User talk:Ism schism

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ism schism has not edited Wikipedia since February 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I-Foundation[edit]

I-Foundation had its first wikilink here.

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Ism schism, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Hi.I am not a regular editor on wikipedia.Recently,when i was reading the article "astra",I found a lot of factual inaccuracies specially on sudarshan chakra and barbareek's arrows.Specially the claim that sudarshan chakra can be stopped by lord shiva seems to be half baked.i tried to edit the article,but some editor is constantly trying to keep things his way.I read the article history and found many other editors too finding this statement wrong, but the editor in question has been quite adamant to maintain his view.I have found some relevant links in google pages,but I don't know how to substantiate claims.Can you look into this?117.201.99.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Im schism. I see what you're doing now with the ISKCON categories, by sorting them into sub-groups and removing super-categories it makes it much more organised. :-) I wasn't sure with some figures who exist both within ISKCON, and are also well-known as Gaudiya figures in their own right, outside of the ISKCON framework. Should they be in both categories? i.e Jayapataka Swami and Radhanath Swami, and also Tamal Krsna Goswami? What are your thoughts? Regards, ys, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since ISKCON is a part of Gaudiya tradition, and since the ISKCON religous figures category is a subcategory of the Gaudiya religous figures category (which is a subcategory of Hindu religious figures), then the ISKCON religious figures category alone should suffice (being thus all three). This should work for the three maharajas listed above as well. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've added the Hindu religious figures supercategory to ISKCON religious figures. I feel that this addresses your concern more directly. Your thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. Nice work on sorting it all out. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as an attempt to divide ISKCON from the general tradition into some sort of NRM. Its not just a bad PR. 79.97.0.103 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your comments. What is the "general tradition" you are refering to? The ISKCON religous figures Category is a subcategory of both Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Hindu religious figures. What role are you saying that NRMs have in ANY of these categories? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By excluding ISKCON religious figures and organizations from the lists and creating a separate list under category of ISKCON Ism schism allows further material to treat ISKCON as a NRM and increases a sectarian attitude that should not transpire to the pages WIKI. Do you have any other intentions other then to paint ISKCON as separate category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.0.103 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are really confused! These categories, as I stated above, are under the larger Hindu category. They go ISKCON, Gaudiya Vaishnava, Vaishnava and then Hindu. This does not as you stated above "exclude" anybody. All people under the category of ISKCON religious leaders are AUTOMATICALLY part of the Gaudiya Vaishnava and Hindu categories as ISKCON is a subcategory of both.

PLEASE, You need to read up on how categories work on Wikipedia, you are completely misunderstanding the process. These categories have nothing to do with NRMs. You are really coming out of left field on that one!!! Ism schism (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above anonymous comments are from User talk:Wikidas‎, a socketpuppet user. Also, Wikidas used the same puppet to vandalize the I-Foundation page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im still awaiting the confirmation (besides tabloids) on the fact that I-foundation is a Hindu Charity - category previously removed by Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.0.103 (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidas, SineBots can track you down, you might as well sign you name. Ism schism (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will! And of course SineBot will do it with my ip. But how does it relate to what you are doing? This page is about you I.Schism? Can you explain why you refuse to provide any sources except for tabloids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.0.103 (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidas, there are three examples on your socket puppet's talk page, User talk:79.97.0.103. These are three examples that meet the standards for a charity organization. As I stated on both your pages, articles on living persons must meet a higher criteria. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Please be more particular with your statement. Pointing out exactly what you're talking about makes it easier to correct. Thanks Chopper Dave (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three examples... Specifically I mean sources such as a personal website, http://www.devaswami.com or a blogspot such as, http://prabhupada.blogspot.com/2007_04_08_archive.html or editorials such as, http://www.dandavats.com/?p=1840. I do not believe that these would ever qualify as independent Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can be used on practically any BLP page. What is the point?79.97.0.103 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, this will explain to you wikipedia's policy on biographies on living persons. Each statement made in such an article must come from an independent reliable source. The above tag can, and will eventually, be placed on all articles who do not meet these strict requirements. These are Wikipedia's rules, not mine. To be constructive we should all use them as tools and guides in making our editing choices. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ism schism, I feel you are being very excessive with adding fact tags. Would it not be more constructive that when you find an article which needs references, either you add one banner at the top of the article, or even better, you try and find some sources? Especially if what is being said sounds factual, and non-controversial in it's nature. Otherwise we are just making more work for ourselves? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gouranga, I appreciate your concern. My edits were to point out the lack of references cited at the end of a statement of point which the article made. I have to disagree with you, there is much work to be done and standards should not be lowered. I added fact tags where I saw no reference cited. When a novice reads this information on wikipedia they need to have a source from which this information comes from, it can not just be what a person writes down, even if it is common knowledge to a particular religious community, it has to come from a reliable sources that has a citation. FYI, I feel that our time might be better spent finding real Wikipedia:Reliable sources for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes mere seconds to add fact tags. It could take some time to find correct sources. By adding them in so many places I really don't think you are not helping. Not unless there is something very controversial, or seemingly out-of-place written in the article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the obvious that it takes mere seconds to add fact tags and a minute to AfD a group. However it takes much longer for Verifiability to be established. Considering that there are no Vaisnava peer-reviewed journals and very few biographical books published in university presses, and that newspapers often are self-published sources as was the case of promoting I-foundation, we should allow for any other sources other then self-published and questionable sources. Also BLP should allow for material by persons described and we should not require high-quality reliable sources for each and every ISKCON or otherwise Swami. That just does not make any sense onless one is motivated to do this under the letter of the law of the WIKI. Wikidas (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike your articles, the I-Foundation article is properly referenced with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I suggest you use it as an example if you want to show people that the articles you write are truly notable and reliably sourced. Thanks and come again. Ism schism (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if the stub-like I-Foundation article is what Jimbo Wales had in mind when he invented Wikipedia! I really don't see your point? Wikidas is speaking common-sense. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is because User talk: Wikidas, User talk: 79.97.0.103, User talk:MBest-son‎ and you are all the same person. All four of you should use Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources[edit]

