User talk:Amanhanda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Amanhanda! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Akerans (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Amanhanda. You have new messages at Portal talk:Hindu Mythology#Mythology.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- John of Reading (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hindu theology[edit]

Could you please explain this edit? [1] --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop inserting POV terms to articles as you did here and here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Mythology means something which is believed but not true krishna being one of the most important avatar of Vishnu for vanish nabs to call it mythology would be blasphemous it's like calling Jesus or Muhammad mythological characters Christians and Muslims would be up in arms against it ,theology men's pertaining to god which is an appropriate term for krishna.
I see your point. The problem is that the term 'theology' is currently used almost universally to refer to the study of the God of the Abrahamic religions. You will have to provide reliable sources that document widespread use of the term 'theology' in Krishna Studies and Hindu Religious Studies. "Krishna theology" is a very rare term; one usually encounters the term "Krishnaism" instead. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

See the abramics used the terms mythological for the dharmic religions as according to their theological beliefs these were just mythological stories A lot of people use these terms even in the east as English is not there language so they don't really understand the meaning they just use it as it has been done .from a point of view of a vaishnav ( hindu ) it is very offensive if u were to see the words they use for describing krishna in there own language they don't call it mythology instead it would be considered blasphemous if I can somehow help u change the term tell me what would u like me to come up with so we refer to krishna in therms of theology not mythology . As of not the article right now would be as per the POV of right wing abrhamic groups

Many respectable academic authors (authors that may or may not adhere to Abrahamic faiths) make the distinction between Hinduism and Hindu theology/philosophy, so this is not exactly a case of religious bias. In cases such as this one [2], one can simply replace the term Hindu mythology with the less controversial term Hinduism. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks for taking mythology out of the ramjanambhoomi article , hinduism sounds fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.236.79 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC) though u choose to use hinduism but rama is at the core of hindu vaishnava theology as the 7 th avatar of vishnu and seen as purshottam i.e the perfect man ( avatar )

August 2013[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Gautama Buddha shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SudoGhost 03:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


i fail to understand this why would you use the word purported for the place which most people view as the birth place of buddha , i do not see the words at the birthplace of jesus , because most buddhist are not people of english language they do not understand the implication of the word if u were to use that word for the birthplace of jesus people would up in arms but u guys persisting with the use of the word PURPORTED is discriminatory and offensive

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Gautama Buddha. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=

i fail to understand this why would you use the word purported for the place which most people view as the birth place of buddha , i do not see the words at the birthplace of jesus , because most buddhist are not people of english language they do not understand the implication of the word if u were to use that word for the birthplace of jesus people would up in arms but u guys persisting with the use of the word PURPORTED is discriminatory and offensive

~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 08:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Devi[edit]

Could you please explain this edit? [3]. English-language scholarly sources refer to Hindu gods as "gods." You are clearly coining new terms for Hinduism-related articles. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Demi gods are known as known as dev or Devi depending on gender in hinduism they are akin to abrhamic guardian angel , what is referred to as god in person is known as ishvar which can only be Vishnu , shiv or brahma or it's avatar in English dev,d and Devi,s are also called in the evangelical effort to shoe hinduism in poor light with multiple gods . A lot of Hindus also refer to dev or Devi as god as a vestige of colonialism so dev or Devi or their plural is correct rather than gods or dev and ishvar( god )
Well, you have made some claims that need to be backed up. Who says that "Demi gods are known as known as dev or Devi depending on gender in hinduism they are akin to abrhamic guardian angel"? Who says that "A lot of Hindus also refer to dev or Devi as god as a vestige of colonialism"? There are certain standard terminological conventions in Hindu Studies. Unless you have sources to back up your claims, I will have to assert that you are engaging in original research, and I will have to report you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

i am not engaging in original research if u guys take pains to corroborate ur articles to hindu writings it would do justice to the philosophy , civilization and the religion i would gladly be referred to where ever u want me to if that helps in improving the quality of the article and the article not being written from a western mindset but from an indian mindset as it refers to them . hopefully the article is improved by acedemics and not people on the streets with very little knowledge

Please stop promoting your fringe terminology as you did here and take note that ranting about Wikipedia censorship while still not justifying your actions is not helpful. Your disruption will be reported to ANI. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

i dont understand why dont u use the terminology used in actual Hinduism instead of trying to use english words which are far from meaning of sanskrit words , why don't u improve the quality of articles on hinduism by corresponding with theologians instead of just writing things taken from english texts not written by theologians ,can u tell me what is ur agenda of denigrating jain religious figures as mythical why dont u write that for jesus or mohammed why are u picking on eastern faiths because we dont hit back . indra in all texts is known as dev if u have no clue about what u are editing that ur problem not mine indra dev read the rig veda . anything that u dont understand becomes fringe how can wikipedia take action against me when i am writing the wright thing why not u since u are not writing the wright thing

The terminological conventions that are employed in a Wikipedia article should generally be the ones most common in the English language, as you would find them in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources). Coining and employing your own terminology is against basic Wikipedia policy. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

this is not my terminology this is the terminology used by all hindu theologians u would find them if u would care to research , the terminology used in a lot of english literature on hinduism is of colonial relic with a slant view of evangelical bend of mind hence my appeal to improve the quality of the article to accurately represent hinduism

The burden is on you to provide reliable sources in the English-language that verify your claims. You have been pursuing your agenda since September 2010 (btw, I have just reverted this edit because it was in violation of MOS:QUOTE). You have never explained your activity with reference to Wikipedia policies and you have never a provided a single source that verifies your claims. As I wrote above there is a clear distinction between Hinduism and Hindu theology/philosophy. Your blind substitution of the word "mythology" with the word "theology" is against common practice. Please adhere to what is common practice in the relevant English language literature. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Please stop violating MOS:QUOTE as you did here and here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)