Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:12, 2 January 2011

Welcome

Hi, I know its "customary" for users to archive their (version of) talk page discussions. You can find my "archives" by viewing the history of this page. That's not a value judgment on the discussions, its a value judgment on the custom. Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

œ 10:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Custom citemark

I love Citemark too, but I don't care for the excess metadata. I tried playing around with the javascript, but I have no real ability there. Since I saw you just posted an update to the citemark page, I thought I'd ask if it was possible to make a simple FF version with just url, title, date, and accessdate (in that order), and without linebreaks. And, if possible, to auto format the dates in standard style (dd MM yyyy...27 April 2010). You'd definitely be on my awesome list :D — Huntster (t @ c) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you bet. I wish there was something like this for google books. I kept the selection→quote feature; it probably comes in handy. If you want to turn off leading zeros for day of the month, like 01 May 2010, just delete the word true so the parenthesis at the very end are empty ()

javascript:(function(dd){function%20e(a,b){var%20d=Date.parse(b);return%20a&&b?('|'+a+'='+(d?f(d):(b+'').replace('=','{{=}}'))+'\x20'):''}function%20f(x){var%20d=new%20Date(x);return%20,d.getFullYear()].join('\x20')}var%20s=e('url',window.location)+e('title',document.title)+e('date',document.lastModified)+e('accessdate',Date())+e('quote',window.getSelection?window.getSelection()+'':(document.selection?document.selection.createRange().text:''));alert('{{cite%20web'+s+'}}')})(true)

javascript:(function(dd) {
  function e(a, b) {
    var d = Date.parse(b);
    return a && b? ('|' + a + '=' + (d? f(d): (b + '').replace('=', '{{=}}')) + '\x20'): ''
  }
  function f(x) {
    var d = new Date(x);
    return [(dd && d.getDate() < 10 ? '0' : '') + d.getDate(), [
        'January', 'February', 'March',
        'April',   'May',      'June',
        'July',    'August',   'September',
        'October', 'November', 'December'
      ],
      d.getFullYear()
    ].join('\x20')
  }
  var s = 
      e('url', window.location) 
    + e('title', document.title) 
    + e('date', document.lastModified) 
    + e('accessdate', Date()) 
    + e('quote', 
        window.getSelection? 
        window.getSelection() + '': (
          document.selection? 
          document.selection.createRange().text: ''
        ));
  alert('{{cite web' + s + '}}')
})(true)

May the triforce be with you Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha, thank you thank you! Absolutely perfect, in every way. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing BCE/CE to BC/AD

Hi, i see you reverted my edits on History of China. Well my reason that I change it to BC/AD is because that has been in use for about 2000 years and has been the standard and the BCE/CE is not widely used. People are familiar with BC/AD but may be confused by BCE/CE. Does for example 1323 BC equal to 1323 BCE? and besides, BCE/CE are secular in idea. Wolfdog406 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's important to be consistent. The section headers on History of China were changed but the entire article uses BCE/CE and so does Template:History of China. That broke section links from other articles. Please see WP:ERA about changing from BCE/CE to BC/AD. 1323 BC is the same date as 1323 BCE.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please see WP:ERA. The article used BC/AD from the beginning until it was changed in violation of WP:ERA. It is only important to be consistent within an article. No other article or template has a bearing as far as WP:ERA is concerned. If something else got broken, then it should be fixed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@VMS Mosaic, I suggested Wolfdog406 see WP:ERA, so perhaps you could infer I've seen it, and I'm acting according my interpretation of it? The History of China article has been using BCE/CE for over a year and, as I mentioned, there have been well over 500 edits since then. That implies a long standing de facto consensus. There must to be a good reason + consensus for you to make your desired change at this time. You combined your attempt to change it to BCE/CE with a vandalism revert and marked it as minor. One reason I oppose the change is because it will break wikilinks to sections of the article that have BCE/CE in the names. You do not yet have consensus and I suggest you refrain from edit warring.