Please read this article Wikipedia:Citing sources

Quote: "All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source."

Please note that the above does not say ALL material, it says "ALL CONTENTIOUS material". There is a difference. A lot of what you are arguing about appears to be based on the notion that any information within an article should be deleted if it isn't referenced from a primary source. What is a reliable source depends on:

1) what is being sourced?
2) in what context?
3) how controversial is the information?

For example if we wanted to source when Nasa was first founded, and there was no controversy about the date, then the official Nasa history page on their website is perfectly reliable. Whereas if we wanted to include information in regards to the effectiveness or success of Nasa's as a scientific institution, or we wanted to know about details of the welfare of staff member then we would have to look elsewhere. That detail is subjective, and requires a number of scholarly sources. The same logic applies to the ISKCON articles.

Articles must be given room to grow over time. With citations being required especially on items of contention, and then gradually on all important information. The point of citing sources is to improve the articles in wikipedia, not to be used as an excuse to delete articles, where the information contained is notable, relevant, and for the large part accurate. Just because an article is a stub, or is only Start, or B class, does not mean we have to remove it.

I agree with pointing out areas for future improvement. I disagree with the attitude of removing good information for the sake of it.

Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that just MAKE IT SURVIVE should be our attitude.

To make sure as many devotees as possible survive on the Wiki. I had a look, and vast ammounts of Bio or any other info that is created in WIKI DOES survive, even its not '"at all notable if compared with Religious Figures or BLP that we talk about. To MAKE IT SURVIVE we should place decent references, and any reference that is accepted verifiable will prove notability in case of a religious figure, so I have changed my attitude and will act upon the above. Wikidas (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidas, I appreciate your concern and your contributions as an editor. For future articles, all of us editors should probably consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard every now and then, as this might be a good way to assure sources contribute to the notability of the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ism schism, I appreciate your consulting of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but from my perspective, when I know perfectly well that someone is notable it is somewhat frustrating when other editors (who are fairly new to Wikipedia) seem intent on deleting an article about them. The only way around this is to provide references I agree. Maybe taking each article in turn would be a useful approach? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gouranga, that sounds like a good idea. What direction would you advise? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ism schism for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON[edit]

Thanks for the note; I don't work on ISKCON articles per se. ISKCON is nothing other than a version of Gaudiya Vaishnavism

I work on all general Hindu articles.

Raj2004 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavism work group[edit]

Please note that the Hinduism banner is now set up for assessments for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism work group. I think the first priority is to go about tagging the articles you find relevant to the project, so that you can know what condition they're in. I'd help myself, but various other concerns are likely to take up my time for the near future. I am listing it on the community portal as a new project though. If you ever want any help with the group, even if I am working elsewhere, please feel free to drop me a note. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishanava dieties????[edit]

Deities like Vishvakarma and Ganesha are really not Vaishanava dieties, I didn't understand why you added the Vaishanavism Wikiproject link.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Redtigerxyz. I did pause and think before adding Ganesha to the Vaishnava project as he is part of almost all Hindu traditions. One of my reasons for adding him is that he is a deity which Vaishnava's respect and at times worship. Also for Vaishnavas, Ganesha wrote the Mahabharata, and there are other stories concerning Ganesha that Vaishnavas have endeared.

The choice to add Vishvakarma is due to various Vaishnava scriptures (Mahabharata and Ramayana included) which discuss in detail his relationship to Krishna. Vishvakarma is a central character in these Vaishnava narratives. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, Ganesha should not belong in the core stream of Vaishnavism. He is a devotee of Vishnu, yes, but then so are Shiva and Brahma. If you go about it in that manner, EVERY Hindu deity will fit under Vaishnavism! Perhaps some sort of subheading regarding the relationship of various deities to Vishnu is in order? Thanks! Silverballer47 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Western scholars section to the Vaishnavism article[edit]

Dear Ism schism, I really would like to talk to you about a subject that has been bothering me for months now. On the Vaishnavism article, in western scholar section; GaugangaUK put some very "questionable" people on the list. One that I am talking about was the head Sannyasa/guru of the main temple and gurukula was centered in the "Turley case". That temple/gurukula was one of the epicenters for the "things" that happened to the childern there. Please study on-line the name first listed in that section of that article. Please put a response in "my talk" of my user page. And, let me know what you think. I dont think this person should be listed on the Vaishnavism article. Please research him. Sincerely, Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional section to Bhakti yoga article[edit]

