User talk:Kalidasa 777

958: 1883: 1795: 1707: 1632: 1559: 1486: 509: 740: 1140: 295:

that since Plutarch and Servius suggest an origin in Cilicia before 68 BC, we must keep that in the article, even though the people Who Really Know -- the real Mithras scholars -- are generally against this. But my thought is that all opinions should be kept out of the article; it should just tell us what scholars think, with their names and quotations, and let the reader make his own mind up.

660:. The result of this straw poll will have a large effect on the direction the mediation takes, so if you could let us know your preferred number over at the mediation page, I would be very grateful. I am thinking of leaving the discussion open at least until 10am (UTC) on Thursday, March 22, and possibly longer if we require more time to reach a consensus. Best — 184:. Of course, you are right, James Webb has not written about Nazi occultism but about "the functional significance of occultism in political irrationalism". However, Nazi occultism, as defined by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, are only the cryptohistoric, largely post-45 theories about Nazism. The material from James Webb would belong to 908:

to the verifiability RfC draft. Unless there is a very good reason for it not to, the RfC will be going live around 10.00 am (UTC) on Thursday June 28. Even if you would not like to see any further changes to the RfC draft, it would be a great help if you could check over the draft page and make sure

806:

Hello Kalidasa. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over

626:

Hi there user:Kalidasa 777, I am just popping by if I may, to offer some congratulations in this, that since we first edited together at wt:v I have noticed some particularly thoughtful and insightful contributions to a number of pages in wikipedia talk which I have watched on my watchlist. And maybe

362:

p203-205. I wanted to know what you make of it. Besides, I have been tweaking with the article and added a few refs. I have also tried to take up some issues brought up by you. But I am not sure if I was able to do it in the way you suggested. I would like to get some comments from you there. Perhaps

1419:

resolved. Second, this is very difficult for uninvolved contributors to judge. Consider users A and B who revert edits by users X,Y,Z on several pages. It well could be that users A and B have explained reasons for their reverts on relevant article talk pages and make their edits to improve content,

757:

Hello Kalidasa 777. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Knowledge, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The

360: 214:

Not quite sure what you mean by "of course, you are right"... If Webb has not written about Nazi occultism, why does Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke write that "Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism"? If James Webb is not relevant to the topic of "Nazi occultism", as understood by Goodrick-Clarke, then

123:

that tag ought to be after the categories, not ahead of them. It makes it easier to spot it instantly when stub-sorting, and having the stub tag, whether plain or categorised, after the ordinary categories makes the stub categories get listed last, which seems sensible. It would be helpful if you

716:

to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you

598:

and post something along the lines of "sorry, I was mistaken; apologies for any undue upset this caused"? I think some feedback on that page from everyone concerned might make this editor (innocent of virtually everything apart from removal of a tag which quite a number of others had also removed,

294:

Now I can see that you have formed the view that I am editing the article to push a POV, namely that Mithras post-dates Christ? In fact I don't really care about this. You may as well know my own personal view: it is that there might be some connection with the religious reforms of Augustus; and

1385:

You suggested talking at article talk page. Well, this is something I am not going to do. Why? First, these particular discussions are absolutely ridiculous (I am not telling that all discussions are ridiculous, some of them are very helpful). Second, these particular issues have been discussed a

234:

Hey man, why are you doing this? If you have useful contributions to make, that benefit everyone else, do make them. But just fighting with someone, on an article to which you have never contributed a single snippet of useful content ... that's not right. Imagine you invested months of time,

1571:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1644:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

878:

Sorry to bother you about this again, but if you have a moment could you let me know which option you prefer here? We've had a few more comments since last time, but it's still too close to call, in my opinion, so I would really appreciate your input. I also created an

330:

Perhaps we can have a person-to-person talk a little down the track. Right now, as a mediation process has already been started, I think that in fairness to Tom and CivilizedEducation and Lord Roem, the discussion should continue to happen on that neutral territory.

1323:

indeed be impolite (I am not telling that all reverts are such). However, the most incivil action in this environment is reporting another contributor on an administrative noticeboard, unless this is absolutely necessary. That is what you just did in my opinion.

