User talk:B9 hummingbird hovering

A few observations

I've noticed several things about the articles you edit and I wanted to bring them to your attention:

1. Parentheticals: I find too many of these in the articles you edit. I don't know if you are adding them or if someone else is, but they need to be kept to a bare minimum. If you must, use footnotes instead.
2. Excessive use of inline citations: One citation at the end of a sentence or paragraph is fine, but multiple citations don't work well when it comes to readability. You may combine citations into one reference to solve this problem, but you should consider that multiple citations are often the sign of other problems at work (but not always).
3. Placement of cites: Should appear after punctuation with no spacing
4. Lead section: Use the lead to summarize the main points of the article in a way that benefits the reader and does not focus on trivia

That's it for now. More later. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI ban discussion

Due to your unwillingness to participate in attempts to reach a voluntary agreement with you regarding your writing, I have proposed that you be banned from editing here. The discussion is at WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing

Hi. I see that you are continuing to post your question on a number of talk pages. Please, reconsider. This in itself is likely to get you into trouble, as your message is not neutral and may be interpreted as attempting to sway the outcome of the ban discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, B9 hummingbird hovering. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please do not post messages like the ones you posted here and here, to article talk pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Posting to user talk pages is one thing; posting to an article talk page (that is meant to deal with article content only) is another. I am specifically asking you to stop doing the latter; whether or not it is appropriate to do the former is not something I am intervening in or making a comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of those pages are User Talk pages? B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, both of those pages are article talk pages. The page you posted the above reply on is a user talk page which is why it says "User talk:" at the beginning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I am getting upset. I'm crying.B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it all

At this point, I expect your only recourse if you wish to continue on the project is to change your tactics. You certainly need to reconsider your methods of communication in this dispute. You need to communicate plainly to others at that ANI thread and in that RFC, demonstrating that you can understand and respect their concerns and, where necessary, modify your approach - is what Moonridden said on her talk page - and I would take that point seriously if I were you. Also you have an email SatuSuro 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it all?

Well you would be the first in this matter that has even looked beneath the surface. All the others have ticked the box without even doing any independent research. Helping out editing mates. That is a partisan cohort. I name them malign because they are misrepresenting me. I don't wish to defend myself. I would like independent impartial investigation into my entire editing history. I would also like to know some system of redress for such consensus-bullying styled as mentoring. This ANI and RFC is all far too bureaucratic for my liking and the whole way of it smacks of disempowerment and scapegoating. I have to talk simple like. There is nothing wrong with my standard of communication. I am open to analysis and criticism but that is not what is going on here. This is bullying and a witch-hunt and if this is what consensus is and if this is what Wikipedia is becoming: giving the demon a name I call it A Haven For Power-Hungry Separatist "you must conform and be like me and how we want you to be or else die" (your editing privileges will be now be terminated) that I will not ratify and yes that is an extended personification even though uncapitalized. That is what that ANI and RFC on the face of it mean to me. They are just forms, filling out forms. If I have to fill out forms all the time there is something wrong and it isn't me. I am happy to enter into dialogue but I will not fill out forms. I do not agree to many of their proposals. I tender that they will be found to be amplification and misdirection on examination. With many of the matters in hand taken out of context. The way I am being handled is badly and then they wonder why I am brissly when it is a conditioned response. I am going to have minimal involvement on Wikipedia as a result anyway. I actually find other projects more interesting at the moment. But I often add linkages to primary resources on Wikipedia and disenabling my editing account as such would not be in keeping with the Swalian 'grand charter' which is swell: which is informing people. This I exactly what I have been doing: qualitative informing. Moreover, if this draconian heavy-handed bullying is what this community is condoning and hence becoming, *ICKYUCKYUCK*, I lovingly cleanse my hands of it anyway. The tides will change and so will this exclusivity and such misuse of administrative privileges and misplaced authority. There is no inclusionism and purity and there is no honesty in this system if I am banned. I am repeatedly being threatened with it being a forgone conclusion that I am going to be silenced. I have even been instructed against approaching independent people. But I will not be bullied and threatened which is what is happening. This is wrong. As a final word: what is the stuff of a Wikidragon? The ability to stand in solitude and in strength when the whole village says you're the cause of destruction when you are doing otherwise and which is transformation, transmutation. The Wikiotter in me has more fun things to do than tarry with you and your formulaic farce.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Those who come not bearing forms and frowns are welcomed and refreshed and delighted in good measure.

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow most of that. Could you say it simply and clearly? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen. Please don't be sorry, be joyful. The tone in this message of yours was so very different to the one on your user talk page. Well that in truth is but my imputation. But that is what I feel, I feel substantively. The FisherKing and hence the FisherQueen is one of my favorite mythologems. Bless B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I diagnose too much prune juice. It's very bad to wash.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Learning from trouble

You wrote to me because you're having trouble with people at Wikipedia. This is not uncommon; we are the same as the people in the real world, and we have the same weaknesses. But Wikipedia has an advantage over the real world: It can be a great place for practicing peaceful action and learning from our mistakes, because everything is written down, which allows us to look at our actions and reactions from a distance, without having to depend on our memory. (For the same reason, I started User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC.) Given the current commotion, it may be better to not wash dirty laundry in public and instead communicate by e-mail. Would you be interested in doing that? — Sebastian 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian, that would be lovely and most welcome. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentient beings are deluded

I don't curry any of your favour because none of you who have signed your name on this page have exhibited qualities that I admire and value. That appears to be mutual.

Wikipedia is a work of love, not just for the subject, but for everyone who writes and reads it. It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing. Don't hate yourself so much. Try to see the beauty in a vandal, or a typo, and the person behind the screen. Do you see their face? It's your own. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a complex adaptive evolving system is a study in Iteration theory. Yet another absente article. I neither hate myself nor any other and neither bear malice nor ill will.B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it not the least bit curious, that someone who claims to understand nonduality as an expert, has never edited the article on the Vimalakirti Sutra, even though it has been on Wikipedia since 2003? Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, there are many nondual texts. As I am currently blocked editing I would appreciate it if you would iterate the article with a primary resource as my gift. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the correct reference?

ACIP Catalog Number: KL0176

Title Tibetan: 'PHAGS PA DRI MA MED PAR GRAGS PAS BSTAN PA ZHES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO'I MDO

Title English: An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled "The Sutra of Vimalakirti"

Author Tibetan: SH'AKYA THUB PA

Author English: n/a

Volume: MDO MANG, Vol PHA

Dates: 500 BC

Description: Mahayana Buddhist Sutra

Subject-1: Kangyur/ShakyamuniBuddha_Exalted_Sutra_of_the_Greater_Way_entitled_The_Sutra_of_Vimalakirti

You could easily be unblocked if you so choose. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As per ? Yes. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help format it as a citation so I can add it to the article. Currently, the article says, "There are also two translations from the original Sanskrit into Tibetan." What are the two translations called or referred to as, and which one is this? Where can I find the other one? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if they've killed another golden goose

I am very sorry for the way you have been treated. Many other Wikipedia users have had trouble working with experts and experienced scholars. There is a tendency here to "kill the Golden goose" because that "nest-of-straw thing" is irksome to them. People can decide to dislike someone for no reason. Perhaps some young readers dislike experts who remind them of teenage resentment, toward their parents or teachers. As I see it, you have taken some formerly hollow, juvenile articles and expanded them into broader, scholarly coverage of the topics. I, personally, was impressed by your work in article "Nondualism" while the earlier versions did not cover the scope you added later. Meanwhile, some people think the intro of an article should be readable to a 12-year-old, and perhaps they have a point, somewhat. However, not every article is likely to be viewed by 12-year-old readers, so I'm not sure it is even worth the trouble to remove college-level words from every intro section. Regardless, it is just terrible that people were not more friendly in working with you. Perhaps they should have a sign:

<<< SCHOLARS not welcomed HERE >>>

If we knew what the other users feared about experts and scholars, it might be easier to talk with them. I have been advised to try Scholarpedia, and I understand you have also found several other websites which better fit your interests. Again, I am sorry the recent events with Wikipedia have been so unpleasant. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for drawing my attention to Scholarpedia. I will look out for it in due course. I appreciate that our articles need to be intelligible and accessible. That is an imperative. That said, the English language is rich for a reason. There are no true synonyms in English as in every natural language. There is no reason why an Encyclopedia cannot be canonized as literature. Wikid77, I am at present going to continue writing on nonduality cross-culturally in a different forum. Systems Theology has captured my interest. I wish you the best in your endeavours. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Final warning

This has gone on long enough. Other editors have tried to explain why your edits are not constructive, but you appear unwilling to listen. (For example, I would assume that your exchange with Jimmy Wales would have been enough.) I am blocking you indefinitely until you prove to an Admin that you are willing to follow the established guidelines -- which are flexible enough not to be considered "bureaucracy" by any reasonable person. If you disagree with my action. or you have accepted the reasons for your block, simply add {{unblock}} to this page, & an Admin will review my action. -- llywrch (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Llywrch

The particular style of block is just perfect and I will not require it to be removed in the near future and will leave its endurance to the discretion of my peers.
Thanking you in anticipation
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will seek to allow more scholarly (& poetic) writing to be accepted into articles. As I mentioned earlier, mathematicians or chemists are allowed to flood articles with numerous formulae, but poetic phrases are typically banned from text. The rejection of poetic wording, while allowing complex formulas, seems highly unfair. In German Wikipedia, poetry is included by quoting verses, so there is interest there as well. It is ironic that poetic contrasts were rejected in article "Nondualism", because it would be hard to find a better example of "cosmic poetry" than the nondualistic "illusion of good versus evil". Perhaps we can get a group of scholars to expand Wikipedia's scope of acceptable wording. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• B9 hummingbird hovering: Note that an indefinite block is not a permanent block; it is one that will continue only until you can convince another Admin to lift it, be that one week, one month, or years form now. Your action implies that you agree with this indefinite block, & the reasons for it.
• Wikid77: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an anthology of poetry. And if what B9HH posts is poetry, then in my opinion it is pretty crappy poetry. I have known, & studied under established poets -- the ones who get published, win awards & whose work will be read generations from now. While some poets may not have the proper mindset to contribute to Wikipedia -- which is the case of people in many different occupations or avocations -- I can't think of one who is incapable of writing good, readable prose that meets our standards. The case here with B9HH is that even were he an acknowledged expert on the subject, his writing style doesn't meet our standards. And the problem is not simply in this subject area: I found his response to FisherQueen here indistinguishable from simple trolling; I found his exchange with Wetman -- an established editor who has decided to stay out of this -- illuminating, in that B9HH has a defective knowledge of language. A good poet is expert with language, & can be so exacting & detailed in reviewing another poem to make a code review a warm fuzzy experience in comparison. I believe you can find better things to do with your time than defend some tendentious editor with inadequate language skills who has been now, in effect, kicked out of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps B9HH is only 90% correct in making assertions, but I think the ideas are largely correct. There is a common misunderstanding about the use of capitalization: mainly in conflict with traditions from Philosophy (or "philosophy"), where concept names are typically capitalized, such as the ideals from Plato: thus we have Einstein's main 3, Truth, Kindness, Beauty. Similar issues of capitalization occur in legal professions (Rules of Evidence, the Right to Due Process) and in astronomy (capitalizing for Sun & Moon and the planets Earth, Mars, Venus, not "venus"). When looking at maps, the compass points are capitalized, etc. If the WP:MOS is not kept current with those concepts, then please work to improve it. I won't fault B9HH if wanting to become a better scholar, or better poet (lamenting the recent "forms and frowns"), so I am sorry there were such misunderstandings about the various issues. If I found someone using lowercase for Truth, Kindness and Beauty, or the Categorical Imperative, I would seriously question their knowledge. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just try reading the manual of style. Every publication has a house style.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Love equals

I have neither will nor desire to convince an Administrator to remove my ban as to be fair and reasonable it should never have been placed in the first place. It is fun that it has, it just moves me on elsewhere. I don't mind that it has in truth. I am equal to whatever my life may yield. Love equals. I just want to help. So many people never have the opportunity to make informed decisions which is an origin of exploitation. I have no other interest but to provide open discourse that is reputable and accessible to all people. That is my principal interest. I have had others but that is the only one that remains and has endured. As a writer or communicator in general I never seek to persuade, only to provide information to others so they may thereby inform themselves and opine as they deem appropriate. If my 'peers' have resolved that my edits are not contributing to the general state of misinformation and inequity in qualitative and quantitative information available to non-specialists then so be it. They are as wrong as calling night day. They are entitled to their opinion albeit ill-informed. Many valuable contributions to Humanity are never acknowledged during a contributor's life. Most people are ill-infomed and that is not their fault, Humanity has for the most part been structured that way. It is dishonourable to make assertions as to my alleged knowledge or otherwise without substantiation. Accolade does not betray merit necessarily.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)