I would like to put the Sri Sampradayam description of Bhakti yoga. From the time of Ramanujacharya and before, Bhakti yoga was the practise of regular Ashtanga yoga...but, Lovenly meditate on Vishnu/Narayana. Doing dharana and dhyanam on Vishnu/Narayana is still a basic,every day part of the sadhana of a Sri Sampradayam Vaishnava. This was the standard and practise from Ramanujacharya and before. I think and feel that it should be included on this article. The conception of Bhakti yoga on this article is very tinged with a ISKON understanding and slant. I think it would be fair to add the original Sri Sampradayam standard to this article Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigroup Vedanta; List of teachers of vedanta section; 19th and 20th century Questions and comments[edit]

Dear Ism schism, I dont know if any one noticed, but, some ISKON/Gaudiya person put some ISKON/Gaudiya "guru"...some of them Notorious and very contriversial. I would like to take them out...I think it is unapropriate. The ISKON/Gaudiya editors really tinge all of these articles with their "group" slant and propaganda. Please take a look at it, study it and please tell me what you think. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree. I will look over these. These changes need to be made. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON work group[edit]

Hello Henrydoktorsky. I see you have made contributions to ISKCON related articles. If you are interested, there is a discussion concerning an ISKCON work group located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation, and please pardon me for my tardiness in responding, but after viewing the page you pointed to, I think this service may be beyond my abilities. Although I have some knowledge about Kirtanananda Swami and New Vrindaban due to my 16 years of service and more recently due to my research for a proposed NV history book, I do not think I can make meaningful contributions to more generalized discussions about ISKCON and Vaishnavism. However, I will periodically watch this page and add comments when I have something to say. Sincerely, Henrydoktorski (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question of personal ISKON gurus in articles[edit]

:Dear Ism Schism, I am not trying to be offensive...but, the <s>ISKON</s>(ISKCON) gurus that I am talking about are Tamal Krishna Goswami (most especially), Satsvarupa <s>Swami</s> (dasa Goswami) (second most) and maybe....<s>Hriananda</s> (Hridayananda) Goswami. Please study these devotees,especially the first two. I really think and feel that personal gurus should not be put on these lists in the articles. Especially if they have notorious histories or controversial. Please write back. [[User:Zeuspitar|Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA]] ([[User talk:Zeuspitar|talk]]) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC){Corrected spelling <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:Wikidas|Wikidās]]</span> 21:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)) ::Hello Govinda Ramanuja. To my knowledge, both Tamal Krishna Goswami and Hridayanada Goswami are notable academics. This feature does distinguish them probably just enough. Satsvarupa wrote the ISKCON biography of their leader, this seems to be his distinguishing feature, though I am not sure it is enough. I think a few prominent leaders from each denomination should do, the question is which ones. These three could be justified as representing ISKCON, but more than three, I feel, would over represent this organization in relation to others, and there are many others. Thanks. [[User:Ism schism|Ism schism]] ([[User talk:Ism schism#top|talk]]) 19:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrections in PERSONAL message to Ism Schism from Wikidas[edit]

Dear Wikidas, even IF...I wrote the message to Ism Schism with incorrect spelling.You had no reason to come and edit A PERSONAL MESSAGE, between the both of us. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire above message should not only be corrected, but should be removed to comply with WP policies:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".WP:LIVING

The above message (Private claimed is actually PUBLIC) did not place any reliable sourse in the text that is about LP. Content like that should be removed. Please see:WP:LIBEL - all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. That applies to both main text articles, personal pages and Talk pages. If not removed it will be reported to Administrators.Wikidās 11:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I will be spelling ISKCON correctly for now. Namaskar Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion[edit]

Thanks. I have added my comments to the discussion. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Thelemic/Crowley section on the Krishna article[edit]

Dear Ism Schism, Hey, who put the Alester Crowley section on the Krishna article? This section is just incoherent, philosophical bumbo-jumbo babble!!! I lived in austin texas an live in L.A...I have had almost 15 years of experience with these Thelemites! First off, Yes, they might mention Krisna...but, their practices, their philosophy are absolutely Adharmic and Avedic!! They have taken a mixture of Black tantra, Crowleys speculations on various traditions. Can we please take this out.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Ekadasi and Ekadashi[edit]

Both articles discuss the same subject - the day known as Ekadashi. I propose that the articles be merged, as they discuss the same thing. What do you think? --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merging them is in order. Good idea. Silverballer47 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "Question about Western scholars section to the Vaishnavism article"[edit]

Thinking about it...I beleive you are right on all points. Thanks for taking the time to contemplate the question and responding back. Looking forward to corresponding with you in the future. One more thing, can you please let me know what you think about the Crowley section of the Krishna article. I feel that it has no place in that article. I really would like to protest it.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Crowley section goes, I completely agree. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some people who are insisting on leaving that section on the krishna article...I really would like to take it out. Please help.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Govinda Ramanuja dasa. Are you refering to the Crowley section in the Krishna article? I personally think the discussion at, Thelemic/Crowley section on the Krishna article supports such a decision to remove the material. Let me know if I can be of any help. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