I see that Template:History of China was designed to go either way via a parameter. I agree that the choices made in other articles are not sufficient justification to make such a change, however it's something editors might like to consider in terms of reaching a new consensus.

I'm reverting the article back once again and moving this discussion to the article's talk page. Let's continue it there please.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sex magic

Please see my detailed response on Talk:Sex magic. The "undue" template is being abused. Yworo (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, you are, by definition, the one who is warring, as you are reverting without discussing on the talk page. Yworo (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Yworo, I was trying to respond thoughtfully to your message here... please don't be confrontational. The template isn't hurting anything. I don't think the "undue" template is being abused and I think you made some valid points at Talk:Sex magic#Partiality. I'll respond there asap. K,thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In my view, repeated reversion w/o discussion first is confrontational. It also doesn't hurt anything for the template to be off for a while. Yworo (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be patient and help to discuss and resolve the issue before removing it. Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, there is no issue. As I've clearly shown on the talk page. Yworo (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You may want to note that another editor, one whose name I recognize as having authored books on the topic, has already agreed with me about the use of the undue tag. Yworo (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to respond to the article's talk page when you keep messaging me here on my user talk. A second editor already agreed with WP:UNDUE so that's 2 in favor and 2 not in favor. Maybe some more editors will see it and chime in (even help improve the article).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied at the talk page. Thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tendenuously??

Misplaced Pages is not for people who want to discriminate and make others feel uncomfortable - you know that I could have you up for being biggoted just in your previous comments towards me before I replied you on the edits page - I saw what you wrote in your "briefly describe edits section" (i.e. like you telling me I am "prostelyzing" etc - for this is an accusation of sorts) ! If[REDACTED] claims to be so neutral - then as a participant, don't use terminology that has essentialist overtones or picks on a group of people (i.e Christians or Muslims) to make them out to be bad. Doing that is BAD and not welcome on this site. Objectivity means ALL across the board - and it means also allowing for the input of others where extra information on the page may be needed because otherwise it would be lacking in substance. At the top of the cultural appropriation page, there was a request for more input, more substance. And it is important to be sensitive to the fact there are some terms/words which are going to be racially controversial and I would appreciate that you respect equality by refraining from inserting them into the text. The terms I used were not "villifying any particular group/s" and were instead rather neutral. What's more is I did not throw out huge chunks of other people's stuff. I filled in information I felt was relevant from an indigenous person's perspective and if you can't respect that, well you do have a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siuyinh (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Forgot to sign Siuyinh (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Siuyinh, I see where the mis–communication began:

1. 19:21, 18 June 2010 (diff | hist) Cultural appropriation ‎ (→Examples: "Cross of Christ"—for what culture is that specifically appropriate? see proselytisation/christianization...)

§Examples

I honestly didn't mean to imply that you were "prostelyzing". I asked what Christian culture you had in mind because Christianity has been introduced all over the world. What I mean is Christianity proselytizes, so in general, Christians would be pleased when a potential–Christian commits to a "Cross of Christ" tattoo. I can't imagine Christians would consider the word "proselytisation" to be insulting, from their point–of–view, they're "saving souls" or "spreading the word"—those are euphemisms—the formal term is "proselytizing".

In the context of the article, all of the examples where "Appropriated by people who have no interest in, or understanding of, their original cultural significance."

• sports team names of Native American tribes,
• tattoos of the Cross of Christ
• tattoos of Polynesian tribal iconography,
• tattoos of Chinese characters,
• jewelry of Celtic knot–work ("art/bands").

Christ isn't a culture. In my opinion, your insert didn't fit—it was confusing and inappropriate. Another editor undid your addition of "obvious" to "Obvious examples include..." and you changed it back, without comment and then removed Christianization, Islamization and Xenocentrism without comment.

