User talk:Wikidas/archive3

Krishna article

Hello Wikidas. Thank you for the note. I have added a quote on the Krishna talk page concerning your queston on Vasudeva's role in Vaishnavism. Gavin Flood is a Hindu Studies scholar and is respected in Academia. Personally, I do not feel that any single reading, tradition, or story concerning the origins of Vaishnavism is correct by itself alone. At the least I beleive that the Gavin Flood quote shows that the question you raised is a legitimate one. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting quote. Wikidās ॐ 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Radhika Ramana Dasa

Wikidas, thank you for adding the dissertation/publication reference for the Radhika Ramana Dasa article. I was not aware of that source. Thank you. Also, you might want to review three new articles that I created; Hanumatpreshaka Swami‎, Smita Krishna Swami and Kadamba Kanana Swami. Any edits or comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for your contributions. Ism schism (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK

I would sincerely advice you to get a wikipedia mentor, because currently your replies to well meant advice/admonishments by experienced editor, indicates that you really don't understand why some of your edits and references are unacceptable. Repeating the errors or your arguments in article space will soon exhaust the community patience and lead to editing sanctions, but with a mentor you can discuss the issues in semi-privacy, without disrupting articles/other editors. I expect that you will soon delete this suggestion from your talk page, but I do hope you'll consider it for your own benefit. Abecedare (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC) I only delete notes that are not in an appropriate mood of WP:COOL. I think this is a nice suggestion, I will think about it. I appears that there is a contention on part of some editors and others are just fine. I like some of your suggestions, and some are not so well put, it you discuss in a polite tone, it will have a better chance of getting across. Some of my edits are not acceptable, just as some of yours. You have a better experience and thanks to that Im learning. If you look at your edits 5 years back you will see bigger proportion of edits that you would better today. And that is good. So without wasting more time, I would ask you to stop telling others what to do, just for a while, and do yourself what you ask from others. Wikidās ॐ 16:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Shrinathji

Wikidas, thank you for all of your hard work on the Shrinathji article. Your edits have been very constructive. Thanks again. I admire your work ethic. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your question

I have replied on my talk page to keep the conversation in one place. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks. You mean keep it at Talk:Krishna page. Wikidās ॐ 09:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request

Namaskar. I suggest that you talk to the editor informing him that the Sri Sampraday is only a part of hinduism. Diplomacy is normally the best way out. In case that fails the only option left would be to contact administrators. There is no point me putting in POV as there is no place for POV on wiki and it will be removed sooner or later. As a matter of fact I always try to ensure that my edits are NPOV. Im afraid I wont be able to do much imd. as Im a bit preoccupied with a conflict on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page apart from other stuff. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I get u. Ill surely do tht in the near future. Thanks, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Namaste and Namaskar. I am willing to help take out POV. I will try my best to do so. I suggest getting an admin to warn him a few times about getting banned. Just tell me what to do (give me a list) and I should be able to do most of it. Thank You   Juthani1    20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I have an idea. Source everything (find websites with reliable info) so you have proof that he is vandalizing. Then contact an admin and he or she will warn this editor and stop him or her from editing that page. but make sure the sources are reliable!!!!    Juthani1    21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) You can also tag the article as undercontruction. I would give you a link but can't find it. Remove all of the other boxes and get experts involved with the article. If you really want to stop him. I saw that he was discussing things on other user talk pages f other users. I can help, but I am a little confused on what this article is about. I know the main points but I need a better understanding. Could you give me one on my talk page?    Juthani1    21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm following your suggestion and adding UC tag on the Svayam bhagavan page. I think its an appropriate tag, since it take a lot of editing to make it clear and from from POV and still retain the message across. Wikidās ॐ 10:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I'm relatively new to wikipedia. Won't do that again.

I edited this article from the beginning to the beginning part of the Comparisons of views section.

After that, due to the grammar I am having a difficult time understanding what the author(s) are trying to say. So I'm hesitating to re-word.

Also, from the point where I stopped editing to the end of the article, there seems to be a good amount of repetition.

