Several of your recent edits to the Hinduism page were unhelpful. Please do not continue to bypass wikipedia quality standards in order to insert your POV into articles. Please do not continually revert in order to impose your POV.
See [[1]]
I suggest that you also review the wikipedia policies and guidelines at [[2]].
This page contains Indic text. Without rendering support you may see irregular vowel positioning and a lack of conjuncts. More...
Users with Marathi language background are kindly requested to test all Visual Editor features along with Marathi language display settings and file the bugs wherever necessary.
Swadhyayee/A1, Presently you are on english wikipedia, You are invited to Marathi Wikipedia!This template shall keep you informed about support and contribution required in various Marathi Wikipedia articles in times to come.
Welcome message in Marathi Language
नमस्कार, Swadhyayee/A1 आपण Marathi language- किंवा Maharashtra-विषयक लेखात जे योगदान केले आहे त्याबद्दल धन्यवाद.
इंग्रजी आणि मराठी विकिपीडियावरील सहयोगच्या माध्यमातून विकिपीडिया संबंधीत प्रकल्पांचा आणि लेखांचा आवाका आणि गुणवत्ता सुधारावी या हेतूने विविध प्रकल्पाची आखणी केली आहे आपण या विकिपीडिया:प्रकल्पात लेखन योगदान करून या प्रकल्पाचा हिस्सा व्हावेत या सदिच्छेने मी आपणास हे निमंत्रण देत आहे.
या प्रकल्पात सहभाग घेऊन आपण सहकार्य करू इच्छित असाल तर, कृपया मराठी विकिपीडियाचे समाज मुखपृष्ठ आणि आपल्या आवडीच्या प्रकल्प पानास भेट देऊन अधिक माहिती घ्यावी हि नम्र विनंती. पुन्हा एकदा धन्यवाद!~~~~
मराठी विकिपीडियात लेखांचा मराठीत शोध/अथवा लेखनासाठी ह्या व्हिडिओत दाखवल्या प्रमाणे मराठी आणि नंतर अक्षरांतरण पर्याय निवडा अथवा इनस्क्रिप्ट साठी 'मराठी लिपी' पर्याय, Click on the 'cc to change the subtitle languages to Marathi, English, Sanskrit, Kokani,Ahirani.
१ मे, २०१३मराठी विकिपीडियाच्या दहाव्या वर्धापनदिनानिमित्त स्मृतिचिन्ह
आपल्या मराठी विकिपीडियावरील सहभागाबद्दल, सहवासाबद्दल आणि उत्कृष्ट योगदानाबद्दल हे मराठी विकीचे अभिमान गौरव निशाणमराठी विकिपीडियाच्या सर्व आजी माजी वाचक,संपादक, आणि चहात्यांना अर्पण करण्यात येत आहे.आपल्या आवडीचे वाचन,लेखन संपादन असेच सदैव घडत राहो हि शुभेच्छा!!
आपल्याला माहित आहे का ? कि, इंग्लिश विकिपीडियातसुद्धा नॅव्हीगेशन म्हणजे सुचालन मराठी भाषेतून करणे अधिक सुलभ झाले आहे.डावीकडच्या मेन्यू कॉलममध्ये languagees च्या तीथे या चक्र चिन्हा जवळ आपण नॅव्हीगेशन तसेच लिहिण्याची भाषा निवडू शकता ? आपण Special:Preferences पानावर Internationalisation मथळ्या पुढे सुद्धा mr-मराठी भाषा निवडून नॅव्हीगेशन म्हणजे सुचालन मराठी भाषेतून करू शकता.
The Readers & Editors pl. bear with me. I am using editing for the first time and am likely to miss the correct page.
I want to add to : Swadhyay or Pandurang Shashtri Athavale.
I was associated with Swadhyay or Pandurang Shashtri Athavale in the activities appearing on www.swadhyay.org. www.swadhyay.org is created by The Office of Swadhyay and/or Pandurang Shashtri Athavale.
There are controversial claims about Swadhyay or Pandurang Shashtri Athavale and there is a clash between editors whether to add a particular matter or not.
If a thing can be defined with the help of physics or chemistry, it can be decided whether a particular thing can be added or removed. So can not be done for a human being or social or religious activities.
From the time June, 2000, there is deviation from what is claimed on www.swadhyay.org. Even prior to June,2000, the image of Pandurang Shashtri Athavale or Swadhyay was always glorified or exaggerated.
I am not out to defame Pandurang Shashtri Athavale or lower the image of Swadhyay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and changing facts have to be incorporated in it.
Late Mr.Pandurang Shashtri Athavale is popularly known as Dada. Dada means elder brother in Marathi - An Indian Language spoken in State of Maharashtra. Here-in-after, I shall refer Pandurang Shashtri Athavale as Dada. Dada gave discourses upon message of Srimad Bhagwad Geeta - A scripture of Hindus. He motivated people to use one's god gifted abilities to speak, move, think, hear for selfless work which he called Kruti-Bhakti. Based on this principle/logic his followers known as Swadhyayees moved from house to house and went to Indian villages at one's own cost and spreaded the message of Srimad Bhagwad Geeta and nurtured these activities. The number of followers went on increasing and at present it could be in millions but that does not necessarily mean that the followers observe dictates of Srimad Bhagwad Geeta henceforth shall be referred to as Geeta.
Dada also motivated Swadhyayees to involve in money producing experiments for spread of renovation of Vedic culture. Experiments known as "Yogeshwar Krushi", "Shree Darshan", "Vruksh-Mandir", "Amrutalayams", "Matsya-Gandha" and so on. The financial returns along with donations received were collected in nearly 100 trusts created for Swadhyay activities. The trustees were dedicated Swadhyayees and Dada was not a trustee. Dada used to say that The President of Swadhyay activities was God (Lord Yogeshwar).
Around June, 2000, Dada told trustees that The Swadhyay activities were his ownership and he was handing over reign of These activities to his adopted daughter Smt.Jayshree a.k.a. Dhanshree Srinivas Talwakar popularly known as Didi. Simultaneously, all the neutral trustees from all trusts were removed and replaced by Didi and her husband Srinivas Talwalkar a.k.a. Rao Saheb. Dada used to take blank resignation letters from the trustees in advance.
This was not well received by old dedicated Swadhyayees who had helped in foundation and nurture of these activities from day 1.
This was protested by old Swadhyayees and it resulted in violent attacks on old Swadhyayees by comperatively new Swadhyayees. The first attempt had taken place on 28th January, 2001 on Mahesh Shah an industrialist.
After an year, In June, 2001, The Hon. Ex-Chief Justice of High Court at Ahmedabad and Andhra Pradesh declared to media that Didi was using money and muscle power against old Swadhyayees, therefore he was submitting his resignation to Dada. He told the media that The funds of the trust in securities were valued at Indian Rupees Two Hundred Crores and property valued at Indian Rupees Five Hundred Crores. All the facts here-in are documented in Indian Newspapers. This fact had appeared first in "Gujarat Samachar" and later in all Gujarati newspapers.
Subsequently, number of old Swadhyayees became victims of violence and faced false criminal cases. The criminal cases were over 100 filed in rural Gujarat & Maharashtra ( Indian States) against various old Swadhyayees and/or ex-trustees. In 22 identical cases, an appeal was preferred by one Pankaj Trivedi and others in High Court at Ahmedabad. The High Court ruled in the matter in favour of Pankaj Trivedi and quashed all criminal cases at one go. The High Court further observed and recorded that the language of all 22 cases were word by word same and cases had been filed by different persons miles away from each other. The Court hence stated that the cases were filed in retalliation of bonafide civil case filed by Pankaj Trivedi for opening of a temple which was closed down by Didi to harass Pankaj Trivedi. The temple at Bhav-Nirjar, Ahmedabad had come in existence with the help of Pankaj Trivedi. The Judgement is documentary evidence and can be varified from The High Court at Ahmedabad.
Those who were assaulted and their bones broken are Vinod Shah, Shankar Thakkar of Mumbai, Vinoo Sanchania of London while he was in Jamnagar, Gujarat, India. One Satish Rughani of Rajkot was assaulted in his house. He just came out after bath and his towel was thrown and he was naked. His wife was locked up in other room. Satish Rughani had accompanied Dada for receiving Megsasay Award.
Some of the old Swadhyayees were arrested like core criminals by police from other states and brutally beaten on the way to the state of police and in lock-up too against the legal provisions not to use 3rd degree for confession.
On court dates or while the arrested were presented before The Magistrate, thousands of Swadhyayees from villages were summoned to the court who tried to kill some of the arrested old Swadhyayees. Usually, police had to resort to cane charging to disperse the mob and protect the arresteds lives.
All these facts are documented by newspapers. Cases were filed against number of newspapers by Swadhyayees for reporting such un-becoming attitude of Swadhyayees against old Swadhyayees. The Press Council of India decided in favour of newspapers. In English, a magazine "India Today" had published an article highlighting wrongs of Swadhyay.
Pankaj Trivedi was killed on 15th June, 2006 outside Ellisbridge Gymkhana, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. The police arrested eight to ten senior Swadhyayees. One of them was Ghanshyam Chudasama, P.A. to Dy. Comm. of Police under whose jurisdiction Pankaj Trivedi was killed. Ghanshyam Chudasama was working with some other office and using some influence, he had got himself transferred to Dy. Comm. of Police. As confessed by him, the plot to kill Pankaj Trivedi took place in The High Court premises when the order in favour of Pankaj Trivedi was passed.