^* Various portions were also rearranged so the diff was confusing. I see I was mistaken, you didn't forget to include the paragraph: "A bindi dot when worn as a decorative item by a non-Hindu woman could be considered cultural appropriation, along with the use of henna in mehndi as a decoration outside traditional ceremonies." Rather, you merged it with the previous paragraph and moved:

When two editors undo a minor addition like "Obviously", you shouldn't keep reverting. (That's an example of "tendentious editing"). You could post your reasoning on the talk page in order to solicit consensus...

You say "At the top of the ... page, there was a request for more input, more substance." Actually, it said the article "needs attention from an expert"...

This article needs attention from an expert in sociology. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject Sociology may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008)

If you're a sociology expert, that's super, but I hope you don't expect me to be impressed by your claim of being "indigenous"... WP:NPA still applies to indigenous Sociology experts who call other users bigoted.

I have to laugh... I realize you're new to Misplaced Pages and everyone needed to get the hang of things like edit summaries, consensus and undo when they were new. By all means, "have me up", if you don't realize you've over–reacted. The truth is, everyone gets a bit upset from time to time and that's all just water under the bridge. There's a lot to learn—hold on to that enthusiasm and easy does it—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Email

Yeh sure, but I don't have your email address... (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Taijitu

Hi. I'll reply in time, just let us give other editors more time to present their views (as you realized the bizarre actions of the third guy made me to not take him seriously anymore). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgians

I've restored the previous version, which is close to the given source.Alexikoua (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, references for each view should be indicated individually rather than en masse, but thank you for verifying and I don't have a problem with it so long as all the references aren't simply deleted, (along with any indication that some sort of controversy exists).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Inferno, Canto VII

Hello, Machine Elf 1735! Welcome to WikiProject Philosophy! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. Please do take a look at the Misplaced Pages Tutorial and The five pillars of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Greg Bard (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Getting Started The project encourages you to use your watchlist to monitor articles and discussions in the area of Philosophy. There are some special pages which the project provides to help keep you aware of current activity: Watchlist and monitor the Philosophy Noticeboard. This is the central discussion area for the project. Watchlist and monitor the Log of Assessment Changes. This is a log of all changes to any Assessment values of articles within the purview of the project. You are encouraged to help in the assessment of articles. Watchlist and review New Philosophy Articles. This page is produced by a bot which searches all new articles for certain terms which indicate that the article may be within the purview of the project. Watchlist and monitor Philosophy Articles Proposed for Deletion. You are encouraged to express your support or opposition and otherwise suggest ways to improve content. You are also encouraged to use templates provided by the project: Add {{User WP Philosophy}} to your user page. It will display a badge and automatically add you to Category:WikiProject Philosophy members. For your convenience, you may also choose to place the Philosophy Navigation Banner on your user page as well by adding {{Philosophy/Nav}}.

Archives

Hi Machine Elf. Since you said you are new, so would probably not know this anyway, I thought I'd let you know that once something has been archived (eg AfD discussion, discussion on a noticeboard or article talk page etc) you should not go in and edit it. You'll notice at the top of closed AfDs that it says 'do not edit'. I've reverted your edit to the Afd on Sabbatic Witchcraft for this reason. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi EotR, I'm was about to open an ANI case about that. Although I'm fairly new, I think I'm able to make a pretty good case that it served no purpose except to cast false aspersions at me personally, and thus can be deleted, although strictly speaking the (completely false) accusations were about "lies" and "behavior".

I'd like you to know that if only someone had just told me you're a young Wikipedian, I would have totally understood and certainly would have cancelled the WQA. I think admins should understand where young users are coming from and act accordingly. But I was left to figure it out on my own.

