Koraki

Speedy deletion of Kalosha

A tag has been placed on Kalosha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ShakingSpirit^talk 14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kalosha

Apologies for speedying Kalosha without actually researching into it; there's been a lot of cruft added to Wikipedia lately and I guess I'm getting a little over-zealous! ShakingSpirit^talk 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it. :) Koraki (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sammā in Noble Eightfold Path

Hi Koraki — would you mind if I modified your recent edit to Noble Eightfold Path regarding sammā so that it did not quote directly (without quote marks) from the Buddhanet article (which you appropriately identify in-line with [1])? Beyond the matter of possible perceived plagiarism or copyright infringement, I'm curious about the creditentials of the Buddhanet article's author, John Allan. (None are provided. Do you know his background?) I was thinking of taking the material you've identified, integrating it with that provided by the Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary (PED, on-line at [2]) re: sammā (see [3]) and perhaps contrasting it with micchā (e.g., see the PED entry at [4]), as is done in a number of canonical discourses. Not wanting to be appear heavy handed, I was wondering if you would you object to or have caveats about this proposed modification prior to my actually implementing it? Thanks for your thoughts. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I only made two minor copyedits to that article: I added a missing period and changed a link from rebirth to rebirth (Buddhism). I know nothing about the reference or who put it there, and I'm completely ignorant about the subject at hand, so I don't think I'm in any position to determine what would be good for the content of that article. You might want to ask someone else. Koraki (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess sleep really is necessary. Completely my bad. Sorry. I now see the text I was referring to was made by an anon (IP addr) on Feb. 25th. (One of the copyedits you made was to the Feb 25th added text.) I'll take the issue to the article's talk page then. Sorry for any confusion or concern I may have caused you. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)