Pankaj Trivedi was a green card holder and shuttling between U.S.A. and India. He went to U.S.A. just about 3 months before his life was taken away. He was harassed at U.S. air-port. When he came out of air-port, 4 white-skin people in uniform accosted him and warned of not to speak a word about Swadhyay wrongs while he was to stay in U.S.A.
Next day, Home Security Agency raided Pankaj Trivedi's house in U.S.
A. as some one has printed some writing in Urdu with his photo along with photo of Bin Laden and this writing was passed to U.S.A. police stating that Pankaj Trivedi was a Bin Laden associate and threat to President Bush. Home Security Agencied investigated this matter and found Pankaj Trivedi was innocent. These facts can be varified from Home Security Agency, U.S.A.
Hello, Swadhyayee/A1! I'm ulayiti, and I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you'll like the place enough to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
When commenting on talk pages or voting, you should always sign your name by typing in four tildes (~~~~). This way people will know who made the comment and can respond to you. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me on my talk page. You can also have a look at the help pages or put up a question at the village pump. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing!
I've restored the critical link and protected the page so that it can't be edited by anonymous users. Some people seem to want to censor all criticism of Swadhyaya. - ulayiti(talk)16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'd rather you didn't edit the comments left by others on my talk page, even if they're misspelt. The person who wrote that might not like you correcting their errors. :) - ulayiti(talk)16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the information on the Swadhyay pariwar page and blocked the user who was responsible for removing it (they'd been doing the same thing before). Now, I don't really know anything on Swadhyay, I'm just reverting vandalism, so if you have any problems with the article in the future I suggest you contact someone from Category:Indian Wikipedians. They might be able to help you better. - ulayiti(talk)18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
India related links and your queries on my talkpage
Hi, hope the above links are useful. I've been inactive, of late, and may not be able to help you much in this regard. How about placing a brief description of the problem on the Indian Wikipedians' notice board? Whatever edits you make, pl. ensure that they adhere to the verifiability policies here. I am not sure if converting Swadhyay from a redirect to an article page is a good move. Also, it seems to have some personal opinions, which do not have a place on Wikipedia - pl. review your actions on this. Pandurang Shastri Athavale and Swadhyay pariwar are the pages that you may want to edit - however, they seem to be locked from editing for new members, hence you'll have to wait for a while. I again suggest that you place a msg. on the Indian wikipedians' notice board. --Gurubrahma13:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Swadhyayee, this is the link for the history page of Swadhyay. You should probably be writing on Talk:Swadhyay as to why you believe that Swadhyay should not redirect to Swadhyay pariwar. Also, consider if it is better to redirect Swadhyay to Svadhyaya which already has some of the ideas you mention. If you want to create a new section on a talk page, just click "+" button next to the "edit this page" button. Pl. use Show preview button and edit summaries more often. Don't worry about the mistakes you may make, we have all done them here! However, please rein your emotions and temper your language in discussions and it will be fine. --Gurubrahma11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I just realised that Svadhyaya also redirects to the Pariwar page. This has been done by Ulayiti. Can you pl. take it up with Ulayiti who I see has interacted with you above? --Gurubrahma12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I apologize for taking long to contact you. I've been busy. First thing, I'm not quite sure what you want me to do. Here is how I view the whole thing:
Svadhyay and all other spellings, in English, will almost surely be referring to the Swadhyay Pariwar organization. This is why I thought the redirection from Svadhyay makes sense. As for the note at the top, I will add it, and I hope it will be acceptable. Let me know if it is not, and we can work something out. I will post a similar explanation on the talk page for the pages affected. -- Superdosh19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your latest message, it's not a question of who's morally bankrupt or not. It's a question of notability. And in the English-speaking world, Swadhyay almost universally refers to the organization headed by Jayshree Talwalkar. Further, I'm not sure what else can really be said for the word, other than its definition -- which is now given at the top of the Swadhyay pariwar page. Also, I know that pariwar means family, but the organization is called the Swadhyay pariwar, and this is the encyclopedia, not the dictionary. We can't define all these terms. For example, would you have the page on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh say something about how the words are separate from the organization? -- Superdosh04:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that Swadhyay means self-study, I actually studied Sanskrit myself for a year. But, this is not the point. While in Gujarati and Hindi and Sanskrit, Swadhyay is simply a word, when it is used in English, it almost always refers to the organization. I do not have citations, but for example, a google search for swadhyay discounting all "swadhyay pariwar" references, almost all hits have to do with the organization, not the word [4].
I understand that people of Swadhyay were involved with violence. In fact, it says so on the Swadhyay page. And I'm not trying to glorify what they do, if the article looks that way, be sure to edit it. But do not simply add critical material that repeats something already said later on. And make sure everything you add is properly CITED. -- Superdosh14:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when editing an actual page, you don't need to sign it. You should only include your signature when editing a talk page. Cheers, Superdosh04:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit busy at the moment with things. Could you find an actual source like (The Hindu, TiExpress, The Pioner, etc.) to back uop the stuff. A blog does not cut it on wiki, and though I may be understanding many users will not.BakamanBakatalk01:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss issues on the talk page of the article, discussing things across many talk pages isn't the correct way to do it. Thank you friend.--Andeh12:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to remind you again that I have very little interest at all in Swadhyay pariwar, so you really don't need to post news items about it on my talk page. The only reason I've been editing the article sporadically is to counter vandalism, and that's pretty much the only thing I can do there since I don't know anything about the movement. So if you want to discuss the article, please limit it to the article's talk page, it'll save you a lot of trouble.
I probably won't even be on Wikipedia any time soon (since I'm busy with other stuff), so chances are I won't even read the stuff you post on my talk page. If you need help with something, I suggest you ask someone else.
I would like to reiterate what the above user said. I know nothing about and have no interest in Swadhyay Parivar. Please don't post information about it on my user talk page. It makes more sense to put this information on the article talk page. If you had looked carefully, you would have noticed that my edits to the article had nothing to do with the content of the article and were simply fixing templates and removing your signature from the article. Thanks. Khatru217:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the constructive critisism, Swad... I can see your point, but I have attempted to read the article. However, it is difficult to read as-is. With the cleanup tag, I was hoping for more headings and more summarizing at the top. The intro is 10 paragraphs long, longer than most Wikipedia articles. Also, under Controversy, you direct people to the Talk Page. I think, in that instance, it would be better to summarize both viewpoints on the issue. I think the intent of the talk page is for editors to discuss the article and changes to the article, not as a way to by-pass NPOV. Next, under Practices... I think this whole section has to go. First, the whole section seems to refer to news items about the subject. These would be better merged into other parts of the argument, maybe present day history. Also, there are no citations for any part of this section as there should be. Finally, the last sentence ends in three exclamation points which is bad form in any written work, especially an encylcopedia article. Finally, on the subject of citations, I think there should be a lot more. A lot of the article seems to come from your (obviously vast) knowledge of the subject. This doesn't suffice for a Wikipedia article. Please don't take any of this as an attack against you. As I've said, I have absolutely no knowledge on this subject and I only found it with the Random Article link. My motive is simply to make it look like a first class article with absolute NPOV. Stoneice0205:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Fact tag means that the sentence or paragraph needs a citation. It is not enough to say that all those facts come from this website. You have to specifically cite every fact stated. I am not disputing whether or not the facts are true, I just want to make sure everything is cited and verifiable. Stoneice0214:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I am sorry, but I am not certain which edits you refer to. I have edited Swadhyay Parivar to revert a deletion of a section (although now I find that my own revertion also damaged a section), and on Swadhyay, I only made a minor edit on spacing. I did not have the intention of trying to change the meaning. I do not see how any of my edits do so, so I would much appreciate it if you could explain that to me. And in the future, please do not refer to Muslims as "Mohamedians", this term can be considered offensive by many. Thank you, Mar de SinTalk to me!22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not from any part of South Asia at all, but I'm rather knowledgable on many Indian-related topics. As for figuring out which edits a user made, just click "last" on the history page. There's more to the history page, which is explained here. "Mohammedan" is considered offensive by many Muslims because it implies the worship of Muhammad, like Christians worship Christ or Buddhists worship Buddha, so it's best to avoid that. The word was used commonly (in the West) some time ago, but now, it's not used much anymore, and when it is, it's usually by a partisan group, like Catholic Encyclopedia. Thanks you, Mar de SinTalk to me!15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the reasons why the term is considered offensive is often debated. But since it is considered offensive, it's best not to use it on Wikipedia. There are many other examples of words considered offensive/racist but have an unclear reason why. Like Zhina for example, a term used for China usually in Japan, is considered extremely racist (Japanese media even banned the term) because it sounds like it came from the West. Nevertheless, the origin for the name came from Sanskrit, and is used in Buddhist religious texts. But that doesn't justify the use of the term. Mar de SinTalk to me!17:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you fid the page has been vandalized, please don't manually make the changes to revert it to it's original state. Instead, click on History and then click on the date/time of the last version prior to the vandalism. Then simply click on Edit This Page for that version and then save it. That will automatically revert it back to its original state. Stoneice0215:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your message on my talk page and will willingly take a look at the article and it's talk page. Back in March when I edited that article it was only one sentance long and I added just a bit to (hopefully) get the article started. I look forward to learning more, and hope that my original edit didn't offend or mis-state the facts too badly. It was an honest effort, from limited knowledge. rhmoore02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your note on my talk page. I have access to lots of books, so I should be able to find citations for some of the information on the divisions of the Vedas which you wanted to post. Of course we don't want to create redudancy, but there is room for improvement in the "Classification of Scriptures" section, and you are right that we should include a little more information on classification of the Vedas. Using your previous edits, I will make some suggestions (including citations) in the discussion page, and you can tell me whether you approve. I should be able to do it tomorrow. What do you think? You have some good ideas; we just need to figure out how to use them effectively considering the overall organization of the article.