I'll rewrite my ANI case so that it doesn't say it's been removed. But I wish you would have recognized that Lulubyrd was lying, big-time, and that you would have seen I gave a reason which, arguably, allowed it to be deleted. Most importantly, I wish you had let someone else make that call. After all, you know what a queen I can be when I'm really upset ;-D Probably best to just stay out of each other's hair with anything delicate, don't you think? Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well... I'll ask Johnuniq and E. Ripley to come by too, just to make sure we all have everything sorted out. K,thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not followed this and have probably missed many details, but my advice would be to recognize that bad stuff happens, and we are all likely to encounter minor injustice from time to time. Yes, if editor A says editor B lied, that is an attack that contravenes WP:NPA, and at least one post at WP:Articles for deletion/Sabbatic Witchcraft warrants an NPA warning. However, while I have not looked at any details in this particular AfD, it is common for feelings to run hot in deletion discussions since the values that people believe in are being challenged, and there is generally a fair allowance made for occasional minor bad behavior when under stress. I suggest that a few days should be allowed for people to calm down with no action taken now; after that, if someone makes further unwarranted claims regarding Machine Elf 1735, then warnings and possibly noticeboard action can be taken. If wanted, feel free to contact me on my talk page (provided a few days cooling off has occurred), and I would be happy to provide on opinion on a disagreement. ANI action may get a bad result unless all these points are addressed first: report is brief and understandable; issue is ongoing and serious (a couple of "liar" accusations is not sufficient); other remedies have been sought, including discussion on user talk pages and appropriate noticeboard like WP:WQA. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Machine Elf. I reverted so you wouldn't get in trouble. There's an amusing Misplaced Pages essay Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass which may give you an idea of the way many people view things that happen between Misplaced Pages editors. On the whole, in my view, ANI is a bit like Imperial Chinese justice - it's far better not to go there at all, regardless of whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Johnuniq, EotR, You nailed it, my blurb was too long and they said I should make an effort to talk to Lulubyrd about it. He he, Judge Dee. Ya, I'm sure pocket lint becomes slightly more exciting than those boards for the admins after awhile. And thanks for that EotR, they said Lulubyrd could still strike it/remove it too, so probably best to patch things up by WP:AGFing that'll happen. I don't mind making an overture, but I'm glad, either way, we can both just go about our wiki-fun, no harm/no foul/no stick—if lie lies are generally covered by NPA, I'll just make it go away eventually if Lulubyrd won't.

It's true, I shouldn't let it get to me... just compounds teh dramz. I've probably caused that sad little AfD to get more attention by complaining than it ever would have gotten otherwise. But some good's come of it anyway, thanks guys—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you've got this sorted, but I just wanted to acknowedge your message. — e. ripley\ 00:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Userfy request

Granted. It's at User:Machine Elf 1735/Moved/Talk:Sabbatic Witchcraft now. - Penwhale | 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

History of Taoism

Its unfortunate you thought my edit was some kind of joke. Perhaps I went a bit far with the Jediism, but what exactly was wrong with the inclusion of Reform Taoism and Dudeism? I think they have purpose to be mentioned somewhere in the history of Taoism; the philosophy of Taoism is gaining more and more popularity in the Western world. They're manifestations of taoist thought all the same, and I sympathise far more with them, than all that religious nonsense that Taoism was tainted by throughout history. Where do YOU suggest they go, in the popular culture section of the Taoist page?!ThePhantasos (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to comply with WP:RS and the organization is obviously not WP:NOTABLE. Plus, your description wasn't WP:NPOV: "that undermine the more superstitious outlook that Taoist religion developed into, and seek to reintroduce the fundamental philosophic concepts to 21st Century world". Should read: "a religious organization which founder Michael J. Toley admits is 'actually quite new' but nonetheless claims the Taoist religion developed a "superstitious outlook" and, although they have no clergy, they do have a PO Box in Colorado, with which 'Reform Taoists' will seek to reform Taoists (quarter of a billion+) by 'reintroducing the fundamental philosophic concepts to 21st Century world'." whatever that's supposed mean.

I assumed from your other edits that you probably didn't exactly intend to be more than a little offensive.

So dude, if you honestly want my advice, I suggest you catch a clue about cultural appropriation, and say "thanks trippy dao dudes for all that tasty religious nonsense that I am sym-pa-ti-co with."—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well from the points you've provided, I can see the 'error in my ways'. I'm not overly neutral and fluent when editing large sections of an article, and often subject to bias. I admit that I disagree with what I had written in the statement regarding the billion+ religious taoists, it was somewhat ill-mannered of me. In regards to the dudeism, I apologise if it looked like I was advertising the philosophy?, it was merely something I thought relevant of some recognition. As for your last remarks - if you don't mind my asking, though I can imagine you may at this time - does "tasty religious nonsense" indicate that you're not in fact respective of taoist philosophy?ThePhantasos (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You're doing fine with the editing. I didn't mean to give you a hard time about the Dudeism thing. It's like from that movie, (I didn't see it). We really did talk like that around here, way back when... not so much these days.

My friend, read the great philosophers to make sense of sense, if it's better to admit of no nonsense, and when you're waiting, read the sense to make philosophers of sense; but the Tao in none of these is the eternal Tao which all things respect. What would not?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgian creation myth

Hi - if you've got time, this article could use some attention, and you seem to know something about it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like your opinion of this edit to the article, which I noticed after I posted the above - it's a phrase the editor keeps adding to articles even, I believe, where it makes no sense. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If it hasn't sprouted legs, I've got that book around here somewhere. I noticed the same was gently rolled back on paganism, I'll come by.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback from Yworo

Edit Assist

A delayed thanks for your technical help editing Double Bind. I know the rule is to put most recent entries on the bottom of the talk page but I get the impression no one is reading them. I suppose silence--vs. a revert--says something positive so I shouldn't complain.
For many years I had the vague impression that few people understood DBs which has been confirmed in editing the DB entry--and maybe that's the problem. --Margaret9mary (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not many thanks for the hard work, but it doesn't go unappreciated. I appreciate the work you've done for the article anyway — and I'm happy to help. Silence is definitely golden, no doubt about it. It's astonishing some of the analogies people have come up with.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Postmodern Wicca et al.

There are five stages of grief every Misplaced Pages spammer will go through when the content is removed. These steps are a natural and timeless part of life, but it may be helpful to know what to expect and how to cope. It can be difficult to come to terms with the realization that one's business, interests, or existence in general are not relevant to the rest of the world in the form of a Misplaced Pages entry. The five stages of grieving are:

1. Denial: "This is not spam. My website/article is important/relevant/useful/reliable/unique/spectacular."
2. Anger: "How dare you do this to me?! You have no right to censor me! I am going to report you!"
3. Bargaining: "Well, if I can't have my site/article here, neither should that other guy."
4. Depression: "It's very sad to see that a great site like Misplaced Pages is so very unfair."
5. Acceptance: "I am leaving Misplaced Pages forever. It's your loss. Goodbye, cruel world."

Tips for Wikipedians

It is the job of every Wikipedian to help grieving spammers move through the process and arrive at the fifth step as quickly as possible. Without your help, they may find themselves unable to move past a particular step, which will only prolong the pain. Being stuck on step one can lead to protracted discussions and edit warring. Step two can cause retaliatory vandalism and sockpuppetry. Too much of step three invariably causes excessive whining on noticeboards and the village pump, which really just heaps embarrassment on the already-grieving spammer. And allowing step four to go on for too long leads to ineffectual, maudlin rants on the spammer's userpage or, sometimes, on the actual website in question.

Eventually, though, every spammer will move on to stage four. They will express their disappointment in the heavy-handedness of Misplaced Pages, the bias of its editors, the short-sightedness of the policies, and your own worth as a Wikipedian. It is quite likely that references will be made to fascism, communism, or George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Take heart, and remember that this is only a natural part of the healing process. You are a good person. Be strong. If you are exceptionally lucky, Nazism will be mentioned early, thus removing from you the need to further humor the spammer. Victory is yours, hold your head high.

