User talk:RandomCritic/Archive 2

Just to say

Thanks for all the diacritic and other corrections you have made to the various Buddhism articles I have contributed towards. Great stuff. (20040302 20:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hindu mythology

Every think of joining? Also, check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic). Many of your transliterations come out in squares--Dangerous-Boy 22:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post all discussions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)--Dangerous-Boy 06:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Śakra is Indra?

Personally, I've come across the name Śakra being used for Indra in many Hindu texts, which is why I inserted the Vishnu Purana reference [[1]] in the Śakra article. Why do you think they are separate people? --Grammatical error 06:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. --Grammatical error 15:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaejah

Just stopping by to say I like this. I had initially put in the 'seed' interpretation, which I sourced from 'Orion' by BG Tilak, but it was reverted. Thanx. ImpuMozhi 15:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vinaya Pitaka

By the way, in the course of your many useful edits, you seem to have changed Vinaya Pitaka so that it doesn't link to Vinaya. I'd like to add a link, but I don't really understand the distinction between Patimokkha and vinaya. Can you clarify that and/or add a link to vinaya. Thanks, Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you're quite right, that wasn't your edit. I'm not sure how I got confused about that. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

On the Persian deities article! :) --K a s h Talk | email 10:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitra/Mithra

Well done job with Mitra. With respect to the issue of the Mithra/Mehr merger, there doesn't appear to be any discussion on the issue, so I believe its safe to conclude that there are no objections. For reasons noted on Talk:Yazata, I'm partial to the (middle) Persian names, but its your call. -- Fullstop 13:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Are my recent mods to Zoroastrianism up to par?

Reply

They seem fine, but I can't claim any expertise on the subject, other than a small knowledge of Iranian languages and their history. My ability to comment on historical and doctrinal developments in Zoroastrianism is very small. RandomCritic 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatta

It is very unlikely that Attasarana would engage in debate based on wikipedia policies. I have been reverting his edit and he is refusing to engage in policy debate. If he keep it up, he is likely to lose his edit privilage which would save us lot of hussle. However, I'm happy to suspend my revert if you wish to modify his edit rather than deleting it. Let me know. Vapour

thanks for info about Tony and Hodge. I couldn't understand why they were supporting someone so disruptive. What he is doing has very little to do with three revert policy. His argument is that his edit is correct/right/truth. As you know, this has zero content in term of wikipedia. His continuace soaxboxing as well as his refusal to engage in debate in meaningful manner is what make him a vandal. I think someone like him can't be agused with. I would prefer to simply revert him. If he keep reverting it back without engaging in policy debate, then he will be penalised by admin eventually. As I said, if you want to reason with him, I will suspend my revert for a while. Vapour
Oh, it may not be a good idea to fight on his battleground. There is no point in debating whether his view of anatta is correct. Vapour
You said in a message to User Vapour's talk page, that "both Page and Hodge are co-creators of the Parinirvana Sutra site". I am categorically not a co-creator and I have nothing whatsoever to do with it, beyond the fact that Dr Page uses material he has paid me to translate for him. Would you please retract that statement ? I also note from Fanart-Central Net that you and Yoji are known to each other outside of the Wikipedia pages, as well as giving your actual identity and some other interesting information about yourself, if that can be believed.--Stephen Hodge 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, got that down quickly -- but it was a only pseudonym ! Don't worry: I won't divulge your real name, though it wasn't too hard to find -- I'm only interested in your Wikipedia input. Still, nice pictures. Have you done any more ?--Stephen Hodge 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For heaven's sake, lighten up ! Do a RandomCritic google and you'll get the joke. As for hate-mail, sorry you wouldn't get any from me even if I knew your address: you might be a bit of a schmuck but hardly hateful.--Stephen Hodge 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

terms common to Indic- and Iranian folklore

Please take a look at Indo-Iranian mythology#Similar terms and concepts. Your expertise would certainly be valuable. -- Fullstop 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Good work" back at ya!

Thanks for the "Good work" and right back at you! I've become more and more aware of and admiring of your prodigious, smart and thoughtful efforts! (For instance, the article you put together on Yama (Buddhism and Chinese mythology) is authoritative in writing, impressive in scope and simply enjoyable to look at.) Kudos! - LarryR 17:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing!

And your Buddhist cosmology article is amazing! It blows my mind that you wrote that in about two to three weeks. And, again, your NPOV voice, your organizational structure, your breadth of knowledge, your very intelligent articulation and your enjoyable-to-read writing style are a wonder! (For that matter, if ever you want to wordsmith my gobbledygook -- especially in the Yama (Buddhism and Chinese mythology) article where I kept tripping over "they" and the no-longer-so-universal "he" and the antiquated "ignoble person" -- please do!) Take a bow! Exceedingly well done! - LarryR 12:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirects

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure if I did any others either, but if I run across any in my watchlist, I will fix them... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishamon

Might I remind you that Bishamon is not only a name for Vaisravana, but also a kami of the Shinto pantheon. While he did originate from Buddhist culture, he is signifigantly different from Vais in certain respects- especially since he has nothing to do with the four kings.- Merlin Storm

Upasaka: "ordained followers"

Hi RandomCritic -

I see in the upasaka article, on May 1, 2006, you made a number of good improvements. I was wondering about one though: "follower" was expanded to "ordained follower." I know in Mahayana (especially, Zen) schools, there is an ordination ceremony for lay followers. I was wondering if you knew whether or not Theravada communities had a similar practice? If not, perhaps text regarding the lay ordination practice could be moved to a subsection of the article? If, on the other hand, lay ordination is pan-Buddhist, I appreciate the sharing of knowledge. (FWIW, I've left a similar question on Talk:Upasaka.)

Thanks for your help!
LarryRtalk 18:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buddhism2

Hey R.C. - just wanted to thank you for shrinking the font and stretching the box of Template:Buddhism2. Frankly, after seeing the box in context, I meant to go back and put in a smaller font -- don't know what got into me to make it so large in the first place -- and I didn't know how to widen the box. Good work on your part :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

four stages of enlightenment

dear RM. I've decided to remove my criticism of this article from the talk page. thankyou for reverting it on June 11th anyway. Best wishes. User:Langdell.

AfD nomination of Buyasta

I have nominated Buyasta, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buyasta. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mintrick (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]