In the meantime, consider doing some research to help improve the History, Society, and Symbolism sections.
P.S. I think you are still misunderstanding me about the Gita. Please read carefully what I am saying: I do not deny that the Gita is authentic. Almost all Hindus, including me, accept the Gita. I am only saying that there are many other Hindu scriptures ALSO. Of course, each Hindu may believe what he likes, but many Hindus believe in the Gita PLUS other books such as the Vedas, Upanishads, Srimad Bhagavatam, Yoga Sutras, Ramcharitmanas, etc. If the article says that the Gita alone is authentic, these other people will be unhappy. So we have to consider that there is a lot of variety within Hinduism, which, in my opinion, is a very good quality. In any case, the article already states that the Gita is perhaps the most important scripture in Hinduism, so I don't understand what the fight is about.
I wish you incorporate my edits your way so that it does not feel of having imposed by me upon you. You can make change in article, no need to put in discussion page as you already know my points. What is citation? if you write a book tomorrow, it would be a citation. We can't make this article to please a certain section of Hindus, we have to remove confusions and provide clear concept of Hinduism. I believe, The Vedas were in memories of class of Brahmins, I mentioned in the article. They are less in writing. My personal apprehension is we must have lost lot many Ruchas. Geeta is a scripture whose dictates you can practise and is known as Shashtra and summary of Vedas and Upnishads. Upnishads flow from Vedas and they are no different from Vedas. Whether any Hindu who read, study or chant Bhagwat or Ramcharitmanas don't find Geeta un-acceptable. I think that the message of Geeta is touching and impressing people of any belief so the article has to be within the frame-work of Geeta's dictates. With due apology, you wish to incorporate Raj Yog as a mean to realise God and anyone taking Geeta as authentic can confront your view, is that for this reason, are you undermining Geeta's supreme value as Shashtra?
You may have strong belief that 4 methods are illustrated in Hindu doctraines 1) Jnan Yog 2) Karma Yog 3) Raj Yog and 4) Bhakti Yog but I am afraid your belief is not in consistency with Hindu Shashtras. Pl. re-consider your views from authentic scriptures.
I know absolutely nothing about what you guys are talking about. I'm not familiar with "Raj-yog" and that kind of stuff. I'm more comfortable with Hindu politics and fighting POVBakamanBakatalk01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhyayee,
Thank you for voting. In the meantime, would you satisfied for the article to include the following disclaimer?
"Some Hindus advocate raja yoga as a path in its own right, while others practice it as a supplement to bhakti yoga, karma yoga, or jnana yoga."
I should think that this statement would make everyone happy. Also I hope that both you and APandey will not attack each other or me. Try to have fun with Wikipedia! We should really be improving the History section, not arguing over minor details regarding the yogas. HeBhagawan 16:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
"I would feel it appropriate if my edit as below is restored if you insist placing Raj Yog with Jnan, Karma and Bhakti.
Srimad Bhagwad Geeta - an un-disputed authentic Hindu scripture mention only 3 path of realisation of God i.e. Jnan, Bhakti & Karma. Raj Yog shows the way to meditate which leads to trance and resultant attainment of Jnan (mystical understanding). As per authentic Hindu doctrine, the net result is realisation of God by any path. They are explained for individual choice."
Swadhyay Parivar is a constant place of section blanking. I am doing my best warning the vandals (usually IP addresses) but could use everyone's help. In the future, if you revert vandalism from this page (please put "rv" in the edit summary) please visit the vandal's Talk page and add one of the following warnings:
{{subst:blatantvandal-n|Swadhyay Parivar}} ~~~~ - for blatant vandlism
{{subst:test4a-n|Swadhyay Parivar}} ~~~~ - for deleting content (most common)
Dear Swad,
Please do not be offensive on the talk pages of others. Hindu dharm teaches unity, not dischord, so let us be friendly to each other. Thank youHeBhagawan03:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't feel comfortable giving a full fledged warning, you can atleast put this in their talk page: {{subst:test-n|Swadhyay Parivar}} ~~~~. This is a simple general notice given in good faith. It's isn't contentious at all.
Dear Swad,
Please do not be offensive on the talk pages of others. Hindu dharm teaches unity, not dischord, so let us be friendly to each other. Thank youHeBhagawan03:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Namaste,
Thank you for your later note. Please notice that I have incorporated your ideas on (1) classification of the Vedas and (2) "apurushey" as you wished.
Regarding Raja yog: I understand that you do not accept Raja Yog. That is fine. You are a good Hindu, I am sure, and that is your belief. But you cannot try to censor other views. As you will recall, I agreed to remove Raja Yoga if a majority of other editors desire it. I respect your view, because Sanatan Dharm is all-embracing. The Hinduism page is not my personal page, and I am willing to change any edits if there is general agreement by other editors. But so far it is only you who wants to delete Raja yog. I feel that you are trying to unilaterally censor the Hinduism page to express your own POV. I am happy for the article to express your POV--but you have to allow others also. Do you wish the article to say something like "some Hindu schools do not accept Raja Yoga?" We can include that if you like, and I do not think anybody will mind. We should be able to reach a solution that all will accept. HeBhagawan04:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Swadhyayee, Two things I want to mention.
First, please do not engage in personal attack, like you did on me by linking me and the new user forming support group. It will only lead to more and more edit wars and we will loose the main purpose which is betterment of the article.
Second, everytime you make an edit, you need not mention on my talk page that you have made an edit. I am having that page in my watchlist and I immediately come to know as soon as someone makes a change. So you need not give me a personalize message each time. Of course you are welcome to write on my talk page when you want to discuss something with me specifically or give me a message. Consider this as a friendly advice and nothing more. Thanks. --Apandey14:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swami Sivananda says there are four paths [5] and that Raja Yoga is one of them. I'm still not voting, but I have lots of respect for Swami Sivananda as my pandit is a disciple of that lineage.BakamanBakatalk16:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am insisting as I feel I am right. To me Raj Yoga is physical and mental process to meditate whereas Jnan, Bhakti and Karma as it seems to me are sciences. The end result of Raj Yog is attaining Jnan. My fight is supplementary to the goals of HeBhagawan and A.Pandey. I simply could not bear the bullying language of A.Pandey. Some composure and reading would have made them accept my view point or alternatively their logical arguments (except it is in Patanjali Yogsutra) would have benefited me with some additional knowledge. How am I to give citations from Geeta? Do I give them all Geeta available on internet? Should a person writing or editing article on Geeta, not have fundamental knowledge of doctrines of Geeta? A.Pandey is trying to bullying as he feels himself senior to me. I have to bear with this teething problems.Swadhyayee16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My dear friend, as you are not willing to accpet any of the editors' views nor their presented citations (just like the reference given by bakaman above) but feel that you are right, so what can anyone do. You feel helpless on how to give citations from Geeta and feel that I do not have fundamental knowledge of its doctarine. But let me tell you, I have physical copy of Geeta (along with Shankaracharya's Bhashya on it) lying next to me. All you have to do is to tell us the chapters and the shlokas where your POV is declated by Sri Bhagwan. Additionally, Geeta must be easily searchable in some online version over the internet. If you refer to that, then it will benefit others also who do not have a physical copy. You feel I am using bullying language. I can't help it. It is your problem if you feel so. No one else, who will see the talk page can say so. You even accussed me of making support groups just because some user RamRamji came and edited once and then left. I do not know him. But it is possible that he might not be able to access internet over the weekend. When I joined wikipedia, immediately I went to Varanasi page and made some edits, because that was my interest page. It is possible similarly that the new user RamRamji was very much interested in this page. Since you are new to wikipedia and you saw that I am here since a few months, you already assumed that I am thinking high of myself and you started ranting against me by linking my age and knowledge etc. How do I know how old are you. Are you 8 years old or 80 years old? I do not know. I don't need to know either. But you are making assumptions here about me assuming seniority over you. This is all very immature thinking and very kiddish. All I can say is that I feel very hurt by your allegations and pushing of POV. Anyway, you continue with your thinking, and we will keep the article only inline with Wikipedia's policy and based on facts, logical arguments and references. Thanks. --Apandey18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr.Abhishek Pandey,
Since you are working and I am nearly retiring, it is certain that you are younger to me. My son and daughter both are working software engineers. I know how much a person can devote time for philosophy as well the exposure of philosophy available to a software engineer. I also have not studied philosophy but I have listened to discourses upon Geeta for more than 20 yrs. and have studiously read Jnaneshwari twice and Shankarbhashya twice along with other books of Pandurang Shashtri Athavale. I have also moved in Indian villages where our we had occasion to discuss Geeta.