Hey Ism Schism, abacadare is really insisting on keeping the thelema section of the Krishna article. I really would like to delete it. He has come up with a second qoute to justify keep the section. What can we do? Please help. And, please look at the Krishna article discussion page too.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the deletion of the gurus section. And, I'll help in any way possible. Can you please reply back on the abacadare/thelema article situation. Thanks. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Swaminarayan[edit]

That's great. I new to this workgroup, but I trying my best to help out. Many Swaminarayans are vaisnav because they not only worship Bhagwan Swaminarayan but also Lord Vishnu(primarily Krishna). Other Swaminarayans see Bhagwan Swaminarayan as supreme god, while others see him as an avatar of Vishnu though other Hindus do not see Bhagwan Swaminarayan as this. I know that Vaishnavs see Lord Vishnu as Supreme Lord, so this would be the only reason why Swaminarayan related article would not fit into tis category But I do know one thing for sure. If you were to go up to any Swaminarayan and asked them if they were Vaisnav, chances are that they will say yes. I really want to help this workgroup and article that this work group is fixing up. I know a lot about this topic. If you need help, leave a message on my talk page. Juthani1 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered one thing. Vaishnavs and Swaminarayans also have the exact same ritual. You will see differences between the rituals of Vaishnavs and Shivs folowers (not huge differences, it still is Hinduim, but minor). Everything that Vaishnavs and Saminarayans do is the same.--Juthani1 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Hindu views of Krishna[edit]

Hey Ism Schism, I voted "deletion" for all of the nominations. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Oh, what about the insistance of Imc and abadacare for the thelemic section on Krishna article? Can we do some thing like this with that situation? Please let me know.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be a priority! I strongly feel that this topic, if placed anywhere, should be on the Thelma page. I think the best way to go about this is to find a consensus. If editors from the Vaishnavism project discuss this in full, then maybe the project can speak with one voice. What do you think? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Can you correspond with shruti14, rudra and redtigerxyz to help us get this section out of the Krishna article. I have a feeling that Imc and abadacare are not true Vedics...their cryptic thelemites masking as Hindus, their too adamant in their stance on the subject. If you need me to vote on any thing or help with any thing...just let me know.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that concensus is the best solution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have edited Twice the thelema section and abadace changed it back. Please help, what can we do?Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my comments to Talk:Krishna#Non-Hindu views of Krishna on the Thelema debate. My comments center around the fact that since the Thelema religion has dismissed Krishna as irrelevant (see my comments on this) why should we? WP:UNDUE is also something to look at on this. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Krishna#Content and references for the Others section - Abecedare wants to keep the Thelema section and has proposed that instead of removing it, we add references to determine the weight it must carry in the article. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that we are finally beginning to reach a peaceful compromise on the subject, as opposed to the potential edit wars and blocks I had feared. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, if you haven't seen the Krishna article, the Thelema section has been shortened a lot (the rest is now mentioned in a footnote) and now other beliefs have been added. The article no longer puts so much weight on Crowley's views. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 04:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Project Vaishnavism[edit]

Thanks for letting me know - Wheredevelsdare (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gour Govinda Swami[edit]

You mean an independent source, right? No, I do not no any of those. I can see his website and such, but that is not what you want, is it? By the way, what is your position on ISKCON swami articles? Do you think they should exist or do you think they should be deleted if no 3rd party sources can be found- because they never can be found. I wish they could be, but pretty much only the devotees and disciples of an ISKCON swami ever write about him. David G Brault (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I feel that an ISKCON swami is notable if: they have significant media coverage, or are on ISKCON's Governing Body Commission, or on the faculty of Bhaktivedanta College, or have had their works reviewed by the academic community. These are the type of standards that I feel show signs of notability. Also, the readers deserve a reliable source to go to for confirmation. The types of standards I have listed above allow for dozens of articles on ISKCON swamis, I do not think that they are placing any unusual requirments upon their notability. I am open to any thoughts you have. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content i have recently added is also repeated on the Pure Bhakti Gaudiya Vaisnava Website (http://www.purebhakti.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=788&Itemid=65) as well as www.gopaljiu.org here is another source for information http://www.bvml.org/SGGM/index.htm His listing on the Bhaktivendanta Memorial Library website in my eyes proves this worth Vaisnava's noteability.Syama (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy for Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaj[edit]

Hello. I declined your request for the speedy deletion of Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaj under CSD A7, as the article made assertions of notability. Also note that in cases where the article has been present for quite a long time (this one for more than a year), it is a courtesy not to speedy if it isn't a blatant violation of any of the speedy deletion criteria (which this certainly is not), and prodding the article or bringing an AfD forward are preferred actions. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work on the article on about SPOG[edit]

Hello Ism schism, I was wondering if you will be interested to work on the above article. There is number of sections that needs fixing and adjusting. Its a plan to add it as reference to the main article Krsna. Your approach is very valuable and will help to develop this article to the standards. --Wikidās ॐ 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Krishna Swami[edit]

