoting experts on the subject. For example, R. Burton:
"Kama is the enjoyment of appropriate objects by the five senses of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting and smelling, assisted by the mind together with the soul. The ingredient in this is a peculiar contact between the organ of sense and its object, and the consciousness of pleasure which arises from that contact is called Kama."
But I hope this kind of thing will be unnecessary. =)
Please respond with either your agreement to the removal of the word or a rejoinder with additional reasons and some specific qualified quotes. Thanks. Varoon Arya 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zakir Naik

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Zakir Naik, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 16:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Zakir Naik. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Anyone who sees the video can understand that Zakir Naik is playing a game of semantics and attempting to show how the word "terrorist" is often subjective. Please refrain from adding defamatory material to this article in future. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 20:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Agnistus, please stop adding pejorative categories to a BLP when you totally lack any form of reliable sourcing. Also note the three revert rule, which prohibits more than three reverts in 24 hours. Reverting BLP violations and vandalism are exceptions here, and I shall continue to remove any material which constitutes either of the two. Regards, ITAQALLAH 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hangul and Phagspa

Hi Agnistus,

I find the Phagspa–Hangul connections convincing. However, it is a minority opinion, championed by Gari Ledyard. (A very knowledgeable man, but hardly the whole field.) Although it looks like Wookie909 may have misunderstood the genealogical formatting in the table, you will undoubtedly get other editors who object to making the connection look so certain. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

wookie919, not wookie909. And yes today I had to revert your changes again. If you wish to discuss this further, please discuss it in the Hangul discussion page. Wookie919 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Agnistus, although I am not in principal opposed to what you are doing, at least two other editors object, so it does need discussion. This is not a clear case; even if Ledyard is correct (and I believe he is), hangul is not a simple descendant of 'Phagspa, and your table is therefore misleading. Also, if the recent anonymous reversion was you, you could be blocked for sockpuppetry. —kwami (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(For anyone else out there, this does not now look like a case of sockpuppetry, so please disregard the implied accusation I made above. My apologies, Agnistus. kwami (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Request

Please read WP:BLP#Categories before adding any more categories or religious identifications to biographies of living persons. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really confused. Can you give me the exact quote, please? All I see is "Earlier, inaugurating the seminar on education, Amartya Sen said that in his (Trinity) college, he was asked, essentially in the context of the targeting of Christians by the Hindu Right, 'how long will it take for India to get used to having Christians in the country?'" --Relata refero (disp.) 18:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
We generally want something a little more direct than that. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defamation and personal attacks at Talk:Zakir Naik

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Zakir Naik. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Please also refrain from making personal attacks against other contributors. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Itaqallah. I am giving you a 24 hour block for violation of WP:NPA especially but not only the comment about "blockheads" with a clear colour reference to another specific editor [1], and [2]. --BozMo talk 21:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note about the block. I will watch this page so you can reply here now (when blocked you can still edit your own talk page). I appreciate you feel that block is unfair and also that it is unexpected. However you cannot respond to people disagreeing with you by calling them "blockheads" "childish" etc and you did so several different times (the edit comments you could claim was a moment of impulse, and just apologising would do, but the talk page you had time to reconsider and left the personal attack in it). On the matter of the Zakir Naik page I am not an expert on this gentleman but broadly policy would be to require very good sources for criticism of a living person and also would prohibit giving undue weight to controversy or criticism. As far as I can see on the evidence presented on the talk page (and I have looked no further, you may find better sources) Itaqallah is right that the sources are inadequate to include the criticism on a BLP page and there should be no POV tag. Now, that's a matter of opinion from an uninvolved non-Islamic (I'm a Christian) admin, which could well be wrong. But given that at present he looks like he is winning the argument calling everyone who disagrees with you a Muslim blockhead is soemthing you should reconsider. If you apologise here and show signs of wanting a reasonable discussion about sources I will happily lift the block early. --BozMo talk 08:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)