I hope you realise that you are dis-respectful to others without knowing the limitations and even later you do not realise or regret. My differences were with HeBhagawan who has been maintaining decorum while you are inviting disputes. Here also you are giving me a long reply to my comments addressed to Bakasuprman. Today, you are asking me to give citations for things known to everyone. If I say Christ was crucified or Bible is Holy Book of Christain, one would not ask for citations. It is easy to ask for citations for no points. If you have Shankarbhashya in your hand,just try to find out whether Raj Yog is included with Jnan, Karma and Bhakti? known as science of realising God. Do you know what is Raj Yog? or just supporting HeBhagawan? How many editors have opined so that you question me for not listening to editors?Swadhyayee18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhyayee,
I have a suggestion: Why don't you help to edit other issues in the Hinduism Project? Let us leave the Raja Yoga issue. I was willing to accomodate you by putting a disclaimer, but it seems that other editors do not want to do even that. I felt compelled to report you to the admins because of your unfounded reversions, but I will gladly withdraw my report if you can put your efforts toward improving the article. There are so many things that need to be improved. Consider working on the Bhagavad Gita section, since you have great interest in that, and I think you will be able to find citations. I will try to find citations for the things you mentioned on the talk page. For a few of those things, a single citation is meant to cover multiple sentences. Thanks! HeBhagawan03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear HeBhagawan,
I take both, your suggestions and reporting to admin through Mr.Chris in good spirit. Hope you have seen my copy pasting of an annonymous request under IP address to someone drawing attn. to Raj Yog controversy. If the actions are backed by honest intentions, there was no need to make this annonymous request. What will you gain by banning me? I am happy that louder the issue, better the response. Frankly, I would not be so strong in my protests if I was weak. What is the guarantee that you will not behave in the same fashion, if I suggest to remove other wrongs? Hope you must have seen my comments on plenty of claims devoid of citation in just 1st few paras of Hinduism. I feel, you will prefer to keep silent when you will not have an answer. I can see your dedication in making a good article on Hinduism which would make me happier being a Hindu. I want the article should be as far as possible free from distorted facts. I do not want you to oblige me and withdraw the report, I want it to be blown out suitably, so justice will be done to the cause. To me Raj Yog issue is not an issue of prestige so I can think of compromising to gain your permission to edit elsewhere. We all learn and improve our thinking by this type of debate and war. At the end of any event, one has to come out as a sporty editor. I shall certainly do so and wish you and A.Pandey do the same. I repeat, I am taking your suggestions and reporting sportily and I am sure, I can deal with the situation even against many. It will be a matter of time. At no stage, you have objected to A.Pandey's arrogance as he was being coconut of The Holi. You should show the honesty in thinking that we are a minute part of this project and universe and not owner of the project or Wikipedia. It helps us to be modest when people don't allow our POV to be incorporated but asking for citations for facts of general knowledge and not prepared to understand the debate is kiddish. I am not sure the voters had cared to go in to my reasoning against Raj Yog.
Assuring you of my sportsman spirit in the debate.
Swadhayee
I value sportsmanship as you do. And I also consider you my brother because you are a fellow Hindu. Even though I have disagreed with some specific edits, I appreciate your efforts. I hope that in the end we can all be on good terms. HeBhagawan05:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You continue not to accept the basic difference amongst Jnan, Karma, Bhakti and Raj Yog. Nor you are able to say that I am wrong.
The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all Wikipedians. 3RR violations are reported here.
The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.
Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.
Use common sense; do not participate in an edit war. Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, discuss the matter with other editors. If any of them come close to breaching the policy themselves, this may indicate that the page should be protected until disputes are resolved.HeBhagawan
Thank you for your contributions there seems to be dire shortage of information regarding Jainism, and your contributions are valuable. Your contributions are taken in good faith, and I am glad to have been enlightened on a subject about which I have had poor understanding. However if it is possible could you supply references for your statements. We prefer to have good references to ensure that the content of the encyclopedia is accurate and represents a neutral point of view. --Mig77(t)07:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have at least seen your comments once in Hinduism discussion. I understand from your user page that you have knowledge and you have interest in the article. I feel, how has the debate of Raj Yog controversy and removal of branches of Vedas incorporated by me escaped your attention or comment? I also suspect sock puppetry because of RamRamji's comment on the day of joining and his being the only comment. Another reason, some annonymous IP requested some editor to vote. When there were only 2 more editors excluding me in the controversy, who could have done so?
I am interested that distorted facts be removed and no attempt to monopolise the article take roots.
If, you have no problem to dis-please senior editors there, pl. take interest to make the article an encyclopedic article. Swadhyayee 11:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Will you kindly check my comments of the day in talk pages of Hinduism. I hope you have read the entire Raj Yoga controversy before voting.Swadhyayee 03:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Friend, I did read all of the discussion before voting, and that's why I voted the way I did. I believe that the Gita is one source of Hinduism beliefs. So is Patanjali and others. Raja Yoga deserves to be with the three other yogas for that reason. The article makes it clear that Raja Yoga's main proponenet is Patanjali. Let's be inclusive, just like Hinduism is inclusive.
Regarding your concern about sockpuppets: I at least am not a sockpuppet, and I don't believe that the others are either. The anon IP requesting people to look at your changes went out, I believe, to people who were registered on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism page. That is a proper way to elicit the feedback of interested (and serious) editors.
Please consider taking a coffee break, or editing other articles. Consensus very strongly disagrees with you, and I don't see that changing. Perhaps try editing some less controversal articles to get used to Wikipedia protocols and learning how to cooperate with other editors in coming to a consensus. I've had to learn compromise and cooperation myself, and it can be a difficult process when you must allow an article to include something that you don't believe, but is accepted by the vast majority of people. In that case, there are other websites and forums where you can promote your beliefs. ॐ Priyanath15:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I'm sorry about not participating but I've have been busy on WP with 2 FACs. I suggest you take the help at WP:HINDU and that of D-Boy, DaGizza, Nidish and Blacksun. I don't think you should worry about sockpuppetry as of now, but if you do have fresh suspicions please ask for the advice/intervention of an administrator like Blnguyen, Ragib or Sundar. I don't know what you mean by me having no problem "dis-please[ing]" senior editors - I hope you're not making any negative insinuations. Rama's arrow22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
now look here, I am not trying to "push my opinion", because I don't have an opinion. I have no idea about Yoga, and it is not a topic I will spend time researching. I commented harshly on the quality of your edits, true. Since just about everyone on talk disagreed with you, and you just kept gesturing towards the Gita in reply (without giving any actual references), I think you should realize the weakness of your position. Yes, people are allowed to criticize your edits, this is a collaborative project. And yes, you are allowed to rectify "distorted facts", you just have to cite convincing evidence that you are doing so correctly. dab(ᛏ)08:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhyayee, be BOLD. If there is something in the article you feel is not right, do not hesitate from making changes to it. But at the same time, if you end up having edit wars, ask for help and suggestion. Right now, the main priority is not to add new material to the article but to improve the quality of the article. Also, try removing relatively irrelevant stuff. For example, merge sections like Puja and Devotional Singing. Also, shorten up the section on Shruti and transfer the material to the main Shruti article. Also, if possible remove quotations like the one in the "Varna and Caste system" sub-section. They are not very relevant. Since Hinduism is soo diversified and contains several ideas and practices, describe the main points briefly and expand various Hinduism-related articles. This will make it very easy for a reader to get a comprehensive view of Hinduism. Cheers --Incman|वार्ता05:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Swadhyayee. Your edits in the final paragraph of the puja section (about menstruation, death, etc) contained some good ideas. If you wish to put that part back into the article, it's fine. It could use some rewording and citations, but I can help you with that if you like. But please don't put it back in along with all the accompanying low-quality edits to other sections. When you mix many bad edits with one good edit, it is very hard for other editors to fix the problems without reverting the good stuff as well. HeBhagawan13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A new project has been created, to exclusively deal with Maharashtra and Marathi-related articles. You are invited to join the WikiProject Maharashtra. The project aims to develop Marathi and Maharashtra-related articles to Featured Article-status. You can join the WikiProject by adding your username here. However, don't forget to visit the project page. This is of course, a sister project of Portal:Maharashtra. Come, join us in developing Wikipedia. Thanks,
I think you have a mis understanding here....I am not trying to remove any of the external or content....External links / references only add value to the article..Some sock puppets, vandals and users like you are deleting information [6]I don't know you if you are also a supporter of Didi...
I can't understand as to why you are deleting content related to Vinu Sancharia and Pankaj Trivedi.. The content that I had added had reference and notes...
I think this issue needs to be reported to admins....
The above comments are un-signed.
This is wikipedia. The article has to be neutral and not a platform for venting venom against anyone or wrongfully glorifying any person or organisation. Certainly this forum is not for supporters of Didi or of anti-Didi people. Someone while adding contents remove external links being documentary evidence of wrongs of Swadhyay.
I feel the article should be allowed to remain with caution like controversy and Pankaj Trivedi incident. There may be thousands of things wrong in recent times, if someone try to incorporate every wrong, the article will be ugly and create bad impression of editors and dis-interest viewers.
You may check all my edits and you will come to know that Pankaj Trivedi as well controversy has been incorporated by me. Pl. consider to be contended with some amount of caution. Further adding of wrongs will make the article one sided and defamatory. Such thing will lead to further editors fight and people will remove all cautionary links and glorify Dada, Didi or Swadhyay Parivar.
