User talk:Dakinijones/Talk Page Archive

Archived Talk Page material.

To 1st September 2008

If I have made category changes about which you have concerns, please be assured that I have not removed any article from a category... at most I will have moved it a little down the category tree. Follow the article's category up the tree and you will find it's a sub-category of whatever the original category was. For a more detailed explanation see the 'spirituality' discussion below.

I'm currently doing some categorisation work on the Subcultures category. I have removed no articles from the category but some may now be in sub-categories. Most have moved down no more than one place on the category tree. If you perceive that I have made any mistakes, please feel free to correct them. Dakinijones (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing some categorisation work on the Feminism section. No articles are being removed from Feminism... although some may be moved into subcategories. These are usually no more than one place down the category tree. Dakinijones (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Something pretty

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		For jumping right into the Wikipedian fray and making excellent contributions in contentious places, I, Gimme danger, hereby award Dakinijones this token of the community's appreciation. Gimme danger (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

a bow to your generous spirit

I thought dakinis were supposed to eat flesh and lay waste to one's ego ... and there you go building mine up ;-) Thanks so much for your unexpected generosity of spirit and deed. More than peacemaker, you are a joy giver. And kudos to you for sharing your obvious intelligence, enthusiasm, vision and spirit with the rest of WP Buddhism. May all your efforts bring harmony and happiness to all, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much

Hello and thank you for the splended Buddha Barnstar award. I've been working on those articles for a while, so I am humbled by the recognition.  :) Thanks again and take care! --Ph0kin (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Spirituality

Would you please explain why you have been sweeping through numerous articles and removing the {{Spirituality}} category without discussion. I AGF that your actions may have valid reasons but your methods do not conform to acceptable standards of Wikipedia behaviour which requires discussion and building consensus for significant changes (significant changes include collective small changes to many articles). Pending your repsonse I am notifying WP:ANI that this behaviour is occuring and asking for their involvement. Hopefully this is all just a misunderstanding. Low Sea (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if my actions have been disruptive and thank you for informing me. The spirituality category has a tag on it that it tends to become overpopulated and so I removed the spirituality tag from some individual articles that already appeared at other points within the spirituality category tree. Those articles are all still within the the spirituality category - just at a slightly lower place in the category tree. The categories the articles are in are all in the spirituality category themselves. Most of the articles were the lead articles to categories that themselves appear directly under the spirituality domain (eg spiritualism article is in spiritualism category which is an immediate subcategory of spirituality. So nothing's actually been removed from spirituality at all. But again, my apologies if my actions have been disruptive

BTW, I've just noted from your user page that you have a particular concern with the New Thought movement. I did move several of their pages and they had to go a couple of places down the category tree because of where the current subcategories are. May I suggest that you either move the New Thought sub-category up the tree so that it's directly under spirituality or simply place just the lead article for New Thought in the Spirituality category if that's your main concern? Spirituality is quite a high domain category so every single article under its domain cannot appear there - most of them will need to be in sub-categories. Dakinijones (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that very clear explanation. I am officially withdrawing my ANI request as I feel very much your actions were clearly not harmful or intended to cause harm. I think a lot of the confusion was caused by (A) not explaining/discussing your actions, and (B) an inaccurate editsummary ("Removed category "Spirituality" (using HotCat)"). Your choice of "removed category" combined with my lack of any category editing made this suspicious at best. Again, thank you for explaining. May I suggest that if you plan to do similar "mass" edits in the future that perhaps you ought to create a subpage that explains your actions such as User talk:Dakinijones\MassEdits and use a link to that subpage in your edit summary. On that page you could then create subsections for each category you are "adjusting". For example in this case your editsummary might have read:

• Editing category structure. See User talk:Dakinijones\MassEdits#Spirituality

I do have one further question... Obviously you are very skilled at wiki-style editing, what other usernames/wikis do you edit under? I ask because if you are using multiple accounts here you are likely to be accused of sockpuppetry and to prevent that you should clarify the link to your other EN.wikipedia.org identities if any. Experience on other wikis would also explain your skill but I beleive that you are not required to identify your usernames from those locations, though if you do not object that would be good to share in my opinion. Low Sea (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Just to clarify, I am an eclectic student of religions and spirituality. My (as you say) "particular concern with the New Thought movement" would be more accurately described as my "current interest in New Thought topics". My interests change from time to time so do not be surprised if I pop up from time-to-time on religious topics other than New Thought. Low Sea (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing your ANI complaint. And thanks too for your very helpful suggestions re using my page to explain any mass category changes. I shall definitely do that in future. As far as I'm aware though, I have no control, over the edit summary HotCat uses (maybe you know of a Category tool I could use that does?) But at least if there's something on my page, then anyone with concerns about category changes would find a ready explanation of why they had occurred.

• As to your other question, I have no other Wiki accounts I have edited under, in this name or any other. I may have edited anonymously a couple of times before I opened this account in 2007. I recently made an anonymous edit on Wiktionary. That and my Dakinijones edits are the sum of my Wiki format contributions (although I did edit for a while with the Guttenberg Project at Distributed Proofreaders if that's of any interest to you). Apparently my experience may not fit your assumption of what is required to have the skill you attribute to me, but nonetheless I appreciate the implied compliment and thank you for it. Dakinijones (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Thank you for doing so much editing... However, i must say I find most of your changes in categories not improvements.. You take away many pages from eg. Tibetan Buddhism and put them in pretty obscure categories; for example Shambhala Vision is such a one. Please, when articles belong to eg. Tibetan Buddhism, keep them there. rudy (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies and thanks for pointing out the problem with the Shambhala Vision category to me. Originally the articles had been under Shambhala Buddhism (which I'd created a while back not knowing of the Shambhala Vision category) and I combined the two. In the course of doing so I overlooked the fact that although Shambhala Buddhism was in Tibetan Buddhism, Shambhala Vision wasn't. I've gone over Shambhala Vision and rescued the handful of articles that were affected. Again, my thanks for pointing out this error to me. I'd never knowingly removed anything from Tibetan Buddhism. Dakinijones (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but please check your watchlist; you are moving a lot of stuff out of Tibetan Buddhism; just a few mins ago you put Shambhala Kings away from it and as Tibetan Buddhists, which is outright ridiculous. Please look twicebefore you do this. Also th Shambhala tradition is very little about Kalachakra, despite their name. rudy (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're right... that Shambhala business is confusing the hell out of me. And having made one mistake I'm rushing round tired trying to fix it and making more. Time to step away from the computer ;-) I'm off for a good night's kip. Dakinijones (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP taking articles out of the category Tibetan Buddhism! If you want to add ANOTHER category, that's OK, but don't just take them out please.... rudy (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand... nothing's been removed from the category. It's in subcategories. What's the problem? Dakinijones (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dakinijones, I need to apologize for my recent comments on your moving of categories, somehow I totally overlooked the sub-categories of Tibetan Buddhism in which you put the articles now. So yes, they still are in 'Tibetan Buddhism'. Just one comment, do some of these sub-categories really have a sensible reason for existence? For example, there are only a handful of schools within Tibetan Buddhism, (and Bon is not one of them, as they claim themselves it they are NOT Buddhist). Too many sub-categories with little info in them probably aren't useful, but perhaps counter-productive instead?rudy (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that over-categorization isn't neccesarily helpful. I didn't create Tibetan schools and wondered a little myself about the appearance of Bon but didn't want to mess with something I had no understanding of. I do see a point in a schools category since many people looking at Tibetan Buddhism will be interested in a particular school and want to see - for example - the teachers, monasteries and primary texts of the Gelug (and then maybe compare to the Nyingma or another school). BTW I noticed you weren't happy with Shambhala as a place in Tibetan buddhism and I was wondering how you would identify Shambhala if not as a place? Maybe as Tibetan Buddhist mythology? or something else? Dakinijones (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that in order to try and split teachers etc. of all schools would not only take a lot of work from scholars, but is pretty much impossible. Many Tibetan masters follow lineages of two or more schools, even to the point that several of them don't want to be 'put in a box' so to speak. Even the Dalai Lama himself, who is always described as Gelug, really was educated in and teaches on materials traditionally belonging to all 4 schools. Among Tibetans, this split between schools is probably a lot less strict then most westerners think it is; it's not like being Catholic or Protestant for example. They also use the same basic texts for thier teachings, but vary in their emphasis on specific texts, and chose the commentaries from their own tradition. However, real scholars will study the commentaries of various schools to decide what is closest to reality. Shambhala is a country/region mentioned in the Kalachakra tantra. I think the best description of it would be a mythical place, but certainly not Tibetan. It is usually described as being somewhere North (of India), but just about every scholar has a different theory of where that is exactly. I think most masters consider it as in a realm that can only be seen or visited by using paranormal skills (siddhis).rudy (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on Three Jewels!