And poor grammar is present everywhere unforunately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I hope we will use most your hard work.Wikidās ॐ 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sacinandana Swami in Washington Square News

• Hello Wikidas. I hope you are in good health and high spirits. Again, I am reminded of how wrong I was in the past... Three days ago the Washington Square News posted a story concerning Sacinandana Swami. There is a nice article located at, [1]. Again, I apologise for assuming that such references did not exist before. I was wrong, and I do apologise. I have added the reference to the article. Let me know if there any new articles you come across that need to be created. Thanks, I appreciate all of your hard work. Ism schism (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Bhagwan Swaminarayan Page

Thank you so much for your contributions to the Bhagwan Swaminarayan and other Swaminarayan Articles. I saw your recent edits to the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page and was shocked by how much you improved it and the introduction. You improved it so much that now there is no POV in that section. Thank You so much    Juthani1    18:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I second Juthani1 - Thanks. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I added more to the Nilkanth Varni portion. Check it out and take out the POV. You are really good at taking out POV on the Bhagwan SWaminarayan article. You can find it under the background section. I rote it and its not really well written.    Juthani1    22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Project

Hello Wikidas. There is a proposal for a Swaminarayan workgroup. If you are interested in being an editor on this project, or helping in any way, it is still in the proposal process. Any thoughts, comments and/or participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urmila Devi Dasi

Wikidas, do you have any thoughts on the above? The individual is an editor of Back to Godhead and has other notable attributes. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. FYI - you can always find these Hindu related Afds at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. I have put two articles up as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Svayam Bhagavan

Hi - Just came around to say tht Iv added a line on Bhagwan Swaminarayan along with a reference on the Svayam Bhagavan page. BTW ur doin a gr8 job on the Swaminarayan Bhagwan page .. keep it up! Wheredevelsdare (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken Refs

I wasn't disputing the refs - what I meant by "broken" was that they were not typed correctly (or some similar problem), causing a "Cite error". If you see where they are in the article, the <ref> tags aren't placed correctly, causing "Cite error" (MediaWiki's way of saying that something is wrong with either the <ref> or the <cite> tags). If you were the one who placed those refs in the article, and could fix them so that the "Cite error" no longer appears, that would be great. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 02:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Laxminarayan

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)

Re:Workgroups

Sounds good. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Namaskar, Just had a thought bout it - wont it be too similar to the Vaishnavism project? Wheredevelsdare (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of that workgroup. Will be the first to join. I am also a Radha Krishna worshipper.    Juthani1   ^tcs 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• In tht case in the Swaminarayan tradition we worship not only RadhaKrishna but also other forms such as Laxminarayan (with Rukmini (Laxmiji)), Narnarayan (With Arjun), HariKrishna (Swaminarayan with Krishna), so dont u think it wld not cover Swaminarayan totally. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Navbox

No, I will just add stuff to the list. We don't need the box.    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC) What does MoS mean?    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I replied on your talk page.

You need to sign the wikiproject project thing as well. Move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals from the page its on right now. The invitation template is great. Do you want me to make a prooposed UBX.    Juthani1   ^tcs 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, What should the name of the UBX be? Template:....