I have been able to convince the other editors of wrongs of Swadhyay Parivar and so the page is reverted back to my edit the moment someone remove "controversy" and "Pankaj Trivedi" incident.
If someone make the article defamatory and one sided, all the cautionary notes might be removed.
Lets bury the hatchet. I am in no way interested in the activities of Swadhyay Parviar, even if they are good or bad. Incidentally I started to take interest in this article after I added information related to Pankaj Trivedi..(This was somewhere in June 06).Later I took a break and came back to only this month to realize that section blanking is happening…and I too started started to add the “controversial” section again and again…
I have clearly lost interest in this article.. and will not be touching henceforth…By the way thank you for clearing my mis-understanding… Your username made me believe that you don’t want any negative information against swadhyay parviar.. I apologize.. Bye..take care..--IndianCow13:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me whether "Samor" means opposite or near? I was believing and using Samor for opposite while speaking Marathi, only yesterday someone not Maharashtrian told me that Samor means near and not opposite.
Can be either near and visible(specialy while refering to a person/object/a factual thing), or opposite(Specialy when you reffer an address direction)
Looking at your contributions I can conclude that you have a lot of information. I believe you have resources to get these article FAC statuses. Swadhyay Parivar and Pandurang Shastri Athavale.
Also do you own any photogrpahs of Shri Pandurang Shastri that can be used in Wikipedia? I tried a lot, but all of them are owned by the Swadhyay Parivar Trust.
If nobody owns them then we can write to them and get the concerened authority’s permission to use it on wikipedia.
Swadhyayee,
Considering the many past controversies over your edits, would you please be so kind as to discuss them here before incorporating them into the article? As of yesterday, the Hinduism article was of high quality. In my opinion, any changes we make at this point should be carefully considered and discussed with the community so that we don't ruin the good work that many editors have done. I would not say this regarding an article that was in shambles already, but an article of this quality deserves extra care. Thank you. HeBhagawan12:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Swadhyayee,
I actually like your explanation of sutak as resulting from an inability to concentrate. Logically speaking, that is a better explanation than the conventional explanation of ritual impurity. The only problem is that all the published sources I have looked at explain it as ritual impurity. Can you give a citation for you view? If so, I will support it. As for the satsang section, please leave the wording as edited by Priyanath. His wording was clear and effective. Again, please discuss changes on the discussion page. Thanks!HeBhagawan18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Swadhyayee,
Your eagerness to add to Wikipedia is much appreciated, along with some fresh ideas that you add, but I have a difficult time understanding much of what you write. Perhaps the Hindi language Wikipedia would be better suited for you? It is at: http://hi.wikipedia.org. Right now, there's an effort to bring the Hinduism article here back to Featured Article status. So it would be especially helpful right now to discuss changes first, and it would also enable you to get some assistance with English grammar and spelling. In both languages, it's very important to use citations and references, especially when adding material that might not be considered the view of the vast majority of people: see WP:CITE. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Priyanath,
I am sorry if you can't understand me but that could be my inability as well inability of reader to understand a particular thing when the reader has exposure to a particular set of reading. Little efforts to understand and I don't think it would be difficult. You can also write to me about clarification of a particular thing. It's said in Hinduism that a Bahushrut is better than well read means well listened is better than well read. I have listened to discourses upon Srimad Bhagwad Geeta and Upanishads for more than 2 decades and also read substantial commentaries in my mother tongue. I don't think, my writing is ever vague and difficult to understand. Thanks for insulting by suggesting me to write in Hindi but Hindi is not my mother tongue. The problem in Hinduism is imposition of wrong connotations which fail to create the due reverence for Hinduism. The references lead to a book-source page and not actual source. I think Hinduism will be a catalog of books than an easily understandable article. I fail to understand the connection between editors using incivility to promote poor beliefs of Hinduism.Swadhyayee02:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies - my comment about writing in Hindi was not intended as an insult. I think there are many good editors here, with much good advice, for those with ears to hear. Cheers. ॐ Priyanath02:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hinduism is the founding religion of the Dharmic religion family. This is one of the most profound influences of Hinduism since Hinduism does not allow conversion. Please reconsider and let the mention of Dharmic religions stay. Best Regards. Freedom skies02:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your comments. I'm afraid I don't have the knowledge about Hinduism to provide a useful reply. Good luck. Tony10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Swadhayee, My comments is that Mr. HeBhagwan wants to generalize Hinduism, instead of focusing on the many theological differences Hindus have.
I accepted his assertion that karma is merely a law of cause and effect even though the Vedanta school rejects it.
Brahma Sutra 2.1.34: "No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration."
Sankara's commentary explains that God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (Karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (Karma) done by that individual in a past life.
Dear Swadhyayee, thank you for your kind words. I adore the Gita and treasure it in my heart, this book has changed my life. I consider myself a Hindu even if others won't. I have always belived that What defines a man is his actions (or inactions for that matter) not what he says his religion is. If I considered myself a Hindu and did not follow the Dharma that has been established for me I do not see how I could be considered a Hindu. Instead I would be a person who says but does not do. So yes I am technicly in the minds of many not a Hindu due to my birth, but however if I follow the Gita I can be establised as a follower of The Lord. But I must maintain Lord Krishna's teachings if I should be considered such. I hope this makes sense to you and does not seem foolish. May the Lord Bless you.-_Seadog19:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to change my name to Arjuna, This is probalby my favorite name there is. I don't know how and I Don't want to start over. The commentator for my Geeta is Eknath Easwaran, and I have another one but he I think is british.--Seadog02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept this olive branch as a token of peace.
There is no need for fighting. Let us both work together amicably to maintain a friendly atmosphere on Wikipedia. Let us both try to engage in constructive discussions, maintain Wikipedia quality standards, assume good faith, and just generally relax and have fun. If we can work together in this manner, perhaps we can raise some of the articles in the Hinduism Project to featured article status, like other editors did for the Adi Shankara article. It is said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. So we must work together cooperatively, or the Hinduism Project itself will suffer.
As Hindus, whenever we begin to feel hurt or upset, we should try to remember three important words that are repeated throughout the holy Vedas:
Dear friend and fellow Wikipedian, I see that you and HeBhagawan have had some bad run-in's in the past. My feeling for this is that it is something that you and HeBhagawan must work out on your own. There is nothing that I can do in this situation. You must reanounce your arguments in the past and start over with a new light called friendship. This is the only way Wikipedia can work. In my opinion You and HeBhagawan are extremly good editors but have many disagreements with each other. What you must do before making a big change is to talk it over with him, otherwise he will revert it and I don't want you to feel sad. And about your userpage, You have a nice userpage, If you see a wikipedian with a nice userpage please remember that he/she probably copied (such as myself). User:Kylu copied of of User:Master of Puppets and I copied of of various userpages. Remember also it is not about how savy the userpage is, it is how good the User is. If someone has a great userpage but is a terrible editor or vandal it does not matter how great the userpage is. If someone has a below average userpage and is a Great Wikipedian than the Userpage does not matter. Keep this in Mind Swadyayee. Have a great journey through life and please feel free to call me Arjun.--Seadog18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel this way, I wan't you to understand that there is nothing wrong with your userpage. I can't see the difference between your's and HeBhagawans. And I doubt that he would target someone for a lacking userpage. I have seen way worse trust me your userpage is actully nice. I see that you commented on his instability towards you. There could be many reasons for this not just that you are Indian. I doubt that he would resort to such lowness as this. Please understand that the only way of disscussing problems is to talk them out. Please talk to him about this, let him know exactly how you feel about his actions. Tell him the exact same thing as you told him. I hope you don't think of me in a bad maner, I am trying me honest best I can. I really hope that you two can get this probablem worked out. If you need to ask me something please feel free on my talk page. Oh and by the way what discussion was getting out of hand.--Seadog01:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Swadyayee, Assume good faith and understand that he could be honest with you. He might really want you to work together. Please I am sorry if my comments seem out of line, I just enjoy both of your contributions so much and it is a shame and a deep sadness in my heart that you two can't be kind to one another. Please, Swadyayee, talk it over with him the changes that you think sould be made between you and HeBhagawan and to the Hinduism article. Please rather than disregard his peace gratitude away, givee him your peace from the bottom of your heart and let him know how you feel. Namaste and thank you for your time, Arjun
Apparently this is not going to work out between you two. If I may make a suggestion, why not stay away from the Hinduism article. Try to instead edit other various Hindu articles such as Krishna, The Vedas, and others. The Hinduism article has only created problems for you and I am sorry that there are problems. Thank you for being kind to me and not getting upset at my actions, you appear to be a good person. But I have one question is User:RaraTheAppleJuggler your sockpuppet. Don't be offended it's just that the userpage has only been edited by you. And I understand your feelings, I am glad that you understand the philosophy, Do what you do with a happy truthfull heart, or don't even do it at all. Sinceraly yours
If your userpage bothers you I can change the color of your userpage to any color you want and even add a border. Please let me know.--Arjun
Swadhyayee,
I like your talk page, especially the Gita Sloka. It is a beautiful mantra, and very practical for spiritual life. I fixed the Sanskrit at your invitation.