WP:AfD outcomes do not create precedent. Just because an article on one swami was kept does not automatically mean any swami is notable. I have re-applied the notability template. Erechtheus (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Swaminarayan Refs[edit]

Wheredevelsdare and I are trying to add as many as we can. Thank you for working hard and try to keep Bhagwan Swaminarayan under the Hindu Gods category. I saw you discussion with Cuando. Again thank you for your edits to the page. My goal is to get everything referenced. The discussion about him being a god keeps on popping up. There needs to be some way we can get this resolved. I did come up with another point. Bhagwan Swaminarayan may be a minor god and not well recognized, but if the category is removed, the same will have to occur to many other article with many minor Hindu Gods that even I haven't heard of. Thanks again Juthani1 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iv noticed that you have been helping out a lot not only in the above subject but also in all Lord Swaminarayan articles - thanks a lot. Yes, I read your message on Juthani1's page - ill def keep the Vaishnava project in mind. My work on wiki is mainly related to Bhagwan Swaminarayan, though I do also work on other subjects whenever I get the time. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Underconstruction}} or {{stub}} ?[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you created some new and useful articles and added the "underconstruction" template, and I just wanted to confirm that that was intentional. To wit:

{{Underconstruction}} is used to indicate that the person placing it is planning to revamp/expand the article in the immediate future, and in the meantime the reader should be aware that the article content may be unbalanced, misformatted and constantly changing. See this
{{stub}} is used to indicate that the article needs to be expanded and the content may not be comprehensive. Also see WP:stub.

Finally, could you add the year, publisher information, page, isbn etc when adding book references; and date author etc when adding newspaper references ? Also when citing edited volumes, one should mention the specific article and contributor being referenced. If you wish you can use citation templates to help you organize all the information.
Please note, that all of the above is intended as helpful pointers and not a critique! Cheers and happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention: When you create a new stub, consider nominating it for the "Did you know" section on wikipedia's main page. That gives the subject greater visibility and encourages others to contribute. See WP:DYK for the selection criterion and nominating process. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that distinction. I will use "underconstruction" while working on articles and then label them as "stub" after adding the year, publisher, etc. Thank you for the advice, and especially for pointing out the Wikipedia:Citation templates tools. I appreciate it. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For books with isbn you can use this website tool to generate a filled in citation template. You will still need to enter the page numbers, url, and "authorlink" (if applicable) fields by hand, but it can save considerable effort. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Swaminarayan Article[edit]

I believe this article should be deleted. It is a popular phrase but pretty useless. If an admin saw it, he/she probably would end up deleting it anyway. The article is only 2-3 sentences long. There isn't an article about "Jai Shri Krishna" unless I'm mistaken. I know that the article has some importance so I need your opinion on what I should do. Should I tag it? Juthani1 21:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference I see between this article and other religious terms is that this one is not fleshed out and well sourced. Other Hindu religious traditions have articles for their mantra such as Aum Namah Shivaya and the chant Hare Krishna. I will look for some sources for this one - As far as tags... I would place and "underconstruction" tag on the article until it can be fleshed out and well sourced. I will be glad to help with any articles if I can. For the Swaminarayan articles, there really are only a few editors, so it will take time to flesh out some of these articles specific to this tradition. There needs to be more articles about this subject. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I hope I can help. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea ur right. I no of Juthani1 and some others like Harish101, Haribhagat and Bhudiya2 to name a few. Iv been in touch with these guys on how to go forward. Ideally it would have been best to have a Project Swaminarayan but, as u sd there are very few satsangi editors around. Thanks for offering to help - Pl. do let me know if I can be of any use, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Where is the list of sources anyway. Is it on wiki? Juthani1 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are at Talk:Jay Swaminarayan. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swaminarayan Workgroup[edit]

I think we need one. It will fall under the Hinduism Wikiproject. The article under this group can be tagged both as under the Vaishnav and Swaminarayan Workgroup if we can get one. Both group will improve these articles. If interested add your name to ths list. I know that you work on Vaishnav articles but you are a great editor on Swaminarayan articles and defend our beliefs so you ned to join this workgroup if I get enough supporters. Sign your name after clicking this link under interestered users. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Workgroup_Swaminarayan Thanks Juthani1 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Juthani1 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on proposed article Krishna in Gaudiya Vaishnavism[edit]

It appears that while some suggested it its not a very good idea. What do you think?

