User talk:KnowDeath

Hello KnowDeath! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or 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. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Masterhatch (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

I noticed you silently reverted my edit without an edit summary. Could you explain why you think your version is more appropriate? Anselm Schüler (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ejaculation doesn't require orgasm, but your edit implied it does. KnowDeath (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Both the previous version and mine clarify that it's orgasm doesn't necessarily occur with ejaculation by using "typically". Instead, my edit changed the temporal relationship: the original's "accompanied by" to me at least easily permits an interpretation where the accompaniment starts before the orgasm and may contribute to it, whereas my "resulting in" specifies that the ejaculation happens with or after the orgasm and is a result of it. Neither version strongly implies anything about other possible causes of ejaculation. I can see that "resulting in" can imply a strong, to the point of exclusive, association, but I think this is fine as the section is not about ejaculation itself. Anselm Schüler (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ejaculation doesn't require an orgasm before it. I'm not just saying that ejaculation and orgasm don't always happen together. KnowDeath (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "resulting in" doesn't imply that it can't also happen in other ways.

"Mary and her son Ivan were involved in a major motor accident, resulting in death" does not imply motor accidents are the only reason for death Anselm Schüler (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that ejaculation isn't caused by orgasm at all, but let me know if this isn't true. KnowDeath (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KnowDeath. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism . Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initially you claimed that the article had incorrect information through unreliable sources and under that pretext you started adding plausible misinformation and plausible-sounding hoaxes to the article. You made a series of edits to disseminate your delusional and totally incorrect ideas. At last, when you couldn’t convince yourself, you moved the page from Gautama (etymology) to Gautama (name); an act of vandalism to severe vandalism.

I’ll make pointwise explanations underneath how did you deliberately attempted to damage the original page (article) with your disgruntled psyche and polluted thinking.
(1) About citations -
Firstly, relying solely on a couple of dictionaries and a few inauthentic websites for writing an article (or making a contribution to an article) is the biggest folly. If somebody genuinely wants to write an article (or want to contribute to an article by adding or editing), he should do some relevant research (more importantly unbiased research if it’s an historical or sociological article), read different books and articles and consider points of views of various authors.

In the article Gautama (etymology), I have cited a few references. Majority of references were cited from the following two websites -
(a) http://ancientindians.wordpress.com/ancient-beings-people-tribes-races/rshis-ṛṣis-rushis/gautama_maharshi.html,
(b) http://www.salagram.net/Gotras.html.

Both of these websites are administered by two different authentic Hindu religious trusts. The authors of the articles on these websites must be well-versed of ancient Indian History, Sanskrit as well as English. That’s why, they could read, understand and translate the respective material from Sanskrit to English.

The third main reference I made was of a book named, “Śrīgautamadharmaśāstram: The institutes of Gautama” by Adolf Friedrich Stenzler, who was a German Indologist. Stenzler was as reputed and learned scholar as Monier Williams.
What did you cite? Mostly useless and irrelevant websites and a couple of dictionaries. That too you picked up the meaning and matter in a very absurd manner.

(2) About the word "etymology" -
You can refer to any good English dictionary (such as Cambridge, Oxford, Webster or Collins, etc.) to know the meaning of the word “Etymology”.
Etymology is the study of the origins and historical development of words, including how their meanings have changed over time. It essentially traces the history of a word, from its earliest recorded occurrence to its present-day form and usage.

Did you study and provide the origin and development of the word “Gotama”? You just mentioned two - Akshapada and Buddha. They came much later – Akshapada was said to be in the epic age (age of Ramayana and Mahabharata, which was just at the end the Vedic period). Besides Akshapada was neither the earliest nor was he the only great rishi in the Angiras lineage. He was also not the “गोत्रकार”, originator of “Gautama” gotra, either Gotama Rahugana or the author of the Gautama Dharamasutra was the originator because the concept of gotra was already in vogue during Akshapada’s time. Akshapada may have become better known as “Gautama rishi” to the common man because of his and his wife Ahalya’s story in the epic book Ramayana and its Hindi version by Tulsidas, Ramacharit Manas.
Buddha was born much later after the Vedic age. Besides Buddha was no-where related to the origin and development of the word “Gotama” during the Rigvedic age.
Whereas the word “Gotama” is found being used as an assumed name by many rishis of Angiras lineage during early Rigvedic age. This can be confirmed by reading the books on Rigvedic or Vedic history by many authentic and well-respected authors.

(3) About the meaning of the word "Gotama" -
Many words in almost all well-developed languages are formed by joining/ combining two or more different words or roots. Similarly, most of the roots/ words in these languages have many meanings. Same is the case with Sanskrit language.
The name "Gautama" is a compounded word derived from the Sanskrit word "Gõ (गो)" and Sanskrit root "Tama: (तम:)". "Tama: (तम:)" (a visarga substitute for final "s (स्)" in "Tamas (तमस्)")^[1] means, inter alia, “darkness”^[2][3] and "Gõ" means, inter alia, "rays of light".^[4][5] Together they mean dispelling darkness (of the night) by the rays of light (of the dawn). ^{[6] [7][8]} Metaphorically, the combined word indicates the one, who dispels ignorance by the brilliance of his spiritual knowledge. ^{[6] [7][8]}
"गोतम: (Gotama:)” and " गोतम (Gotama)" both signify the same word. The difference between "Gotama:" and "Gotama" in Sanskrit is grammatical. Gotama is the form of the stem or root (प्रातिपदिक) “गोतम्” whereas "Gotama:" is the form of the nominative singular case (प्रथमा विभक्ति). ^[9] The final "a" in "Gotama:" is clearly pronounced while the final "a" in "Gotama" is not pronounced. ^[9]

"-तम (-Tam)" is an उत्कर्षवाचक (expressive of superiority) प्रत्यय (suffix) that is used to form superlative grades of adjectives. ^[10] According to Monier Williams dictionary (1872 edition), it can also be used as an independent word in the superlative forms of an adjective. That is, if “- तम (-Tam)” is added to a word or root as a suffix, then only it fetches the superlative form of an adjective. For example, महान + तम = महानतम (greatest), "बृहत् + तम = बृहत्तम (largest).

Since “-तम (-Tam)” is just a suffix used to form a superlative grade of an adjective, it means without having any prefix it would have a meaning of just “most” (an adverb used to form superlative). For example, “Ishta + tam = Ishtatam (most desired)”. Hence the joining of “Go + tam = Gotam” would be depicted literally as “Most Cow” or “Most Ox”. So how the word “Go + tam = Gotam” could be interpreted as having the meaning “The Largest Ox”.

The problem lies somewhere in the updated editions (1899 onwards) of the Monier Williams dictionary. In the first edition, Monier Williams abandoned the design of a wholly root-arranged dictionary (Monier Williams dictionary, 1872, Preface, page vii-viii) like H.H. Wilson’s dictionary and commenced a work on a more practical plan (Monier Williams dictionary, 1872, Preface, page vii-viii). But in later editions, say 1899 onwards, an entire remodelling of the scheme of lexicography, consisting of a re-arrangement of all the words under roots was done.

On the other hand, if other relevant meanings of "Gõ गो", such as "Sun" or "Rays of light" are considered (referring Monier Williams dictionary, 1872, page 296), then the word "Go + tam = Gotam" would provide the meaning as “Most Sun” or "Most rays of light". Besides, the word "गो" in Rigvedic Sanskrit doesn’t have only a literal meaning of "genus Bos (cattle)", rather the word also symbolizes senses, i.e., awakened consciousness. ^[11] So the word "Go + tam = Gotam" may also mean "most senses or most awakened consciousness". These explanations seem to be more meaningful.

"तम: (Tama:)” and "तम् (Tama)" both signify the same word. The difference between "tama:" and "tama" in Sanskrit is grammatical. Tama is the form of the stem or root (तम्) (Monier Williams dictionary, 1872, page 364, first column) whereas "Tama:" is the form of the nominative singular case. As mentioned earlier, “-तम (-Tam)” is just a suffix used to form a superlative grade of an adjective (Monier Williams dictionary, 1872, page 364, third column).

In their enthusiasm to provide root-based dictionary, Monier Williams and the coauthors clubbed "तम: (Tama:)” or " तम् (Tama)", a root and -तम (-Tam), a suffix together and provided various explanations of the word “Gotama”. In between these explanations, they surreptitiously inserted the ‘The Largest Ox” for “Go + tam = Gotam” using the suffix “-तम (-Tam)” in between the other explanations. So, it’s very doubtful and they didn’t provide any reference either for this inclusion. It is, therefore, rightly said that Monier Williams dictionary has its own share of errors.

(4) About patronymic, surname and naming convention in ancient India -
According to the Cambridge dictionary, a patronymic is defined as a name that is derived from the given name (= the name given at birth) of someone's father or his father's ancestors whereas a surname is the name that someone shares with other members of one’s family. A surname is also known as someone’s last name.
Indian names (Here I am considering only Vedic/ Hindu or Sanatan origin names) are based on a variety of systems and naming conventions, which vary from region to region. Names are also influenced by religion and caste and may come from epics. Since ancient times, naming convention in India has exhibited the elements of nature (such as birds, flowers, animals etc.), natural phenomena and mythological divinities. The Vedic texts reveal that names were not just labels, but were imbued with power and significance.

The Vedic Saṃhitas, Brāhmaṅas and Upaniśads shed light on the naming patterns in ancient times.^[12] In ancient India, a person’s full name normally could have any one or a combination of two or three of the following naming patterns: (1) A nakshatra (नक्षत्र) name, i.e., a name given to the child at the time of birth based on Nakshatra (i.e., constellation or lunar mansion referring to the 28 divisions of the zodiac).
(2) A mãsa (माष) name, i.e., a name derived from one’s tribe or community.
(3) An official (व्यावहारिक) name or popular name, i.e., an independent name of a person popularly known to the world and is given to the child at the time of birth or during the early childhood.
(4) A patronym (पितृनामित), i.e., a name derived from the father’s name. For example, Given name + Patronym – Krishna Vasudev.
(5) A matronym (मातृनामित), i.e., a name derived from the mother’s name.
For example, Given name + Matronym – Deerghatamas Mamateya, Kakshivat Ausija, Mahdasa Aitareya.
(6) A reference (सम्बोधन) name or honorific name, i.e., a name a person is addressed as, say, due to reverence. For example, mãsa name + honorific name – Shakyamuni (Buddha).
(7) A sacrificial fire (याझनिक) name, this pattern was reserved only for Brahmins performing specific type of sacrifice.

In India, there was no concept of a surname in the ancient times. People sometimes did have multi-worded names but no surname. For example, ancient Hindu kings like Ikshvaku, Yayati, Kuru, etc, had no surname. Krishna was called Vasudeva because he was the son of Vasudev but it was not a surname. Arjuna was called Partha, Dhananjaya, Gudakesha, etc, but again no surname. Later kings, such as Bimbisara, Ajatshatru, Prasenjit, Nanda, Bindusara, Ashoka, etc. also had no surname. However, Chandragupta I is known as Chandragupta Maurya just because of the modern Historians. They started writing his name as Chandragupta Maurya just to distinguish Chandragupta of Maurya dynasty from the Chandragupta of Gupta dynasty. King Ashoka of Magadha was also honorifically referred to by the names Priyadasi and Devanampiya.

The concept of surnames in India came basically from Europe much later in modern times. However, some kings started using surnames, some with their clan names to distinguish their clans’ valour and some other with the word “Singh” (means lion in English) to indicate their valued courage especially during the period of barbaric invasions in medieval times. When the British conducted the first census in India during colonial rule, they urged Indians to pick a surname for the first time. Some chose their ancestor's name, some their gotras, some their profession, and some their village name or region name, etc.

(5) About Nāiδiiāoŋha Gaotəma and Attestation -
What do you want to attest to under the heading “-- -- attestation” - your ignorance or your deliberate intention to destroy the gist of the article and promote your filthy and totally untrue feelings.

Earlier scholars considered the Vedic period spanned from the mid-2nd millennium to mid-1st millennium BCE, or the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Michael Witzel, a German-American philologist, comparative mythologist and Indologist, considered three Rigveda periods as follows:
1. early Ṛigvedic period: c.1700-1450 BCE
2. middle, main Ṛigvedic period: c.1450-1300 BCE; Pūru chieftain Trasadasyu and Bharata chieftain Sudās and their ancestors, and
3. late Ṛigvedic period: c.1300-1200 BCE; emergence of the Kuru tribe, fully developed by the time of Parīkṣit, a descendant of Trasadasyu ‖.^[13]

However, more recently, many scholars (such as Renfrew, Frawley, Schaffer, Agrawal etc.) have reviewed the evidence from a variety of sources and estimated the dates as follows:
• Vedic Age - 7000-4000 BCE
• End of Vedic Age - 3750 BCE
• End of Ramayana-Mahabharat Period - 3000 BCE
• Development of Saraswati-Indus Civilization - 3000-2200 BCE
• Decline of Indus and Saraswati Civilization - 2200-1900 BCE
• Period of chaos and migration - 2000-1500 BCE
• Period of evolution of syncretic Hindu culture - 1400-250 BCE ^[14]
The Rigvedic region was the area where the ancient Indo-Aryan people lived and created the Rigveda, which is a very important religious and historical text. It was a fertile land with multiple rivers, supporting both pastoralism and agriculture. The Rigveda doesn’t mention of any geographical features in the east of the river Ganga. ^[15] It has been admitted by many scholars that people of Rigvedic times did not go beyond the limits of Saptasindhu and were not acquainted with any land eastward or southward. The geographical horizon of the Avestan people extends from southern central Asia and Afghanistan in the west to Punjab in the east, and that of the Rigvedic people from the southern Afghanistan in the west to the western Uttar Pradesh in the east. The common ground therefore lies in the area stretching from Afghanistan in the west to Punjab in the east. ^[16]

The Rigveda and the Avesta are the two oldest ―Indo-Iranian texts. The joint evidence of the Rigveda and the Zend Avesta testifies to a period of common development of culture, which is called the Indo-Iranian period. ^[17] The early Rigveda was much earlier than the Avesta (which was contemporaneous with the late Rigveda). ^[18] In the middle and late Rigvedic periods, the bulk of the proto-Iranians were settled in Afghanistan and in the westernmost parts of the Punjab, with continuous interaction with the Vedic Aryans. ^[17] The Avesta was composed in the late Rigvedic period, and the joint Indo-Iranian culture common to the two texts basically represents this late period. ^[17]

Gaotəma (in Avestan language) is described as a sage who engaged Zaraθuštra in debate. ^[19] The Gotamas, alongwith the Auśijas, constitute the other of the two main families of Vedic priests in the Middle period: the ones who militantly represented the Angirases in that period, and whose hymns contain references which can be interpreted in relation to historical Indo-Iranian conflicts. ^[19] But this Gotama, contemporaneous with Zaraθuštra, is clearly not the (Vāmadeva) Gotama of Rigvedic Book 4. ^[19] He is named Nāiδiiāoŋha (in Avestan language) Gaotəma (the first word is usually translated literally by the scholars), which, in Vedic terms, would be Nāidhyāsa Gotama, and has been correctly identified by many scholars (e.g. T.R. Sethna, in his ―Yashts in Roman script with translation) as the (Nodhās) Gotama of the late Rigvedic Book 1. ^[19]

The Avestan texts also mentions about sage Dirghatamas and his son sage Kakshivan. ^[20] Both were revered and well known Rigvedic rishis, who composed many hymns of Rigveda. Nodhas, himself was a revered and well known Rigvedic rishi and was the son of Kakshivan. ^[20] Besides many Rigvedic rishis of Gotama family, proto-Iranians and Zoroastrians also knew many other Rigvedic rishi families. Angirasa, Atreya, Bharadwaja, Bhargava (Bhrigu), Kanva, Kashyapa, Vashishta, Vishvamitra etc. were patronymics originated during the Rigvedic age. All of these rishis and their respective descendants had their separate independent names. For example, Vashishta and Vishvamitra, the originators of these names during the Rigvedic period were different from the respective descendants Vashishta and Vishvamitra during the Ramayana period.

Vedic-Aryans started moving eastward and southward after the late Rigvedic period due to geological, climatic and other reasons. Scientific data and new evidence suggest that the Saraswati River started drying up between 3000 and 2000 BCE due to tectonic and climatic changes in the Himalayan region. The Sutlej River diverted from the Ghaggar-Hakra valley to join the Beas River, contributing to the river's decline. Schaffer holds that the movement of populations away from the Saraswati to the Ganges after the Saraswati dried up in about 1900 BCE, is reflected in the change from the Saraswati-based literature of the Rigveda to the Ganges-based literature of the History and Puranic texts. ^[21]

There was roughly 1000 years (or 3500 years according to new estimates) of time gap between the period of Indo-Iranians (or Zoroastrians and Rigvedic Aryans) and the period of Shakyamuni Buddha. Besides, it has already been established by several scholars that Rigvedic Aryans and Zoroastrians were not acquainted with any land eastward or southward beyond Saptasindhu (or east of the Ganga River).

How could a person with even an average intellect try to attest that Nāiδiiāoŋha Gaotəma (Nodhas Gautama) was an Iranian and Buddha would be the next Gautama to debate with Zarathustra.

(6) About “Buddha as Gautama” -
The Shakyas, Koliyas, Mallas, Moriyas, Vajjis and different groups of Licchavis were tribal fiefdoms around Magadha, Kashi and Koshala kingdoms in present-day south and central Bihar, eastern Uttar Pradesh and adjacent foothills of Nepal. ^[22]

These warrior tribes were Aryanized (in Vedic culture, customs and language) and claimed to get assimilated in the Varna (वर्ण) fold as Kshatriyas. But there were no clear indications in the Pali or Sanskrit literatures or commentaries that how far the Vedic customs were established in this region in the 6th century BCE. ^[22] Non-Aryan customs may have survived among these people. ^[22]

The Shakya tribes claimed to have Gotama gotra (a Brahmin gotra) in the same way as Mallas claimed to have Vasishtha gotra (again a Brahmin gotra). ^[22] Kshatriyas used to follow the Teacher-disciple tradition (गुरू-शिष्य परम्परा) of the gotra system. That is, they used to specify the gotra of either their Brahmin teacher or their Brahmin family priest. But Kshatriyas used to enumerate the gotra of their family priest (or their teacher) only at the time of any sacrificial ceremony or during any ritual of worship.^[22] Kshatriyas (or any other non-Brahmin community) never used to assume the Brahmins’ gotras as patronymics (or surnames) during the ancient as well as mediaeval times. Had this tradition been in practice during Buddha's time, then other prominent Kshatriya kings such as Prasenjit (of Kosala kingdom), Nimi (of Videha kingdom), a descendant of Ikshvaku, and Bimbisara (of Magadha kingdom) would also have assumed the gotra of their family priests as patronymics.

While the term Buddha is used in the Agamas and the Pali Canon, the oldest surviving written records of the term Buddha is from the middle of the 3rd century BCE, when several edicts of Ashoka (reigned c. 269–232 BCE) mention the Buddha and Buddhism. ^[23]

Ashoka's Lumbini pillar inscription commemorates the emperor’s pilgrimage to Lumbini as the Buddha's birthplace, calling him the Buddha Shakyamuni.^[24]

Siddhartha tended to be known as either Buddha or Sakyamuni in China, Korea, Japan, and Tibet, and as either Gotama Buddha or Gotama Samana (“the ascetic Gotama”) in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. ^[25]

The earliest available records (that is, the written scriptures, edicts, inscriptions up to the 3rd century BCE) implies that Siddhartha was only referred to as Buddha or Shakyamuni. Only during and after the era of the Kushan dynasty (that is, 1st century BCE onwards), different narratives (such as, in Bahubuddha Sutra or "The Many Buddhas Sutra" and Jataka tales) were constructed and mythified. Monier-Williams, Edward J. Thomas and Richard F. Gombrich have provided many instances of such mythical fables (such as, various incarnations of Buddha, Shakyamuni’s association with Angirasa-Gotama lineage and Ikshvaku lineage) in their books "Buddhism in its Connexion with Brahmanism and Hinduism and in its Contrast with Christianity", "The Life of Buddha as Legend and History" and "Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo" respectively. It can, therefore, be fairly said that there was no actual association of either Shakyamuni Buddha or his family/ clan with Angirasa-Gotama lineage.

So, the question is when and how the name “Gautama” got associated with Buddha. It might have got linked to the name Shakyamuni Buddha a few centuries after his death, most possibly during or after the Kushan period. As mentioned earlier, the Shakya tribes were inducted in the Vedic Varna system as Kshatriyas. Therefore, the Siddhartha’s family used to specify the gotra of their Brahmin family priest (happened to be Gautama), as per Vedic custom, at the time of sacrificial ceremonies or during rituals of worship. First the narratives of incarnations of many Buddhas were constructed and well accepted by the followers of Buddhism. The first three of the previous six Buddhas were said to be Kshatriyas of Kaundinya gotra (another Brahmin gotra). ^[22] Then another narrative regarding affiliation of Siddhartha and his family to the Angirasa-Gotama lineage was set to distinguish Siddhartha as Gautama Buddha from the earlier Buddhas. This might have happened centuries after the lifetime of Shakyamuni.

Buddhism initially spread first over the whole of India and then over nearly all Eastern Asia.^[26] Then it disappeared from India, however, it is still followed in neighbouring Ceylon, Myanmar and Tibet. ^[26] It is forgotten that mere sympathizers with Buddhism, who occasionally conform to Buddhistic practices, are not true Buddhists. ^[26] In China the great majority are first of all Confucianists and then either Taoists or Buddhists or both. ^[26] In Japan Confucianism and Shintoism co-exist with Buddhism. In some other Buddhist-countries a kind of Shamanism is practically dominant. ^[26] According to the latest survey of the Pew research, Buddhists were the only major religious group to shrink partly due to people de-identifying and defecting.

Why Buddhism has almost disappeared from the country of its origin and continuously shrinking worldwide? During Buddha’s lifetime, many powerful rulers such as, Bimbisara, Ajatashatru and Prasenjit and later Ashoka and others got influenced by the simplicity of Buddha’s teachings and his humanitarian approach. So, they patronized Buddhism and gave a lot of donations to propagate Buddha’s teachings. The reasons for the disappearance of Buddhism from the mainland India could be many. But what I could think is that instead of mainly conforming to the Buddha’s teachings, such as acting ethically, avoiding harmful actions, and promoting well-being, the disciples, followers and clerics of Buddhism got occupied in all but following his teachings, got involved in corruption and internal indiscipline in the monasteries, started focusing too much in rituals (or sacrificial rituals), constructed too many narratives, fables and myths in competition with other faiths. These reasons might have stirred up the decline in patronage and donations by various kingdoms/ rulers of the Indian mainland.

Had it possible for Buddha to reappear upon earth in the fifth century after Christ (i.e., 5th century CE or approximately 1000 years after his actual lifetime), he would have failed to recognize the faith or religion he himself founded and propagated.^[27] What if it were possible for Buddha to reappear upon earth now, seeing some of these ignorant and malefic नए मुल्ले, so-called followers of Buddhism, he would have certainly felt remorse for renouncing his princedom, leaving his family and started a new faith for these buffoons.

Well now the question is why do the people commit vandalism?
Firstly, it is well known that not everyone is pure and honest in his intentions. Most of the folks can carry jealousy, prejudices, spite, and even destructive mindset.
Secondly, sometimes editors/ vandals have their own agendas. Some vandals are highly motivated to cause clearly damaging edits because they have their personal agendas to spread misinformation or they have their ideological beliefs leading to biased edits.
Lastly, vandals are sometimes paid or indoctrinated to vandalize an article to sabotage the reputation.

Whatever was the reason of vandalizing the article “Gautama (etymology)”, this time I am just giving you a warning (the severe most). Even after that you don’t stop, I will have to request the Wikipedia administration for the protection of these pages. If Wikipedia administration doesn’t provide the protection, we will sue the defamation case.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomasha (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wordpress and Talageri are not reliable. Additionally, please be WP:CIVIL and don't make WP:LEGALTHREATs. KnowDeath (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Gautama (etymology), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Lomasha (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Lomasha[reply]

How was it vandalism? The article is also more fitting as a name page, the etymology of the word itself does not seem to be notable. KnowDeath (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your first question is "How was it vandalism?"

If you check, this article (or page) was started by somebody (without any registered name, with only an IP address). He wrote some vulgar definition of the word "Gautam". Might be very prejudiced guy! Then some other persons kept on contributing (?) to this page. They were trying to contribute (each according to their own intellectual capacity!). This is really an irony of the open source encyclopedia (such as Wikipedia).

But what they were trying to write - the definition or meaning of the name "Gautam". None of them were contributing to the list of persons having Gautam as the first (or given) name or the last name. And what does "etymology" mean in simple terms - the meaning of the word and its history.

That's why, later I intervened to clear up all vulgarity and inaccurate information. I moved the page to Gautama (etymology) and provided the genuine meaning of the word and its history.

So the theme or purpose of this page from the very beginning is basically to provide the definition and history (history means very brief information about the important persons who first and later assume this name) of word "Gautama". The purpose of the page was not related at all to give the list of the persons having Gautam as first or last name.

You didn't provide the genuine meaning of the word "Gautam". Tell me one thing - who would know the meaning of the word "Gautama" better - an Arabic speaking native of a Gulf country, a Nordic speaking person from any Scandinavian country, a Pigmy tribe from a central African country or an Indian (Hindu) having good knowledge of Sanskrit and ancient Indian History.

That's where (considering all the points above) you made a mistake and then a grave mistake (of vandalism) by moving the page.

Shrikant Talageri is a very learned and respected author. However, his approach is a bit different. He focusses mostly on the Anukramaṇī (that is, the systematic indices of Vedic hymns recording poetic poetic meter, content, and traditions), a linguistic approach. That's why some persons don't consider his work, especially on social media as Reddit. Well, you don't need to be worried about it. I have many books by other (western) authors, where exactly the same stuff is provided what I have mentioned citing Talageri. I have cited Talageri mainly in the context of Nāiδiiāoŋha Gaotəma. A book named "Yashts in Roman Script with Translation" by T. R. Sethna (published in Karachi, Pakistan) has mentioned that Nāiδiiāoŋha Gaotəma was Nodhas Gautama. You can easily find that book. Since I was just giving the reply to each point, not writing the main article to get published, I cited Talagari's book, where I got many considerable points in the same book. Otherwise I had to refer to four or five different books for each and every sentence.

Your intention seems to be that you wanted to show that Gautama was a name popular in Iran to Philippines. As far as as Iran is concerned, Vedic Aryans and Proto-Iranians used to live together in an area from Afghanistan/ adjoining Iran to west Punjab. And Gautamas were Vedic rishis, whom Zoroastrians used to know. Nāiδiiāoŋha Gaotəma (or Nodhas Gautama) was one of them. The other female name from Philippines you mentioned could be a female who might have married to a Christian.

There are many similar sounding words with almost similar spelling in many languages. But they have different meaning and origin. For example, there is a city in United Kingdom, Gotham city. It sounds similar and have almost similar spelling. But it has nothing to do with the word, Gautama.

Lomasha (talk) Lomasha (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the content in the article (before you reverted it) was vulgar.

Your intention seems to be that you wanted to show that Gautama was a name popular in Iran to Philippines.

No, my intention was to make the article in a form that is common on Wikipedia. An article dedicated to the etymology of a word only makes sense if that etymology itself is notable, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I do not think that is the case for the etymology of the word 'Gautam'.

Tell me one thing - who would know the meaning of the word "Gautama" better - an Arabic speaking native of a Gulf country, a Nordic speaking person from any Scandinavian country, a Pigmy tribe from a central African country or an Indian (Hindu) having good knowledge of Sanskrit and ancient Indian History.

It does not matter where a person is from, what their native language or religion is, etc. What matters is whether they have the necessary expertise on the subject, which is shown through their degree or experience in publishing in peer-reviewed journals. You should also know that you don't WP:OWN any article and shouldn't act like that is the case. KnowDeath (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the content in the article (before you reverted it) was vulgar.

You seem to be so preoccupied that you couldn’t read my statement correctly. I didn’t mention that the page written by you and reverted by me was vulgar. I meant to say that this page when created by somebody (with no registered identity, just with an IP address) in November, 2005 had a vulgar statement written for the meaning of the name “Gautam”. Then in September, 2006 some other person edited this slang statement and started with what the name “Gautam” is about. Then I came in picture only in July, 2012 to edit and expand this page.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, my intention was to make the article in a form that is common on Wikipedia. An article dedicated to the etymology of a word only makes sense if that etymology itself is notable, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I do not think that is the case for the etymology of the word 'Gautam'.

I know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. But do you know the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. For your information, I am quoting here from an article, named “Encyclopedia” posted on Wikipedia –

(Under the subsection “Differences between encyclopedias and dictionaries”)

There are some broad differences between encyclopedias and dictionaries. Most noticeably, encyclopedia articles are longer, fuller and more thorough than entries in most general-purpose dictionaries. There are differences in content as well. Generally speaking, dictionaries provide linguistic information about words themselves, while encyclopedias focus more on the things for which those words stand. Thus, while dictionary entries are inextricably fixed to the word described, encyclopedia articles can be given a different entry name. As such, dictionary entries are not fully translatable into other languages, but encyclopedia articles can be.

In practice, however, the distinction is not concrete, as there is no clear-cut difference between factual, "encyclopedic" information and linguistic information such as appear in dictionaries. ---

Reading the above paragraph, you must understand that your argument that the etymology of a word (that is, the detailed meaning, origin and history of a word for what it stands for) should not be included in an encyclopedia (such as, Wikipedia) becomes futile.

There are many articles related to various persons or communities, where the etymology of the word is included with in the page related to the person or community name. For example, articles on Vasishtha, Bhrigu, Kashyapa, Rajput, Khatri, Kayastha etc. These (or similar) pages provide the information for only one person or community, say Vasishtha or Rajput. The authors considered only one Vasishtha and elaborated the article, similarly there is only one Rajput community. So, the meaning of the word and its history can get reasonably fit in the respective page.

But that is not the case with “Gautama”. This word is related to many sages and spiritual leaders. So, just mentioning one or two persons doesn’t satisfy the definition of an encyclopedia. In order to provide the longer, fuller and more thorough factual information in a page, we need to provide the meaning of the word (origin in Sanskrit), when it started and who were the initial persons related to this word etc. This information cannot be provided within a single page and just providing such information (with half-truth!) would be injustice to the definition of an encyclopedia.

Hence etymology is very much notable and the article itself is in a form that doesn’t violate any rule or convention of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. I, therefore, request you not to make such statements again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does not matter where a person is from, what their native language or religion is, etc. What matters is whether they have the necessary expertise on the subject, which is shown through their degree or experience in publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

You are very much right. Knowledge and Expertise in a particular subject!

The subject of our discussion is Sanskrit language and ancient Indian history. “Gautama” is a Sanskrit word with its origin in ancient India (Vedic times).

William Jones, H.H. Wilson, John Muir, Monier Williams, Max Muller, Ralph Griffith, Georg Buhler, Robert Goldman, Edward Thomas etc. are a few European/ American scholars. They all were educated (all must be having degrees in the respective subjects), but they got interested in studying the history, cultures, religions and languages of India. Many of these people came to India, studied Sanskrit (some studied even Pali and other languages). All these people spent years and years studying various books and other literary materials written in Sanskrit and other different languages (including European languages). Besides Al Biruni, a mediaeval period Iranian scholar, came to India, studied Sanskrit and translated many literary works written in Sanskrit to Persian and Arabic. Dara Shikoh, a Mughal prince, also studied Sanskrit and various books related to Indian spiritual philosophy and translated many Upanishads from their original Sanskrit into Persian. After devotion of many years of studies, these people acquired knowledge and became experts.

What I meant to say in my earlier reply is - can a common man from the regions (mentioned in my earlier reply or may be from the other regions of the world) become an expert or knowledgeable in the subject of our discussion, even if that person holds a degree (may be even Ph.D.) in say, Rocket Science, without dedicatedly studying various relevant books and authentic study materials (not just dictionaries, blogs etc.).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should also know that you don't WP:OWN any article and shouldn't act like that is the case.

Don’t make such allegations on me. Rather look into you own self. Instead of improving the article on the lines of its essence and fulfilling the definition of an encyclopedia, you totally destroyed it and moved it based on your prejudiced and false logic and feel so possessive about the material you have contributed.

I know that there is no article ownership concept in Wikipedia. I have already made more than 100 edits and created many articles in the area of science (especially, Applied Mathematics) and ancient (especially, Vedic period) Indian History. I created an article related to one of the areas of Applied Mathematics almost 20 years ago. Many people have edited and contributed to it, but I have never interfered because I don’t act like an owner of the article. Although there were ups and downs, but I knew that there are many knowledgeable people in that subject internationally, they would fix the drawbacks. And later it has become such a beautiful article like an article published in a highly respected peer-reviewed international journal. If I had a tendency of owning or possessiveness of an article (even started by me), I would have interfered in that article earlier. And I know that concept very much because I have submitted two theses – one for my Master’s at a reputed foreign university when I was abroad and the other for my PhD at the top Institute in India. Those research works are owned by the respective universities. Similarly, I have published many papers in very reputed peer-reviewed international journals. I can use these literary/ research materials only in the academic world not commercially. So please don’t make such baseless allegations.

Lomasha (talk) Lomasha (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KnowDeath, for the second running of the Developing Countries WikiContest, it is now open for submissions. Welcome to the contest! You can now list your work at your submissions page to earn points. The coordinators have addressed some of the queries at the last contest and we are hopeful that it'll turn out great for you—yes, you! If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

• New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions on the talk page.
• Got open nominations? List them at the review requests sidebar.
• Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews. Remember, reviews now award 10 points!
• Not sure if your article qualifies? See the scoring rules for more information or contact a coordinator.
• Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open throughout the contest, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you the best of luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]