HeBhagawan06:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhyayee,
Thanks for trying to work with me, and for saying that love can win over hate. That is quite true. Thank you for the textual olive branch.
Please don't mind that I reverted the recent edits you made. They reintroduced several mistakes that I went so some effort to fix. I'm sure it was not intentional on your part. HeBhagawan06:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One other note: This should really go without saying, but of course I don't want to give bad impressions of Hinduism. I am a Hindu myself, and my religion is the most important thing in the world to me. So I think we have the same goals for the most part. You need not fear that I will try to discredit Hinduism or anything.
Note 2: I agree with Priya that the Hinduism page does not really need much work at this point. However, many other pages in the Hinduism project do. Why don't we start afresh and work on one of the other pages in the project together? Some of them are in desperate need of clean-up.
HeBhagawan06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about "special area?" I am trying to use as few words as possible while still conveying the proper meaning. I'm not sure that "special" is needed, since it seems obvious that if the area is used for a deity it is special--but if it would make you happy, we can say "special area." All things being equal, fewer words is better. I will respond to your comments about monasticism later. Thank you for your feedback on that. HeBhagawan07:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind comments on monasticism. What is the more reverential word for "beg?" I would use it if there was one, but I don't think English (or Hindi, for that matter) has one. HeBhagawan07:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right Priyanath that HeBhagawan & Apandey may not be sockpuppets but my allegations are not baseless. I have checked the pattern. Pl. don't think of me to go so low to accuse baseless. Yes, it could turn out to be mere co-incindence. See the volatile outbursts of Apandey. Without any contribution of Apandey, why should he be boiling?
See the comment of RamRamji, his time of registration [[8]] and his reverting of my edits and providing citations [[9]] and vanishing for ever.
Isn't it sock-puppetry? If sock-puppetry is used in a discussion, why would it not be used for voting? Why such un-ethical means against a new editor like me? Isn't it trying to monopolise the article against the policy of Wikipedia and a free software?
In Wikipedia, we will go and next generations will come. Articles will keep on changing and adding up. No one can bring an end to the change in the article any day nor so is intention of Wikipedia Foundation. If, you give credit to HeBhagawan, there may be number of other editors who would have worked on this article earlier. I am seeing origination as back as 2003 or 2004. I have no idea what was the shape of this article but the disagreements and debates have been feature of this article. While you are doing justice to HeBhagawan for bringing the article to present stage, you might be doing injustice to new editors by preventing further edits. Who knows if not me, any other editor may contribute far more better. If, I am putting the energy of making or improving of an article, I am doing it for my job satisfaction. I should be grateful to this free software and accept the rights of others to edit my work. I do have regards for HeBhagawan but we have to bit put weight on our emotions to safeguard the principles of free software.
I am sorry, at this moment, I am not possessing your politeness nor I think that the language of article give excellent connotations of Hinduism and there is no scope of improvement. The day I share your feelings, I shall have the politeness you have today.
I assure you, I have no intention to spoil the article and it shall not happen so but the present contributors have be open to see some better things in other's edits.
My mind is in three things 1) Improving connotations 2) Safeguarding principles of free software and 3) Making editors to be free from possessiveness.
Hope you will appreciate my truthful and frank views.
I have made your quotes and your mantra in the color Blue. I hope you like the color, If I did anything wrong or missed a quote, or you would prefer a different color.--Arjun13:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made 1 gray and the rest teal. If you have any questions or would like it different please let me know, Sorry for any problems that I have created--Arjun14:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. I think you are learning very fast. Trust me I copied off of everybody to be able to do what I do with userpages. I can't even remember the codes! Have a nice day Swadhyayee.--Arjun14:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no vandal trying to remove a book. Rigmaroll was cleaning up some footnotes, but he made a couple of honest mistakes, which I fixed. Then you inadvertantly reintroduced them, so I fixed them again. No harm done. HeBhagawan17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see which book you are talking about. He removed a book. I don't know if it was vandalism or not. It was not clear what his reason was, so maybe it was vandalism. HeBhagawan17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any software faults. I think you simply made a mistake. Don't worry about it; it is corrected now. And let's please focus on making a good article.
As for whether Hindu users or non-Hindu users deserve to have their ideas considered, Wikipedia has this to say:
| || Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher . . . these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects, Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively.
This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources.
and
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
Also, please do not continue to argue that it is unnecessary to follow Wikipedia policies. This is not really open to debate, and to argue that it is ok to ignore the rules to advance some particular cause is a losing argument.
So it would not be appropriate to screen out editors based on their personal backgrounds. Suggested edits must be based on the merits of the edits themselves; not on the identity of the editor.
Your user page says "Some worst enemies of yours are destined to be your best friends so fight with them till they be your friends." Are you sure that is the most effective way to make friends? I've had pretty good luck with the approach of just being nice. HeBhagawan18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, In Hindi also "bhīkh māngnā" is used both for sadhus and ordinary beggars. So I don't think it really has a negative connotation--that's just the way people say it. I'm not sure what you were trying to say about fake sadhus--I never suggested talking about them in the article. But in order to compromise, what do you think about this:
"It is considered a highly meritorious act for a lay devotee to provide sadhus with food or other necessaries." That would avoid the word begging, although I don't see anything shameful about it.
Hello I am going to request a name change as soon as I have a good name to change it to. I want to keep it along the lines of Arjun but Arjun has already been taken and so has Arjuna. Do you have any ideas dear friend.--Arjun19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good Idea, but I think I can have my name changed to just plain Arjun beacause the account that was created Arjun was never used. Thanks for the ideas however. Have a nice day/night--Arjun01:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I hope you are not offended it was just a way of saying thank you. You can just flat out delete it or copy/paste somewhere else.--Arjun01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Swadhyayee. Checkuser can be done only in serious cases, as a last resort. That is the reason why Dmcdevit declined your request in the HeBhagawan issue. Like Dmcdevit said, when there is a dispute between editors, it is better to follow the procedure listed at WP:DR.--thunderboltz(Deepu)07:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the dispute needs third party mediation, then go to WP:DR#Discuss_with_third_parties and select one of the dispute resolution strategies listed there according to the nature of the dispute. If it is a general dispute, open a case at WP:RfC. I am quite caught up in real life currently, and hence am afraid I couldnt look deep into the convo on Talk:Hinduism. Hope this helps. Cheers!--thunderboltz(Deepu)12:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I cleaned that Example.jpg from your userpage. You did not violate any policy by using it, however as this image is also added by the editing toolbar pages which contain it are usually in need of cleanup, most of times it was plain vandalism. But to keep the number of pages using that image short I also clean it from User pages, and in case it is an intended use I exchange it to use Image:Example.png instead. But as you asked for the user page policy - Wikipedia:User page should contain all necessary to know. andy11:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Swadhyayee/Lipsum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to provide more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately, and also put a note on Talk:Swadhyayee/Lipsum. An administrator should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 1 under Articles. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such material. — Tivedshambo (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. — Tivedshambo (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I must be crazy to keep changeing my userpage the way I do. I am trying to find the one that fits me the best. I like my new one because my other one was a little weird. Thanks for reminding me about my online status bar, I would have forgetten thank you. I do however like your userpage, it is working very good. Good job with the colors and thanks for putting my award at the feet of Krishna. Take care.--Arjun15:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I don't know how. This may come across as funny but the only thing I know how to do is edit userpages. Copy/Paste if you know what I mean. And it is probably good night for you I assume. I will keep checking the Hinduism talk page when I am not busy. Feel free to bring any problems to me. Just keep in mind I am busy in the Real Life.--Arjun16:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my delayed response. I forgot to put my status as "Offline". Anyway, in regards to your question, you can find out if a person is an administrator usually by taking a look at their userpage. They usually have a userbox or some text that states they are admin. There some admins who don't do this, so the next thing to do is to go the user contributions and check out their logs. If they have deleted, blocked, or protected anything, then you know they are an admin.
An admin can't really "hide" their edits from other normal editors, but they can delete selected edits. I don't think an admin could remove an "intralink" without having some trail left behind. Nishkid6418:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Swadhyayee, Real life has me busy right now. I'll be checking in on the Hinduism article as I can. Regarding the confusion with your edits - I assumed there was a problem also - perhaps you were editing from an older version, or something. I don't use pop-ups, so I can't speak to that. I appreciate seeing your willingness to cooperate. Cooperation almost always means sacrificing something that is important to us, but it also means that we can accomplish good, and sometimes great things. ॐ Priyanath18:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually active now in the project. ITs a project to improve everything Hinduism related on wikipedia. I created a bunch of categories for Hindus, and worked on Hinduism in Indonesia related pages. I work on Hinduism quite often now, but I'm most active in Bengal related pages.BakamanBakatalk05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your encouragement. I will start working on Hinduism very soon. Although I have absolutely no idea what you were talking about Chinmaya Mission or whatever. I have no contacts with any Chinmaya or another mission or some guru's denominations. And I am in Illinois, so Virginia is not my neighbor. Cygnus_hansa14:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were asked not to spam talk pages in September, but I see you doing it this morning. That is absolutely unacceptable. Please stop or you will be blocked from editing to prevent disruption. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to Chairboy, Nearly Headless Nick & Deskana.
Could you tell me what will be your reactions, if, I falsely level much derogatory remark about your religion or your country? I think, no human being can tolerate this and go violent and mad. What did I do to deserve 15 minutes ban? What action did you take against terryJ-HO for grossly irresponsible insults he hurled against our country and my religion? Does he have any study of my country's social system or my religion? What I did was spreading the un-becoming conduct of terryJ-HO to Indian editors. Did I make any in-civil comments? I exhibited extreme restraint in answering gross irresponsible comments against my religion or country. Wars take birth when you pass irresponsible comments against anyone's religion. What did I do? I simply put a message using copy paste mode to Indian editors to answer terryJ-HO. May I ask whether you used judicious mind to revert all messages from talk pages of Indian editors or you simply used your buttons without application of mind?
Swadhyayee16:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
go violent and mad. I suggest you take a break from Wikipedia if it affects you like that. Spamming talk pages is not a good thing to do, there are better ways to deal with it. --ArmadilloFromHell16:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what that person said, talk page spamming is unacceptable. If that person made a derogatory remark, report it on WP:ANI or something. If someone insulted the English/Irish I wouldn't talk page spam like crazy. It accomplishes nothing. Complaining about the users in question can get them blocked/banned. I just hope you learn from this. :-) --Lord Deskana(swiftmend!)16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Friend,
I hope you are doing well. Even though you broke some of the protocols here, I thought the one-week block was a bit severe. I pray for your return, and hope you can come back and continue to work in cooperation with others, as you have been doing. ॐ Priyanath02:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support above statement.Potentially valuable editors like you need to stick around.Please contact me with any help regarding wikipedia related topics. If you need academic references then I can help you with that.Hkelkar02:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got your message, I realize you were not meaning any harm. You simply wanted other users to know how you felt. The remark that the user made against sati very much pushing it. I could see why you got upset. I think that you would of had a better chance of not getting blocked if you would have signed your message. This would have made it seem less like spam. Please dear friend come back we all will miss your prescnse here at Wikipedia. I think you can still edit your talk page if you are blocked so I will probably check back here everynow and then to see if you have any questions.--Arjun02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Arjun,
For letting me know that I can edit this page. I am blocked by deskana for a week. This is definitely un-deserving and harsh use of buttons without application of mind. I have requested him through e-mail and informed that I will not spam. I am certainly not going to beg for lifting my block. There is no positive response till now from deskana. I tried to place the matter for arbitration but I am not able to use the function as I am blocked. There is no e-mail facility. I tried to contact dmc.. as I believe he is arbitrator but I could not locate any e-mail mode. I think, all the admins are not having e-mail facility. I have faith in dmc... on whose talk page terryJ-HO put non-sense against my religion and country. I shall appeal to all sensitive Wikipedians to bring it to the notice of all in chair of Wikipedia about the over use of buttons by deskana and reverting my message on talk pages of all. Dmc.. objected and his message was restored or he himself retrieved the message and allowed to continue on his talkpage which was again shamelessly replied by terryJ-HO. Though my message could have not been signed but did bear my sign in my original message to dmc... I sent messages to only Indian editors for which a 15 min. block was imposed by someone. Deskana issued warning for indefinite block. While the block was lifted, what I did was to send a short message of deskana having reverted my message to few prominent Indian editors or admins. These messages were signed. Thanks for the concern and pl. request Dmc... to check this message on my talk page and consider to help in lifting block immediately. swadhyayee03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhyayee, to say that someone 'deserves to be sued' is also violating a Wikipedia policy. See No_legal_threats. While that wasn't quite a threat, your behavior will be watched closely. If you want to edit here again, you'll probably have to change your style. I'm saying this only as a friend, to help you be aware of how your words are perceived by admins here. ॐ Priyanath03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, the block did seem in my opinion too harsh. You could do the old fashioned way by typing {{unblock|(Here is where you would type why you should be unblocked)}}. Hope this works out for you. As I and others have said during your block, Wikipedia is not the same without you and we all hope you come back as soon as possible. I will check back in a day or two to see what is going on. Untill then please stay calm if you want to be unblocked. May Krishna bless you--Arjun04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhyayee,
I look forward to working with you again after you are unblocked. I was very happy that we were able to work in a more cooperative and friendly way for the past few days.
I only have one suggestion: when you are dealing with people like Terry, don't get so upset. There are a lot of people on wikipedia with POV opinions. If you become angry every time such a person shows up, then, well, you will probably be angry all the time. There is no need to turn every disagreement into the battle of Kurukshetra. Just be calm and reasonable, and follow Wikipedia policies, which are really very good policies. If you are reasonable and another person is unreasonable, the community will support you. Shri Ram Jay Ram Jay Jay RamHeBhagawan04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
(I have not done anything that deserves 1 week block. What I did was putting up messages on 7 to 8 Indian Wikipedians that my one message on their page was treated as spam and reverted by Deksana. It was an appeal to all Indian and Human minded Wikipedians to give a strong worded message to terryJ-HO on talk page of Dmcdevit where he had deliberately tried to create a false image of my country and religion. What is necessary is to block terryJ-HO for ever for using Wikipedia for grossly false purpose. I should be un-blocked immediately looking to the reasons of my messages)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sorry I couldn't understand what is infobox and what to paste where. The link gives me an intimation of block but I can't copy and paste either on either of the one. Someone pl. help in doing so for me.
Does this mean you agree that you will no longer spam talk pages? Above, one of the administrator's noted that you would only be unblocked early if that is the case. There's many other ways to deal with issues that come up and I would be happy to be available to discuss those with you at any time. Shellbabelfish06:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not spammed. I am the one, who believe in discipline and upholding the policy of platform which I am using. I appeal that everyone view the deliberate scandalous comments of terryJ-HO on talk page of Dmcdevit followed by a shameless reply. To me, Wikipedia is important, so important is pride of my country, religion, country-men and our women folks who preferred death over surrenderig to Muslim invaders for their (Muslim males) sexual gratifications. It was matter of remaining faithful to one's husband and shame of Muslim invaders for moral-less treatment of Indian women. Contrary to the practice of Muslim invaders, our Great Shivaji Maharaj declared a Muslim beautiful woman broght to him by his subordinates to be his (Shivaji's) sister and sent her back with full respect and honour. I am proud of Indian and Hindu blood gushing through our arteries. I shall invite death, forget about ban for a week but I am sure that the action of Deksana is sheer abuse of administrative powers. If, my block is not removed earlier, I will feel it a matter of shame of administrative community that one of them is able to abuse administrative powers.
I am the last man to do something knowingly against the policy of Wikipedia but I shall not beg for mercy of Deksana who I consider to be lacking of fine judgement necessary for an administrator.
I have just put message of one line to 7 to 8 Indian Wikipedians about Deksana having removed my message on their talk page. My ban is for this reason. What is spam? Putting one line message on talk page of 7 to 8 Indian Wikipedians? What is the basis of 1 week ban? If it could be few hours or a day, I could understand the reasonability.
I appeal to anyone with sense of justice to assess the ability of Deksana to impose 1 week ban for placing message on known 7 to 8 Indian Wikipedians. I further appeal to the Indian Wikipedians to put a message on my talk page that they do not mind receiving messages from me.
I request to provide me feedback about earlier wrong judgements of Deksana.
I have the intention to make appeal to people above administrators to rule the propriety of administrator Deksana's decision of 1 week ban.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. Unfortunately, you've been blocked for the same reason as your first block and you were politely asked to stop before you were blocked. The block was extended because you specifically stated that you saw nothing wrong in your actions and planned to continue the behavior. The Wikipedia community has come to the consensus that talk page spamming isn't acceptable - see WP:SPAM. There are procedures set up to help resolve disputes - you are welcome to use those. Again, if you will agree not to spam talk pages and to use other avenues for your concerns, you will be unblocked. Shellbabelfish09:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first thank you Shell_Kinney for your interest in my problem and sympathies. I accept your decision but let me make it clear that my message does not say that I will be spamming further. I just want to know how many posts constitute a spam? 1, 2, 5, 10, 50 or 100? I have seen blocking of strangerinparadise. I don't know his offence but he was blocked for a week. Even in criminal laws, crime consequential to provocation has less penal actions. Here, terryJ-HO has provocated any viewer enough. I have sent an e-mail to Deksana to un-block me and there is no response from him. I am sorry, I will ask for fairness not mercy. I am just asking for fairness which is declined and accept the decision with clarification that I have not said, I will continue to spam. If, my language make you perceive so, I am sorry and helpless. I thank you once again for your interest, consideration and sympathies.
I would like to mention that there is a policy for treatment to new Wikipedia editors backed by a view that such new editors could be very good contributors to Wikipedia. Any one can check I am in Wikipedia less than two months and also check my contributions.
Thank you so much Bakasuprman for writing to the Ahmedabad based admin whose name un-fortunately I forget before I come to editing this page. swadhyayee10:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the applicable guideline on canvassing it can be any number of talk pages, the key is whether or not the editing is disruptive. Posting the same message to many talk pages in an attempt to influence a dispute is generally considered extremely disruptive. Your posts also contained attacks against another editor; personal attacks are also a blockable offense. A good rule is not to do these kinds of alerts at all, instead, use the ideas at dispute resolution to help you resolve the problem.