535:

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

1179: 1498:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

1191: 717:

are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards —

833:

in which we will be deciding once and for all what combination of drafts and general questions we should have in the RfC. We would love to hear your input, so why not hop over and let us know your views when you next have the chance. Thanks! —

439:

Don't crow too quickly over apparent mistakes made by Roger; it does indeed appear that he took a few too many liberties with the work of a third party, but it's a common mistake and the details are so simple as not to merit much indignation.

1215:

A secondary source is a review article or monograph. Science publishes a few reviews, but mostly primary articles. As you can see, in general, primary citations, even to so-called prestige journals, are not the favored sources. Cheers,

905: 859: 830: 653: 627:

we got off to a wrong start at wt:v if some of my edits concerned you, but that is by the by. Don't remember which pages they were in particular, just I thought they were good at the time I read them. One idea I think went into the

1319:. After spending quite some time here, I totally do not care about language people are using. In fact, I strongly prefer people who openly express their mind. What really counts is action. For example, reverting an edit by someone 1370:

Who cares? I am not sure why you continue commenting on ANI. Just wait a few days, and your thread will be self-archived. Next time please bring your complaints to WP:AE where they belong. But you do not have any case for WP:AE.

1164: 808: 758:

survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

682:, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at 594:; – to see if, between us, we can undo the harm / hurt which was caused to this person. I appreciate that you acted with good intentions when you filed the SPI case, but would it be at all possible for you to visit the 880: 683: 1251:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 858:, or should we just keep the entire RfC unprotected? There are good arguments both for and against, and at the moment we are at a stalemate. Could you give your opinion on the matter? The discussion thread is 713: 709: 540: 1910:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1822:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1734:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1656:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1583:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1510:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1175: 705: 679: 528: 298:

Would you like to discuss how to talk things forward? I wasn't opposed to more on Cumont, nor the idea of something linguistic on the name. I don't quite understand how we are at odds here.

1926: 1838: 1750: 1672: 1599: 1526: 1896: 1808: 1720: 849: 266: 824: 235:

checking sources and adding references, only for some guy who didn't know a thing to come along and try and edit it to tell some story of his own. How would you feel?

872: 844: 801: 899: 774:

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated

1544: 1293:. However, starting a battleground thread on the ANI is a bad approach because you achieve an opposite result. This is clearly a battleground request because 1013:

Thanks for your positive attitude about the Mithraic articles. As you may recall, they were the occasion of one of my more dispiriting Knowledge experiences.

486: 386:

By jove!!! Your reading of those pages is absolutely on the mark. I have to grateful to you for saving me from making some monumental mistakes. Thanks again.-

1088: 1433: 1395: 1347: 1333: 819: 919: 1953: 1864: 403: 359:

Hi Kalidasa 777. I just found what seems to be Marvin Meyer describing his encounter with a mithraist and how he got himself initiated into the mysteries.

1776: 1690: 1617: 1027: 1301:

like "bad faith disruptive editing" rather than about the essence of the argument (no wonder because the disruptive editing indeed had happened), etc.

1053: 464: 1445: 855: 503: 933:

article. By its very nature, it is very difficult to find reliable references and explain them in layman terms. It is starting to look good. Cheers,

893: 1380: 1365: 1280: 1049: 712:, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the 291:

Your own comments on the talk page seemed fine to me until almost the end. So I wonder if we might discuss what we want to do with this article?

1475: 1128: 854:

Hello again Kalidasa. Do you think the upcoming verifiability RfC should use a system of protection and transclusion, as was found in the recent

326:

Your own comments on the talk page seemed fine to me until almost the end. So I wonder if we might discuss what we want to do with this article?

560: 1083: 942: 1409: 1294: 694: 578:, with their last contributions being to the SPI page. I've contacted everyone else (I think) involved in that unfortunate chain of events. 475: 1873: 1785: 1697: 1624: 1551: 1022: 924: 775: 1424:

on the part of users X, Y, Z. Or whatever. One should really know the subjects and the contributors to judge what is really going on.