Succession

Wikidas, I dont know if you are well versed with the matter. The situation is thus. Bhagwan Swaminarayan made the Swaminarayan Sampraday and established a line of acharyas as successors via the Desh Vibhag Lekh. He also indicated this in other places, such as the Shikshapatri. When he left for Aksharham, he left the reins of the sampraday with the Acharyas and put Gopalanand Swami in charge of the Sampraday. Now, many years after this a sadhu of the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Vadtal, Yagnapurushji (later refered to as Shastriji Maharaj) and formed a sect of his own, BAPS. He was later excommunicated. His contention was that Bhagwan Swaminarayans spiritual successor was Gunatitanand Swami and not the Acharyas. The paradox is that Gunatitanand Swami had also left for Akshardham by then. Infact even Gunatitanand Swami, one of the main sadhus of Bhagwan Swaminarayan states “He who insults the temples, Acharyas, sadhus and satsangies will find his roots being destroyed and will inevitably fall from the satsang.” (Swami ni Vato Prakran 5, Vat 104). Now, I agree that since BAPS claims succession and is quite a large group, they need to be mentioned, but that sould not undermine the fact that the Acharyas were appointed by Bhagwan Swaminarayan himself and that BAPS and other groups only claim succession. I hope you get my point. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied at the place of discussion. Im aware of the different POV on this subject that created the split.Wikidās ॐ 06:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Wheredevelsdare and I figured out the NPOV for the succession thing. I misinterpreted it and changed it up a little. Are ther any others?    Juthani1   ^tcs 13:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Acharyas came after Shajanand Swami's Death. He selected one for each of the gadis (so 2 together). after that there has been a successor. BAPS split since they believe that Gunatitanand Swami was the rightful heir and everyone after him is the rightful successor. The Swaminarayan Gadi thinks that Gopalanand Swami is the rightful heir. Tell me exactly what you want to change. You are on the right track. Do still need help with that one article you asked for my help on (when we first met)?    Juthani1   ^tcs 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Iv answered ur 120 years question on Juthani1's talk pg, I hope ur now clear with the status of the Acharyas as the bonafide successors to Sahajanand Swami and the Desh Vibhag Lekh being his last will and testament. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Shri Swaminarayan temples

This is a page Iv been working on for some time. Id like your opinion on its present form. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there are more than hundreds of Swaminarayan Sampraday Mandirs world over (I dont know how many, but the list is HUGE) so adding all will prob take really long.

BAPS mandirs are not known as Shri Swaminarayan Mandir but BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir (Note the diff)'. Anyways, the BAPS temples are listed on the BAPS article itself. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I removed the It is believed because it is a proven fact in a court of law. The tag was removed because ref 4 covers that. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The proof in the court of law is not something that is called fact in wikipedia:-) Wikidās ॐ 22:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Does tht mean a court ruling is considered POV? I shld think tht a court is neutral in deciding desputes, hence a court ruling shld be considered NPOV. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have answered you on your page. I think its a misunderstanding, as there are a few groups involved, and they have their perspective that need to be considered. You'll not find many neutral courts too.. Wikidās ॐ 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

U seem well versed with rules! I have seen the tutorial page before and have just gone thru the religious part of the FAQs. I do not dispute that the BAPS side of the story needs to be shown, hence I have not objected to a seperate BAPS section (which has been objected to by several other editors in the past). My objection to the It is Belived words is that there is proof in the Desh Vibhag Lekh that it is true, something accepted by the Bombay High Court (and with ur above comments Im inclined to believe that u consider it biased towards the Swaminarayan Sampraday). As this is the case, it should be worded as a fact and not belief (a belief is not accepted in court). I do not object to the dispute line just after that as it would make it NPOV. I hope u get my point. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why have u reverted it bak to the It is believed - it distorts facts. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)~

BTW, just as I think of it, BAPS does not dispute that Bhagwan Swaminarayan himself appointed the Acharyas, they dispute that the Acharyas are the true successors. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, BTW the source for Ram Navmi/Swaminarayan Jayanti is on the Swaminarayan Jayanti page - do v need to mention it everywhere? Wheredevelsdare (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't move it to Swaminarayan. I've already redirected it there but it is best if labeled disambig. Thanks    Juthani1   ^tcs 19:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work!

I must comlement ur work on the Svayam Bhagavan page. I was just browsing around and I must say that the page is brilliant, and with a little more work, I should think it will be on its way to the Wikipedia Main Page - as featured article. All the best! - Wheredevelsdare (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you have set a very high standard for Wikipedia articles with your building the Svayam Bhagavan page. The Hinduism and Vaishnavism projects have benifited very much do to your work as an editor. Please let me know how I might be of assistance to you in the future. Again, thank your for setting such a high standard with your work. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

concerning Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism

Wikidas, what are your thoughts concerning the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism. Do you know the purpose of this page, aside from allowing editors to state their purpose of supporting the project? Again, please let me know how I might be of assitance. Thank you for all of your hard work. Ism schism (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea you stated of "a project with a separate assessments that will eventually grow into a portal." I have started a list of academic discussions on Krishnaism at the top of the page so that people who are unfamiliar with the term can have some academic resources. Let me know how I can help any further. Thanks again for all of your work and also for bringing everybody together for such an important discussion and topic. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Project Name