Hi Dakini - Just wanted to applaud your additions to and restructuring of the Three Jewels article. The table, "Tibetan Buddhist Refuge Formulations," is an attractive, informative and helpful addition. The gallery is compelling. And the restructuring of the sidebars and images was long overdue and you reorganized them effectively. Well done! Kudos, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion categories for living people

Please do not add religious categories to the biographies of living people unless the individual self-identifies with the category and it is relevant to their public life. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories for details. Asarelah (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As far as I was aware, they all had self-identified. But I will be much more cautious in future in this area and be sure to follow the guidelines you pointed me towards. Dakinijones (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dorje Shugden

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

AfD nomination of New Kadampa Tradition

An article that you have been involved in editing, New Kadampa Tradition, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Question on tummo, candali & kundalini

Hi, I just wondered about your addition of candali as the Sanskrit for tummo; this may well be right, but I heard more people speaking of kundalini wrt tummo; are candali and kundalini synonyms as far as you know?rudy (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really glad you asked this question... I wasn't too sure how kundalini fitted into the picture myself so you prompted me to do a little reading. I've found a quote which seems to clarify the relationship between kundalini and candali a little and I'm going to put it on the page cos I'm sure we're not the only ones interested in the relationship between the two. Dakinijones (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Buddhavacana

I found this in several categories, & changed it to 1 in accordance with what I think is your policy. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hotcat

Can you be more careful when using Hotcat. Changing categories to inappropriate ones damages the articles, like at Biopunk. It is not a Health movement in any sense. I notice this isn't the first such complaint - maybe you should not use such tools on articles you know little aboutYobmod (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi I'd like to mention that I was surprised to see the moving of some articles from social movements to health movements, when they are generally considered to be both. In some cases, such as psychiatric survivors movement or antipsychiatry, the very foundation of the movements is the rejection that they are only or necessarily health issues, rather than social and humans rights issues. I don't know much about how these categories are structured on Wikipedia though, I'd be glad to understand further. EverSince (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Health movements is a subcategory of social movements. The articles are all still in the social movements category - simply in a subcategory. However if you feel that they should also be in other subcategories of social movements, only within social movements or within social movements and other subcatefgories you are very welcome to correct the situation. Since this appears to be a contentious area I'll refrain from any more work but please do feel free to correct anything you're unhappy with. Dakinijones (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I see, I thought it might be something like that...not sure then whether it should be elsewhere too.. will try and get my head round it sometime. Cheers, EverSince (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Feminism and sexuality

I see you created this category. Do you think you could add a more detailed category description? It seems rather subjective to determine which articles about feminism have particular relevance to feminist takes on sexuality, and which articles about sexuality deal with it from a feminist perspective. Also see WP:CAT#Searching for articles in categories -- it's already possible to search for articles that appear in both Category:Feminism and Category:Sexuality. SparsityProblem (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dakinijones: this category which you created is about to be deleted unless you go to the CfD page and offer your rationale as to why it should be kept as I have done. Just letting you know. --Wassermann (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If someone wants to delete, any category I create, I'll not contest. Dakinijones (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)