Its discussed in terms of changing the Svayam bhagavan article into it. I argued against it, let me know please what you think. see:Talk:Svayam bhagavan

Wikidās ॐ 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnuswami and Rudra sampradaya articles[edit]

Thank you for creating them. Do you need any help or input in creating them. Let me know please. Regards, Wikidās ॐ 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An award[edit]

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		A very belated acknowledgment of your singular efforts in organizing the Vaishnavism project and expanding/improving wikipedia's coverage on the topic. Keep it up and happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done![edit]

On 28 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rudra sampradaya, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favor[edit]

I would do this on my own, but i don't have the time and other wiki issues to deal with first. This problem may cause problems in the future and I know that I can rely on you. The Krishna article has many citations missing. Could you add those in? If you can't I do understand. Thanks and please respond. Juthani1 21:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations of articles about Hindusim and Hindus[edit]

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism to see the discussions about several articles related to Hindusim or individual religious leaders. Perhaps you could improve one or more of the articles by adding references. You may also want to participate in the discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Swaminarayan Temples[edit]

Hi, if u remember during the afd debate of the above article, you had mentioned an article on Temples of the Church of Latter Day Saints. That article caught my eye and I thought it might be a good idea to base this article on that. Iv made templates for a couple of temples and put them on - pl. tell me how it looks .. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment - work is far frm over though - I gotta make templates for all of the temples on tht list - wch will prob take some time. Thanks again, though I dont no wher tht discussion is heading - maybe we shld take the proposal to the Vaishnava workgroup heads - req. for a sub-workgroup. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you commitment for making this project. That wil really help us. Juthani1 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, tht was a gud idea to put it on the Vaishnava discussion. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If u go bak to the article on Temples of the Church of Latter Day Saints u will find a world map right on top, marking each place where one of their temples exist. Id like to duplicate tht for the Swaminarayan temples page - any idea how to? Iv been working on the other boxes too - I hope to hv the page ready by the end of the week. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

I noiced you tagging articles with the Vaishnava wikiproject. If possible, please assess the article too (if you have considerably not worked on it), for wikiproject Hinduism as there is a big backlog to be assessed. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Assessment. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, I will start tagging and assessing as well for Hindu articles when I tag talk pages. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCookie[edit]

Re:Project[edit]

I was thinking about that a few days ago, but I think we should hault for a month or two. I am goin to start making new articles and so is Wheredevelsdare. We need a 100 articles at least for a workgroup or else the group may be deleted. We should keep it n mind and I would love to see it right now, but many people would oppose. Juthani1 ^tcs 02:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a few users are saying. It would be best to wait. I will notify you if I need help. Ntify me if you need help. Remember, I am still knowledgeable about vaishnav article even though i focus on Swaminarayan Articles. Thanks Juthani1 ^tcs 03:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I do not see sufficient secondary sources material to warrant this article besides Svayam bhagavan article addresses most of the issues. There is an issue with primary sources on the talk page - your view is welcomed.

There is a second consideration, Krishna is the same person in and out of the Gaudiya vaishnava views, and the common article will ensure that Gaudiya views are sufficiently represented in it. Separate article will result in removal of most of relevant GV POV from the Krishna article and thus it will loose the WP:YESPOV balance that it has now.

There is need of gerenal review of the presentation of the GV views in Wiki. Lets discuss the details if you want.Wikidās ॐ 08:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Narayana/Swaminarayan Project[edit]

Vr in this toghether - so whers the q of thanks? Ill be editing the Narayana page soon. Im just waiting for the group to be formed, till then Im working kinda solo on this ATM, and together with others like Juthani, yourself, Wikidas, Raj, Haribhagat, Harish etc. when I feel I need help. Frm the way I see it, the formation will take time, so Im just doing whatever I can now, but we will prob be able to coordinate better one the Project is formed. Yea, 6 editors and I know of atleast 2 others who Iv left a msg for to join. BTW any idea bout the map thing I asked u bout yesterday? Is there any way we can circumvent the min of 100 articles and make a sub group under Vaishnava - mayb we cld put forth a proposal on the Vaishnava page. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When u hv the time pl. go thru the Swaminarayan temples page and gv me feedback - hv completed the overhauling. 23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wheredevelsdare, Lets widen the scope - There are only a few traditions where Radha Krishna is worshiped, this can be a basis of a new group and we can focus on a number of articles with a biggest scope. Let me know what you think, Krishna Bhakti workgroup - a bigger and better scope? Let me know what you think? Wikidās ॐ 06:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laxminarayan[edit]

Just started the article, pl. help expand if u no bout the topic n hv the time. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to add another tradition to the list[edit]

Please discuss it here. Wikidās ॐ 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ism schism, its a complimentary to main Vaishnavism area, but with a focus on Krishna. Wikidās ॐ 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Ism schism, I personally think that name of the project can be Radha Krishna sampradayas or Krishnaism. Radha Krishna and Krishna without ending does not sound right. I like the idea of a project with a separate assessments that will eventually grow into a portal (as in similar but separate to this one). Let me know what you think about the name and it being a separate project with a potential of a portal that overlaps, but has different structure to the one of Vaishnavism. I know the use of the page, and I never posted anything there (yet), lets conclude on the name of the project (rather then subproject). We have sufficient scope and sufficient number of editors and set it up if we agree the name. Wikidās ॐ 06:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Please discussion here on the naming and all redirects. Wikidās ॐ 11:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Religous Leaders[edit]