The original Faiths worshipping RadhaKrishna sounds good. I would hv thgt it comes under the Hinduism/Vaishnava projects and not a seperate one. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics

I dont no how to use diacritics, is it fine if I put the Radhaashtak in normal words? Wheredevelsdare (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I will change it to normal language. On a seperate note, you can listen to the Radhashtak on [2] (ull need to download it) and read it on [3]. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I use vista too - I can read it on the link. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Im working on it - in my Sandbox. should be ready by the end of the day. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Im not too much of an avid reader of scriptures and religious books - but Ill try and find a published source. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gaulok

Since u mentioned Gaulok in the RadhaKrishna article, I tht Id tell u tht there are murtis of Gaulokvihari Maharaj in some mandirs such as the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Mumbai. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RadhaRaman Dev

Are you sure of this -

One of the self manifested Deities established by Gopala Bhatta Goswami is called Radharamana, it is not surprising that Radharamana is seen as not only Krishna but also as Radha-Krishna.

I am asking u as in Swaminarayan Mandirs too u hv murtis of Radharaman Dev, such as in Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Junagadh. This temple was made in Vikram Samvat 1884, and the Vikram Samvat (Indian Calendar) is 56 years ahead of the Gregorian (Roman Calendar). How could Radharamana hv been established by him when it already existed! AroundTheGlobe (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! my mistake. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Now ur confusing me - month of vaishaka 1542 - so tht must be Vikram Samvat calendar - right? AroundTheGlobe (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of curosity - Iv known u for some time now- but dont no ur beliefs - which sampraday/sect of hinduism do u belong to? Which part of the world are your from? AroundTheGlobe (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Now Im a little more confused -

1. Is the Gaudiya calendar same as Vikram Samvat or different 2. Did u state the month in VS and year in the Normal calendar

AroundTheGlobe (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I dint know of a Gaudiya calendar - thanks for telling me. The Vikram Samvat is actually the most widely used Indian Calendar. Now I think I hv an ans. to one of my questions above - ur a Gaudiya Vaishnava. Where are you from? AroundTheGlobe (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bhuj Mandir

There is a problem on the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Bhuj page. The whole history section is being removed as flatterity. Iv tried to remove all the POV, but the guy keeps removing the section. Please help. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I messaged u the same editor has gone about clipping articles on different Mandirs, Acharyas etc. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree wth the Shri, MoS part and do not dispute that - but that does not mean one removes large parts of articles. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles are poorly written, and I am trying to help. If you would like to help, you can do so by making good articles with good sources. The articles were full of flattering adjectives and they generally don't even make sense. You need to reduce the amount of Hindu words and use the English equivalent, and most importantly, use reliable third party sources. If sources don't exist then the notability of the articles are not established and they may be deleted. The information that I am removing is of no value and is removed per several wikipedia policies. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, I was working on it just today. See all the Mandir articles' history. This is before Cunando came into the picture. Im trying my best to remove POV - but just removing all information does not help. Ill try and rephrase everything - but I still dont know if tht will be enough. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Deities

On a different note, we also worship other forms such as MadanMohan Dev and Gopinathji Maharaj. Do u too? AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

By POV i meant Shri, Lord etc. the Swaminarayan Sampraday site, swaminarayan.info has info on all these temples, could tht be used as YES:POV? AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!

Good job catching the link spam by Ambi saba (talk · contribs)! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan

I read on the Ahmedabad temple page that you wrote that Swaminarayan founded the Swaminarayan Faith. The statement is false, as he founded the Swaminarayan Sampraday and other groups claiming successorship were formed only a minimum 77 years after his death. i.e. He died in 1830 and the first group to claim succession was formed in 1907 (BAPS). Other groups were formed much later, eg. Swaminarayan Gadi was formed in the 1940's. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Acharya Articles

Take a look at Talk: Tejendraprasad Pande, leave your thoughts if you wish. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Radha Ramana

Namaskar,

Dont u think it wld b better to hv focus on the deities and hv a para on the temple, with a seperate article for the temple. Radha Ramana are worshipped in other temples too .. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a notability criteria that was applied to both the temple and the image and both are notable. Any other temple dedicated to this specific deity will need to meet similar criteria of notability. Not notable articles are subject AfD. All additions should be referenced to WP:RS. If you have any please add to the article. If we have more information we can create sub articles, however in my research there is not much academic material on the subject and I tried to reference most of it. Wikidās ॐ 15:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I dint c ur ans here. Wht I meant was it would be better to hv a sep article for the deity and temple. Other temples incl. Swaminarayan Temples too hv RadhaRaman Dev murtis - it mite not b worthwhile putting info of these temples on the RadhaRaman Dev page, but having info on one temple on the page might indicate to readers tht the deity is only worshpped in tht temple - something like wht it was when the Laxminarayan page had an article on the Birla temple in delhi (now moved to Laxminarayan Temple). Thanks for the MadanMohan Dev and Gopinathji Maharaj info - do Gaudiya Vaishnavas worship these forms? ATG ^Contact 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Gaudiya, Vallabha and many others worship these forms. I do not think that birla mandirs (that are build in many places) have the same notability as Radharaman temple in Vrindavana. The temple is dedicated to one particular deity not a group. And this deity is self manifested.

Then it may be better to mention tht tht is the reason why tht temple is mentioned on the article, although the deity is worshipped in many other temples too. ATG ^Contact 21:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism/Bibilography

Wikidas, since I have been away I have seen that you have created many relevant articles for the Krishnaism project. Also, I want to thank you for creating the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism/Bibilography, as this page will be very useful for building futher articles, and edifying others. Thank you for being such an important leader on this project. Please let me know how I can help in the future. I will be out of town every now and then, but would like to help with this project, so please do let me know how I might be of assistance. Thanks again for your hard work and leadership. Ism schism (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Krishnaism

Wikidas, what do you think about duplicating sections of the Radha Krishna page for the Krishnaism page, such as the various religious traditions etc. I think that would help contextualize it. Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be some structure as to how it branches - RK will be a branch of Krishnaism, and the main article will be RK. However the topic of Krishnaism is a larger one but may have only a synopsis of the article on RK and Krishna, to get it boiled down of course you can cut and paste. But if you keep it as it is the original will change, but this will not and thus you will have two versions of the same thing, so taking as a starting point - yes but more as a boiled down version, almost talking about main traditions of RK worship, rather then separating each. Wikidās ॐ 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I am starting to understand, I am a bit slow today... I agree that main article should be RK, this is very helpful for future editing and will help anchor the project. Thanks again for your hard work and leadership. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I try to put it in to make sure you understand me.Wikidās-ॐ 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Radha Ramana

On 22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Radha Ramana, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! the first Krishnaism DYK! ATG ^Contact 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The new project

Thanks! (I apologize for the late reply - I've been busy with school.) I'd love to help as much as possible, so let me know if there is anything I can do. One thing, we probably need a box similar to {{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Vaishnavism articles by quality statistics}} for the project. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Scope

I think all Krishna related articles (RadhaKrishna, Laxminarayan, Narnarayan etc) shld b top priority. I further propose to tag all Swaminarayan articles with this project. ATG ^Contact 16:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking about it - if your going to limit the scope to RadhaKrishna, then it might not be right to inlcude all the articles I mentioned. Ill explain, I just made an article on the Karachi temple and put tagged it with Krishnaism. However, the images in tht temple are of Narnarayan dev and Lord Swaminarayan - not RadhaKrishna dev like some other temples. When I saw RadhaKrishna on the talk page, I felt it wrong to tag it tht way as there are no images of RadhaKrishna in tht particlular temple. I had earlier tht it comes under Krishnaism as NarNarayan Dev is Nar, Arjun and Narayan, Krishna. ATG ^Contact 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Zeuspitar

OK, the first things I think are required for this to fly, and I've been involved in one recently, so I speak from some experience, is that you should move the "discussion" section to a "Statement by Wikidas" section. For it to proceed, it will need to have at least two editors indicate that they have directly stated that they find the editor's behavior questionable, prefereably included in the "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" section, to meet the required two-person threshold. Can you provide me with speciric links to all the relevant pages/discussions. At least the first of the links you provided, 3 in particular, aren't evidence of disruptive behavior, although 6 clearly violates NPA, 7 is probably acceptable, as it is just trying to limit content, 8 is less an insult, although it does seem to be close to threatening legal action. The last three all date from April, and at least #8 is later. At this point, I think a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts might be the better way to go than a full RfC, both because it is an earlier step in dispute resolution, which probably should be taken first, and because it is, in a sense, less directly confrontational. But remember that you are, in effect, making a legal case yourself here. If you've seen the show, try to write it in your best Perry Mason style, presenting the evidence in chronological order for greatest ease of understanding. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have yourself made any statements indicating that the party in question has violated rules, please add your signature to the users who certify the basis of the dispute. Also, you should transclude it onto the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let User:Abecedare and User:Shruti14, whose attempts you point to, know about the RFC so they can certify it. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there hasn't been evidence that at least two editors have tried to get the person who is the subject of a proposed RfC do not add themselves as "certifiers" of the RFC, there is a very good chance that it will be turned down. That's one of the primary rules. Granted, the diffs help, but the chance of it being turned down without their certifications is still a real one. At the very least, let them know the RFC exists, and that you'd like them to sign on. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

As u no v hv been having a lot of problems with POV on Swaminarayan pages. In this regard, Iv made a new pg on the Mandir in Karachi (Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Karachi) - cld u pl go thru it & temme if there is any POV. Iv tried to make it as NPOV as poss with max. references. ATG ^Contact 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will try and incorporate more info. ATG ^Contact 21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Krishna banner

It's nice - I like it. Thanks for making it. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup its gr8 .. only thing Id like to know is tht RadhaKrishna wld b non existent w/o Krishna - so shldnt tht b mentioned first .. ATG ^Contact 19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD: Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs

I have nominated Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs for deletion as suggested. Please comment and support/oppose the nomination there. Also, since you use it one your userpage, you may want to {{subst: it using VaishnavaSampradayasrs}} before it is deleted, if it is deleted and you still want the content in the template on you user page. Thanks. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Swaminarayan Related Articles

No, I don't think we should do that since they aren't centered around Radha Krishna. I don't think it should be done since they are already in the Vaishnav Progect anyway. If you really want to, I won't stop you from doing so.    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Got Juthani1s approval. My contention to him was that Swaminarayan Bhagwan considers Krishna his isht Dev, so on tht count it comes under the Krishna project and he agreed. ATG ^Contact 20:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:KRISHNA

Re: [4] - Thanks for your message, and calling me India's most well known Wikipedian :) However, I may not be be the best one! Anyway, your request is engaging my active attention, and I shall come back soon. I could not attend to one of your earlier message in this regard as I could not pay deep attention to the issue. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vote

Iv nt gone thru the article in detail really to vote. The Bala Krishna one luks gud - Im surprised an aricle on Krishna as a balak dint exist till now. Well I made a pg on the Swaminarayan Mandir in Weehawken, NJ (u can get to it via Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, New Jersey) today, you can hv a luk and help with tht if u like. BTW hv u seen the infobox on the Swaminarayan page? Thanks, ATG ^Contact 23:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking vandals

Thank you for making a report about 122.162.14.100 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! --  Netsnipe  ►  17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Hi,

I nominated Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Karachi for a DYK and the message put there is Date and length OK. Can not find hook in sourced material, lack of inline source makes this difficult. What does this mean and wht should be done to resolve this. ATG ^Contact 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I thgt of that too but its clearly mentioned in the ref. - According to Mahant Swami, the idols of Lord Swaminarayan were brought to India during Partition. “At present, one idol is at Khan village in Rajasthan,” he says. - this is a cut and pste from a Times of India article. ATG ^Contact 20:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats not the DYK - thts the ref. - the DYK is ... that the original images of Lord Swaminarayan at the Shri Swaminarayan Temple, Karachi in Pakistan were removed and taken to India during the turbulent times of the Partition of India?. ATG ^Contact 20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I hv given the ref there now - the artcle has been wikilinked in bold. ATG ^Contact 21:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Solved - the ref. has been accepted. Around The Globe^Contact 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you have a big hand in it too - so congratulations to you too! Your help with Swaminarayan articles is much appreciated. Around The Globe^Contact 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and congrats. Im not aware of any Swaminarayan temple having a Balak roop Krishna murti (thts wht I understood frm the article). Though v do hv palnas with miniature murtis in them during janam. These normally hv 2 swinging peacocks on the 2 ends.(hv u herd of the dhun .. 'Lala ne palne sona na mor ..)Just to add - I had nominated Weehawken a couple of days bak along with Karachi. Now, Karachi having made it I dont know what wld b the status of the other one (they mite not want 2 Swaminarayan Temple articles within a span of a couple of days on) - though it might make it too .. Around The Globe^Contact 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Swaminarayan temples page is currently not rated - could you pl. rate it? Around The Globe^Contact 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we use Bhagwan Swaminarayan rather than Bhagvan because it is used more oftenly. There are many times were words are mispelled but are stll the most common way people use them such as in this example. So can you support Bhagwan Swaminarayan    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, it's on the mainpage right now    Juthani1   ^tcs 23:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations - yet another Wikidas initiated article makes it to the main page .. Around The Globe^Contact 23:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 28 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bala Krishna, 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.

--Victuallers (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Krishnaism Assessments

Hello Wikidas. When you have time, please review my assessments of various Krishnaism articles. I have tried to follow the standards which were outlined. I would appreciate any corrections or comments you have. Thanks again for your hard work and leadership. Ism schism (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Radhashtak

Hi, I created Shri Radhika Krishnashtaka today. Pl. hv a look at wht Iv done as well as help with expansion. Around The Globe^Contact 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as for notabality there are 2 different reference sources tht I hv put. I cant find anything against this in NOT. I think if v expand the introduction it should be OK. Wht r ur thgts? Around The Globe^Contact 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NP. Juthani1 has been working on the templates - v hv been in touch on how it shld b. Im having a problem with the sourcing of the Radhashtak info - zero hits in Google books! and few in the web as well .. Im trying to source stuff frm other places now. Id appreciate if u cld rate the Swaminarayan temples articles when ur a bit free .. Around The Globe^Contact 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

Hi Wikidas. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I replied to your suggestion about changes to the lead, and inserted a few sentences to add coverage about the different views (and how they've changed). I was wondering if I could get your feedback about that. Regards, ITAQALLAH 14:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikidas, I understand that you've made some changes so as to ensure article stability - but you've removed some reliably sourced content (which all academic sources attest to) such as the persecution or of Muhammad's conquest of Arabia. Some insertions may also have been weasel wording like "Some have said" or "which some suggest" and other slightly editorialised language like "should not be mistaken for radicalism." ITAQALLAH

17:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

This article needs major help- Rama Navami Can you help?    Juthani1   ^tcs 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Temples

Ah, I dint c tht Ism schism has gone bout rating them. The ratings r fine - just wanted them rated. Juz one thing - he has rated the Swaminarayan Temples as start class - i think it might b a tier higher to tht - can u review tht. Around The Globe^Contact 21:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Revanta

Thanks for passing the article. Few things to remember when you pass an article:

• Also paste {{Talk:articlename/GA1}} on article talk page,=.
• "List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section. Consider listing it at the top of the good articles page under "Recently listed good articles". "
• Update the GA number.
• Also, I normally avoid reviewing Hinduism-related articles as being an active member of the Wikiproject. You being the same, i suggest you do the same to keep the credibility of GA process and refute any allegations of "You are a fan of the subject, and want to see the article listed at GA." This is just a suggestion, it is entirely up to you to decide what articles to want/ do not want to review.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My belief is the exact same, but I thought that God was the Christian form. Sorry about any trouble. thanks for the explanation.    Juthani1   ^tcs 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)