668: 642: 429: 380: 1108: 1063: 977: 725: 1203: 947: 673: 460: 791: 454: 1470: 354: 340: 307: 1230: 1310: 1056:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 591: 1104: 1101:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1059: 621: 79: 72:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

1949: 1860: 1772: 1686: 1613: 1540: 1439: 1276: 616: 575: 763: 1317: 600: 449: 278: 247: 1263:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1133: 1094: 930: 583: 579: 498: 224: 193: 170: 26: 587: 730: 647: 156: 314:

I wonder if perhaps we can talk, now it is clear that you and CivilizedEducation are not, in fact, the same person?

288:

I wonder if perhaps we can talk, now it is clear that you and CivilizedEducation are not, in fact, the same person?

699: 363:

you would like to take a jab there? I think highly of your suggestions and would like them to be taken up. Cheers.-

209: 1225: 515:

Dear Kalidasa 777: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the

1945: 1856: 1768: 1682: 1609: 1536: 1272: 1169: 574:

page. I have some real concerns about what happened with the Czech IP editor 90.179.235.249 over there, who has

283: 1415:

contributors on two pages indicated in the title of your request, and I think these disputes have been already

957: 1291: 1455: 1429: 1391: 1376: 1343: 1329: 1306: 1093:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1032:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

53: 1411:. Things like that should not be brought on the ANI. First of all, this is mostly a content dispute between 1919: 1831: 1743: 1665: 1592: 1519: 1338:

ANI is not the place to discuss content as you are trying to do. I responded on article talk page. Thanks,

520: 425: 399: 376: 38: 133: 1931: 1843: 1755: 1677: 1604: 1531: 1268: 610: 197: 185: 548: 95: 938: 516: 258: 58: 539:

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the

1425: 1387: 1372: 1353: 1339: 1325: 1302: 809:

Knowledge talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Final drafts proposal

595: 434: 1356:...But the edit of mine which you linked to is actually on the article talk page, and not on ANI. 215:

why does Goodrick-Clarke even mention James Webb, in appendix with "Nazi occultism" in its title?

120: 657: 413: 387: 364: 252: 229: 29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 196:

or probably some other article. Actually I think that I should move the sentence on him back to

1285: 1199: 785: 637: 604: 494: 480: 445: 350: 303: 274: 243: 175: 138: 33: 22: 1907: 1819: 1731: 1653: 1580: 1507: 912: 886: 865: 837: 813: 719: 688: 662: 565: 544: 469: 65: 1420:

whereas X, Y, and Z are SPA who insert some poorly sourced POV nonsense. Or that could be a

678:

Hello Kalidasa 777, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the

1918:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1830:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1742:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1664:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1591:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1518:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1259:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1208: 1151:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

985: 934: 628: 152: 91: 69: 967:

May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure.

883:

of how the RfC structure would look if we use transclusion, if you want to have a look. —

686:

on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards —

200:, but, as I already said, unfortunately I don't have that much time for Knowledge anymore. 8: 1264: 1221: 1209: 556: 410: 181: 73: 459:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

1018: 973: 262: 205: 48: 1890: 1802: 1714: 1640: 1567: 1494: 1476: 1464: 1357: 1240: 1231: 1195: 1144: 1124: 1115:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1079: 1070:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1033: 780: 633: 490: 441: 346: 332: 299: 270: 239: 216: 162: 100: 1938: 1903: 1850: 1815: 1762: 1727: 1649: 1576: 1503: 1260: 1244: 997: 180:

Hi. Again, I apologize that I have not found the time to reply to your comments at

570:

Hi Kalidasa; I'm one of the editors who has been working (intermittently) on the

148: 87: 909:

everything is working properly. Thanks for your continued patience with this. —

1915: 1827: 1739: 1661: 1588: 1515: 1256: 1248: 1217: 1187: 1098: 552: 144: 129: 1186:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

1911: 1823: 1735: 1657: 1584: 1511: 1421: 1252: 1156: 1014: 1002: 969: 603:. I really hope that you can help to undo some of the unintentional damage. 201: 113: 43: 1449: 1120: 1116: 1075: 1071: 106: 1045: 571: 463:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "

1922: