Talk:Edaakoodam

A User User_talk:Primefac Deleted the whole page and redirected to another page Burr puzzle without putting single line here. or not notifying me here. I think that is unfair. In kerala Before 16th century there was Edaakoodam. And Burr puzzle not stand upon that. I think this is unfair practice of deleting a whole page and redirecting it to another. Atleast put a merge to request is good. If that user is not reverting his changes I will do. I already notified that user. Waiting for end of discussion. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjithsiji, you're very correct, I should have added in a sentence or two into the burr puzzle page. I have now done so. If you have reliable sources that give a starting year for the edaakoodam puzzles, by all means add it to the Burr puzzle page.

The reason why I redirected to burr puzzle is because this article had almost no new information - both edaakoodam and burr puzzles are wooden puzzles designed around notched pieces fitting together in a certain order. Unless there is a significant amount of additional information, I see no reason to have a duplicate article. As mentioned, you are welcome to add more information regarding edaakoodam to the burr puzzle article. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Primefac, my question why you just deleted all the information in the page and just put a direct redirect on this page insted of putting a mergeto and open for a discussion. I think that is very unfair practice in a collaborative project like wikipedia. I am respecting the work of others. So first do a discussion and making a conclusion is a better method instead of making changes (In the case of a complete delete).--Ranjithsiji (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons. First, the majority of the information on the page was already included in the burr puzzle page. Second, a merge discussion for (literally) one sentence would have resulted in a "merge" decision, so I saved everyone time. Third, I did merge the relevant content after you asked. Primefac (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And fourth, it's not technically "deleted", it's just been removed from the page. Your work is still in the history. Primefac (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mergeto mechanism is created to make a conclusion between editors. More over to avoid conflicts between people. Also keep wikipedia going good insted of personal conflicts. Even if one word or one letter a mergeto results in good reputation. Saving time on wikipedia. Do we have a taget to achieve? or are on a race to save time and win? --Ranjithsiji (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. The work was buried under the history. Where no body will visit again. so that was equal to deleted. Technically that was restorable OK but that never make sense.

You just added "In India these wooden problems are called edaakoodam." It is not correct. I think you don't have enough knowledge in the subject and you just copied the urls given by me as a reference. Adding reliable sources of edaakoodam costs time and money. Then I want to open another long debate to get is realised with you. So I don't interested in startRanjithsiji (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)ing another one.[reply]

both edaakoodam and burr puzzles are wooden puzzles designed around notched pieces fitting together in a certain order.

Never mean that both are the same. I hadn't added all the information about edaakooam in the article (It has a long legecy in Malayalam language and in Kerala - not in India.). Before that you just deleted everything. So I will never considering of expanding this article again.

In future be careful deleting sentences in subjects that you really don't know about.

Thanks and Regards.--Ranjithsiji (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjithsiji, the work isn't gone forever. If you want to keep working on the page, by all means undo my edit and keep working. I was BOLD, and per BRD you're perfectly within your rights to "revert". Obviously we have different opinions, and I have no problems with creating a merge discussion (I just figured there wouldn't be any opposition). Primefac (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Primefac, The problem exists there we have different opinions, we have different domain on knowledge. You quickly done a page blanking before a discussion. on BRD is says - Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. - And I am not person to revert an edit without a reason or just recreate my reverted edit and start an edit war. I like more to discuss and make a conclusion before doing any editing or reverting kind of thing.

In the case of edakoodam - In Kerala, Malayalam Language there is style of talking. You may know that a style in a language is created by repeated use of a material for a long period of time may be a century. I can give proofs of writings on palmleaf about edakoodam(Is before 15th century). But it takes time and money. I know where it resides. But getting access to it and getting a copy or photograph or scan of the original one consumes (time, money, travel) etc. That I cannot spare now. May be in future if I can get a project or an opportunity to go to the university then will try to get one. And it is not the first priority of me. As of now I have a page in Malayalam wikipedia about edakoodam. And it is more relevent in Kerala. So I am not considering of expanding this article for now. (there wouldn't be any opposition, no personal hurts) is my base policy even if talking a heating discussion about contradicting things. That is why I am an admin in Malayalam Wikipedia.

Thanks and regards, Ranjithsiji (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranjithsiji: FWIW, I agree with Primefac about the merge; it appears that "Edaakoodam" is simply one language's word for a six-piece burr puzzle. If there's interesting material about their history in Kerala, that would be worth including, but it should definitely be a combined article. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]