As of right now he is the only one presently who is notable (for BAPS atleast) Juthani1 ^tcs 15:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I dont know how much you know abt the Swaminarayan Sampraday, but heres a jist of it. Bhagwan Swaminarayan created 2 gadis (LaxmiNarayan Dev Gadi, Vadtal and NarNarayan Dev Gadi, Ahmedabad) to head the Sampraday and appointed 2 of his nephews as Acharyas of their respective Gadis. The administrative division is set forth in the Desh Vibhag Lekh. The Acharyaship is hereiditary. Now as spiritual heads, they are the heads of the Sampraday and there are no other Acharyas ATM. Iv put the list of Acharyas on the repective Gadi page. As far as the running of the Ahmedabad Gadi is concerned, the Acharya is still the admin head. For the Vadtal Gadi, it has been in litigtion quite a few times, the result of which has been the creation of a trust. The Acharya is the spiritual head and the ex-officio chairman of the trust. For admin, there are other trustees, which as per the court order are elected yearly by all followers comming under this Gadi. I dont know much about the present or past trustees. Well I dont exactly no of any notable saints either (Iv heard of Mahant Swamis of various temples such as Bhuj, but cant expand much), but there is an organisation under the Vadtal Gadi called Swaminarayan Gurukul, headquartered in Rajkot. There are notbale saints Iv heard of such as Jogi Swami, Devkrishnadasji Swami and Devprasad dasji Swami etc. from this organisation. This is a link to their site: [1]. Hope this helps, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland[edit]

Thanks, but thts not wht I was looking for. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! .... Hope you have forgiven my immature behaviour during this some time ago... Keep in touch -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for reverting[edit]

That vandalism was actually funny. Juthani1 ^tcs 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy for the project[edit]

Ism schism, I think we should discuss the strategy for the WP:KRISHNA and it needs to be developed more. Also correlation with Vaishnavism project. I see Vaishnavism taking priority on most issues, but most included in both. Let me know what you think. Thanks for contributions to biblio for the project. Its a useful stock of information Wikidās ॐ 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think before the project can take off on a direction, it has to know what it is about. So far on the project page it states, "This project has the common goal of improving articles related to Radha Krishna." First, I believe, it has to be established that Krishnaism is the religious tradition devoted to Radha Krishna. I have started working on the article for Krishnaism, any thoughts you have on that article would be greatly appreciated. I think once we map the extent of what Krishnaism is, then we can move further. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You surely do not think that there is only one definition of the term - I would take it as only one perspective on what it means not that it establishes that Krishnaism is that. Krishnaism is the name of the project but not a definition of the scope. Article could be good, but should accommodate all points of view (including RK traditions mentioned). Wikidās ॐ 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking too simple, I agree with you there are many definitions and these should be accomidated in the article. As far as the project is concerned, I am not to sure about where to start or what direction to take for further development - but I am open to any ideas and am very willing to help. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be too complex, I have done some research on what Krishnaism is and put in the article. Please review and let me know what you think. Wikidās -ॐ 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant articles to WP:KRISHNA[edit]

Ism schism, can you please suggest the articles that you feel should be included in the scope? The proposed banner is:

{{WikiProject Hinduism |class=   |importance= <!-- Wikiproject specific tags --> |vaishnavism=yes |krishna=yes }}

Wikidās -ॐ 06:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

ism. I would appreciate if you could examine my complaint and try to resolve my dispute with user:Zeuspitar here : Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zeuspitar. he needs a simple warning to not engage in incivility and harassment.

I feel that he attacks me personally and on the basis of my religious affiliation, and I feel its unfair. Let me know if you can do that, I appreciate it. I know you we it tried before, but should not be bullied. Wikidās -ॐ 12:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD: Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs[edit]

I have nominated Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs for deletion as suggested. Please comment and support/oppose the nomination there. Thanks --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote[edit]

You were on the board of WP:KRISHNA, I thought you may want to check the proposal of merger and cast your vote in relation of the additional section to article Krishna. Thanks. --Wikidās -ॐ 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope, update and voting

Whats new at Krishna's project

Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism - whats new and happening!

Discussion on the scope of the project: Krishna-worship.
First DYK of he project Radha Ramana 22nd May 2008
Pages under construction Radha Krishna, Bala Krishna, Krishnaism.
Consensus is now reached on the proposal of merger of the new article Krishna Vasudeva into a separate section of Krishna here:

Please note the results of the vote on the proposal of merging new article on early worship of Krishna Vasudeva to the main article dedicated to the Hindu deity Krishna.

Krishna Vasudeva may have been worshiped in 4 century BC as a monotheistic deity.
This article is to be incorporated in a separate section of Krishna article.
Also, if you are ready to help with editing and assessment of the scope, please see the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

While the name of the project is WikiProject Krishnaism in common language many seems to prefer a wider term "Vaishnavism", which however appeared to relate to Vishnu. Krishnaism is more of an academic term. On the other hand even one of the first Indologists to use the term, Albrecht Weber was to consider that that the essence of Krishnaism, bhakti or the principle of "God is love", was pre-Christian. There were and are many traditions where Krishna is worshiped and His names revered.

There was a discussion (and a heated one) on the scope of the project and the term here. Currently the scope is quite wide and aims at improving articles related to Radha-Krishna and associated traditions where they are worshiped: Manipuri Vaishnavas, Bhagavata, Gaudiya Vaishnava, Nimbarka sampradaya, Swaminarayana sampradaya, Vallabha sampradaya; If you see a need to widen or restrict the scope please voice your opinion - it is wanted!