I think it's a good idea to delete Postmodern Wicca and recreate as a clean redirect. I'll do that - have you copied the material you need already? Like you I am concerned with the wiccamagazine.com link, it's a virtually empty website and of no use whatever as a WP:RS. I'd support you in deleting it and if you don't feel like doing so I'll do it myself. As for needing an admin here, I prefer not to use my admin buttons on pages where I have a vested interest, except in non-controversial ways. But I'm willing and happy to engage as an editor, and likewise you don't need any permission from me to edit however you like on any page here on WP. Kim Dent-Brown 19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just running off to an appt this afternoon. It's not so localized, and there are sequences of tiny edits, which is why I was hoping for the history. I do still need to read the talk page. You might be thinking of Talk:Wicca, (or maybe I really need to read that page). The thing is, recreating it as a clean redirect doesn't really solve the issue I'm suggesting, because it would still work. If it were just renamed... on the AfD, someone mentioned an alternative phrase, I don't recall it right now (and I have to go). At the start of this, there were 8 hits on Google for "Postmodern Wicca". Last I checked, there were 33 including her wicca mag on page 1 right after the WP articles. It's just not a term that people are likely to search on, unless they're following this story. What was it she suggested? 400,000?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I like your spammer five stages of grief. Good work. Could be a Misplaced Pages essay. Yworo (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it Misplaced Pages:Grief. Thanks for your help with that.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for anything overly blunt I may have said before fully understanding the situation. Yworo (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Postmodern Buddhism

What do you think the odds are that any of the sources even string both words together in a row (without a comma or period between them), much less define it as a topic of discourse? Yworo (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Last time I looked, it just need to be tagged and bagged. Most of it had been moved to Postmodern religion or something, (looked like a bunch of China tourist websites). On Deconstructing Life-Worlds: Buddhism, Christianity, Culture has ℤ∃ℝ∅... but it claims to be a deconstruction of postmodern thought in Buddhism and both words do appear on 5 pages, (plus the back cover). Academic "postmodernist" writing is barely coherent at best, but that kind of non-academic "reflexivity"... I guess a good "pc" term would be primary gibberish?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Psychobabble? Yworo (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the article says it best: “There is no absolute version of reality, no absolute truths. Postmodern religion strengthens the perspective of the individual and weakens the strength of institutions and religions that deal with objective realities. Postmodern religion considers that there are no universal religious truths or laws, rather, reality is shaped by social, historical and cultural contexts according to the individual, place and or time.”—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Kary247

Please confine our discussion to article talk pages. Thx

—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

= Sources from Buddhism - featured article and Comment on Discussion Page at Rare Groove ==

Machine Elf 1735 , The following sources are directly from Buddhism, which is a featured article. They related to syncretic interpretations of Buddhism. Please remove your comment on the article page history on Postmodern Buddhism that connects these sources to the idea of a link farm as I don't feel this implication is very suitable they are taken directly from the Buddhism main article. Please also restore the sources to the article.

"syncretism among the Eastern religions. Buddhism is practiced by adherents alongside many other religious traditions- including Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, traditional religions, shamanism, and animism- throughout East and Southeast Asia."--Kary247 (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)--Kary247 (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC) see here

your assertion that sources from main article Buddhism are connected to a link far--Kary247 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Kary247 I responded to this on the article page.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please retract this comment from the discussion page at rare groove, because the discussion in no way relates to this and it seems you are referring to a previous event in order to try to win a debate about content.

• Your comment: "I'll remind you that you were very recently blocked for edit warring about it. You've also receiving four SPAM warnings for inserting your URL"--Kary247 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please retract this comment from the discussion page at rare groove, because the discussion in no way relates to this and it seems you are referring to a previous event in order to try to win a debate about content.

• Your comment: "I'll remind you that you were very recently blocked for edit warring about it. You've also receiving four SPAM warnings for inserting your URL"

--Kary247 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, they are related. Please take this opportunity to WP:LETGO, collaborate, don't debate. Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1. James, Marianne. "Art Crime." Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 170. Australian Institute of Criminology. October 2000. Retrieved January 3, 2010.
2. "The Aboriginal Arts 'fake' controversy." European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights. July 29, 2000. Retrieved January 3, 2010.
3. "Aboriginal art under fraud threat." BBC News. November 28, 2003. Retrieved January 3, 2010.