Just leave a few words here.

Assessment and banner for WP:KRISHNA[edit]

Ism schism,

I have done some work on it and its about a half of the unassessed articled that are already in your Vaishnavism project, and maybe you can help out on assessment and adding krishna=yes parameter to the articles that relate to WP:KRISHNA here[2]. I have done up to and including letter K. on this list of unassessed Vaishnavism articles tagging only the Kṛṣṇa related ones not the ones exclusive to Viṣṇu or Ganeśa. Of course this assessment also serves Vaishnavism and Hinduism projects so there are a few benefits of doing it at the same time. We can eventually have our own independent banner, but it could be years from now.

Generally the importance is rated from top to low and it is roughly described as such:

Epics - Generally classed as top importance.
Temples - "Mid" if in India , "High" if outside India, "Top" if a well-known temple outside India
Biographies - "Top" if outside India
Festivals - Probably High or sometimes even Top
Deities Top should be kept for about only the ten or twenty most famous. Others that appear in famous texts a number of times are High. The rest including local gods and goddesses are Mid or more likely Low.
Gurus/Swamis/Charyas/Rishis The founders of major Hindu sects and philosophies are Top while their followers and students are either Mid or Low depending on their influence.
Mantras/Bhanjans The most important mantra (and bhajan/aarti) in a major sect is Top. Other generally famous mantras are High or Mid. The rest, if they even have an article are Low.

Most others are a mid and low.

Wikidās -ॐ 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wikidas. I have been looking for articles to tag for the Krishna project - and will use the link you provided above to go through the "Unknown importance Vaishnavism articles" for my next edits. Thanks again for all your hard work and leadership on this project. Ism schism (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are quite interesting and should probably be noted on talk page of the project. Thank you for your support and help, very much needed indeed. Wikidās -ॐ 16:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is brilliant. Whenever you are about let us know. Wikidās -ॐ 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

This article needs major help- Rama Navami Can you help? Juthani1 ^tcs 18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK - another one[edit]

Happy to report, that Haridasa Thakur is on Sunday DYK due in an hour or so. Its an interesting article with a lot of illustrations. Its the fourth DYK of the Krishna project that will appear on the front page of Wikipedia! Wikidās ॐ 11:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Kalki[edit]

Hello, I notice you are an experienced editor on Hinduism related subjects. Could you please take the time to look at Kalki? It is currently (in his own words) guarded by Ghostexorcist. And I don't have the experience to know how to make changes that don't get reverted. These are my concerns about it. See if you agree.

An inordinate portion of the article is devoted to subjects tangential to the Hindu concept under the heading "Modern variations of the Kalki prophecy." I think this title itself is a contradiction in terms. What modern variation of the prophesy is there in Hinduism? It might read "modern interpretations" but Ghostexorcist will not allow even this to be discussed.
The way the section is put together it gives the impression that the views of one author Savitri Devi Mukherji that Adolf Hitler was Kalki is a part of Hindu thought. By excluding other similar silly notions he puts un-due focus to that one idea, making Hinduism look morally baron.
By having this Nazi allusion follow directly after Alejandro Biondini, a Nazi in Argentina, Ghostexorcist is de facto insisting on giving the Kalki concept a nazi connotation and I can't understand his motive.
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight holds that Wikipedia is not a repository for opinions that almost no one holds - such as that Hitler was Kalki - a view that apparently a single Hindu author who is now dead had. By insisting on having this rare opinion kept highlighted he gives the impression this is a genuine Hindu view by not saying it is not. This seems a clear case of "undue weight" as defined by Wikipedia.

What I was hoping is that you might know one or two experienced editors like yourself that could bring some weight to bear on that article. As it is it goes nowhere as all serious changes are reverted by Ghostexorcist who says he guards the article. Thank you for your time. I hope you will help. Vedantahindu (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana[edit]

Hello, I noticed that the Telangana article has been added under the Vaishnavism and Krishnaism wikiproject. I do not think the article qualifies under these categories. Please comment.

Hari (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashram ads[edit]

Hi Ism,

I just declined a bunch of G11 speedies you nominated related to Ashram spots. While I agree without hesitation that these articles need to be deleted/merged/seriously cleaned up, it didn't seem to me that the advertising content was the primary focus.

Anyways, I just thought I'd let you know! Feel free to nominate them for WP:PROD or WP:AFD. --jonny-m t 07:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of AfD[edit]

In some cases of clear mistake or duplication a #REDIRECT [[right name]] may be better way of doing it. Wikidās ॐ 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda and her thoughts[edit]

Please note that you have violated the 3RR rule and you shoud not assume that editors who are editing from an IP address are vandals. Anyone can edit wikipedia and they do not have to be logged on.--Matilda ^talk 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Matilda ^talk 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Matilda! This ain't no waltz!!! But, hey, I am now enlightened! Thank you for such knowledge, those anons and there edits do bring such clarity to the pages they vandalize. Thanks again, and please come back real soon!!!

Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong,

Under the shade of a coolibah tree,

And he sang as he watched and waited 'til his billy boiled

"Who'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me?"

Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda

"You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me"

And he sang as he watched and waited 'til his billy boiled,