Since you mentioned that you didn't mean to imply that you would continue spamming, I'm going to go ahead and unblock you. If there's anything I can do to help you understand the spamming policy or your options to resolve the dispute, just let me know. Shellbabelfish10:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most obliged. Will remember your kindness for ever. Help me do the justice with terryJ-HO who deserves to be blocked permanently for his comments. Thanks once again. swadhyayee10:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I am back for the kindness of Shell Kinney.
You can moan about how it's an abuse of administrative powers all you like, I have heard it all before. If you had bothered to read what I had typed above, you will see from the outset that the intention of the one week block was to stop you from editing until such a time that you agreed to stop spamming, at which point I would lift the block. Unfortunately you sent the e-mail to me at a time when I was unavailable and as such could not unblock you. I am fine with the fact that you have been unblocked since you agreed not to spam. You appeared to have learned from this and moved on. That's good. It's all in the past now. --Lord Deskana(swiftmend!)11:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your warm message. I felt your imposing ban for a week was harsh and un-needed. I wished that simultaneously you should have taken in account the provocation and my civil messages. With great deal of restraint, I sent civil messages to terryJ-HO and others.
I had no intention to spam or send annonymous messages. I don't think there could be any policy which could permit Wikipedia to be used for scandalous purpose. Let's each one of us be enough sensitive to safeguard the honour of any country and religion to spread peace and harmony amonst us through out the world. Our object should be broader. If you would have banned me for a month and simultaneously taken action against terryJ-HO for his scandalous comments on talk page of Dmcdevit, I would have seen you to be most just. Do you not have the powers to block a person like terryJ-HO who deliberately posts utterly false and derogatory comments?
TerryJ-Ho's comments were deliberate and followed by further similar comments.
Pl. bear with me for my frank views. Pl. put yourself on otherside of fence and imagine what would I have felt when your action amounted to support terryJ-HO. Your block for 2 hrs. should have been sufficient. Max block recommended is 24 hours. Particularly, when you were not likely to be available, why did you block me for a week? Wished that you would have taken in account my day of registration.
Regrettably, I need to sleep. It's something I really wish I could avoid but I can't. So I was asleep when you sent your e-mail, I think. I check Wikipedia regularly. The intent was to stop you editing until you promised to stop spamming. The spamming was unacceptable. If you feel you have a problem with another editor defaming your race, religion, or somesuch, please take it to the administrator noticeboard- incidents page. I simply do not have the time to look into the matter for you as I am doing depressing, tedious and unchallenging university work at the minute. I know you are sensible enough to appreciate that. With regards to not taking action against any other editors, the situation was that I saw you talk page spamming and I responded to your actions immidiately against it. I was not ignoring what you said, I simply did not have the time to investigate thouroughly. Anyway, I am afraid I probably will not be able to respond further to this, tedious work calls. Best of luck to you. --Lord Deskana(swiftmend!)11:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. I hope you will not continue to spam again. In the future if anything troubles you report at the Indian noticeboard or at the Administrator Noticeboard, or discuss the issue with the editor concerned. I didn't know you could speak Gujarati. Can you help me with something? I have exams going on just now and am quite busy with them. A user named Shanem201 wants me to help in translating the article Parsippany Hills High School to Gujarati. It seems many people in that area are Gujarati and a Gujarati translation of the article would help all Gujaratis there. If you can't do it then no problem. I am going to take a look at it as soon as my exams get over. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, (to you) I am glad you are back once again. I have changed the format on my talk page due to the length it was receiving and also so I can stash my talk archives correctly.--Arjun01:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice"Swadhyayee, what a beautiful quote, I believe that if more people realized this the world would be a better place.--Arjun02:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ]04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]
I believe caste is akin to the serf system in europe, the peasant system in China, and systems in Japan which are secular in nature. As in other places, people used religion to legitimize it (and I myself am a beneficiary, see Iyer). I dont believe its integral to Hinduism and doesnt need to be discussed.BakamanBakatalk05:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a couple of days I have a lot of homework and research work, so might not be able to participate in the discussion till then. Cygnus_hansa07:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Swadhyee, can you tell me your point of view so I can respond? I was not sure after looking at all the discussions.[reply]
Dear Swadhyayee,
I still don't understand exactly what you want the section on caste to look like. You have made some general suggestions, but it's not clear how exactly you would like to implement them. It is not enough to say you don't like something; you need to propose an alternative wording.
So far, Priyanath, Arjun, and myself have indicated that we would like the section on caste to include both views. As far as I understand, you do not want to get rid of the section altogether, but you wish to present only one of the views. ShaivaSuj and Bhaskar would like to include only a brief mention of caste, and move the rest to another article. But it is not clear what they would like such a brief mention to look like. Therefore I asked people make specific suggestions. Please remember that I'm not trying to work against you. We have the same goal. We want a good article. Part of the process is discussing ideas and alternatives. Please continue to work as a team in a friendly manner. Please don't approach it in a fighting manner, let's just have a mature adult discussion so we can understand everybody's views. I will try to be friendly and civil myself as well. Thanks. HeBhagawan15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Swadhyayee,
I just want to tell you that I am doing my best to work with everybody on the Hinduism discussion in good faith. I feel like many of your comments are angry in tone. I hope you will understand that everybody is doing their best, and that you will try to treat them accordingly. I may disagree with you on some editing decisions, and you may disagree with me, but we just have to try our best to work cooperatively. Peace is good. Anger and insults are bad. Take the good. Leave the bad. This is the meaning of viveka. Thank you. HeBhagawan23:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Your message on the Hinduism discussion page:
Since you addressed your message especially to me, I will reply here. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I understand that you are not happy with the voting, but I'm not sure what your alternative proposal is, or even if you are trying to make one. Also, I'm sorry if you are feeling angry. Like I said above, I'm making a good faith effort to be kind to everybody, including you. I'm sure I have room for improvement, but I'm trying. All I ask is that you do the same. Thanks. If you would like to restate your message from the Hinduism discussion page more clearly, I will try to understand what you are saying. HeBhagawan04:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect the revert of 203.115.120.3 is fair but you should not have labelled it as vandalism "sorry this is treated as vandal", as this user looks like they were trying to help. If this is new user then it will put them off contributing again - go softly. E.g. you could have said "reverted (explain what rv is too for new user) edit, inappropriate information already covered removed".
True most vandalism is by IP addresses, but you should also know that the majority of editing of Wikipedia is done by IP addresses. In this instance it was not blatant obvious vandalism - it was actually adding something that is relevant to Hinduism if not exactly right/in the right place. I am just suggesting you go easy on the IPs. Obviously you can be a bit harsher on IPs that add only "F$%^ You" style of remarks, but even then we should try and encourage them to contribute helpfully.
I understand, you have never dis-pleasured me or made me upset. In fact just the opposite. All I ask of you is when editing think of the world and think if what you do will help teach the religion of Hinduism in the correct and truthful way. Also I did not earn the name Arjun01 probably because I have too many edits 2000+ to be exact. If you need any help please feel free to contact me. I am however going to start replying on my talk page, due to the fact that the load of comments and questions are getting bigger. So from now on I suggest you monitor my talk page until you get response. Thank you for you time.--ॐSeadogॐ02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know, how much I can teach but I want to prevent some mis-conceptions generating in minds of foregners or deepening in the minds of Hindus. It's well accepted that Geeta is authentic. It is also said that what is not in Geeta is useless. In any study or discussion, the two or more views would be presented, discussed and clarification is provided at the end. The study of which takes one's life and yet it could not be over. For a particular study, you have to attain a standard. Which does not exist in everyone but very few. To me, important is rational of Hinduism over different views which could be just for discussion. I have no academic study but I think I know lot many things beyond a layman would know. Further it does not take me a second or minute to understand any logic placed forward against my belief. Like GaurangUK opined for "beyond gender" and "genderless". I may not totally agree with him but I can appreciate his reasons. It took me just one second to say "Ok". swadhyayee03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your funny message! Thanks. Look like whats going on. Even worse than the Islam articles! Might have to go over to Balkan conflicts to relax. Whos the boss Bakaman or HeBhagwan?Opiner 03:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah Baka just help me by saying something reasonable on discussing.Opiner03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Swadhyayee,
On the Hinduism talk page you asked:
I am just interested to know whether there is any tool in Wikipedia to find out who read a particular article and for what time duration? swadhyayee 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is any such tool. But why would you want this anyway? It sounds like a tool for stalkers! Wouldn't your time on Wikipedia be better spent making contributions to articles and discussions?HeBhagawan15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily it has to be stalking. It could be other purpose also. Anyway, if there is a tool and I want to check, it becomes my personal thing if it fits in Wikipedia policy. swadhyayee20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such tool. Nor should there be. It's against the privacy policy. Such information is only revealed with the permission of the person in question or to combat vandalism or place other such blocks. Aside from that, there's no tool anyway. --Lord Deskana(swiftmend!)21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a message on my talk page that said, in part, that I had commented on the Hinduism article in it's talk page. In fact, I have not posted a comment on Hinduism's talk page, though I was invited to do so. I don't know how you would even get my user name. That disturbs me a little.
I didn't make a comment on the current controversy about the Caste section because I simply don't know enough about Hinduism. However, I would like to point out that most Westerners (or at least Americans) know little or nothing about Hinduism EXCEPT for caste. The article on Hindiusm as it stands now is extremely informative. It also shows Hinduism in an extremely good light compared to the common Western view of the religion. The two paragraphs that you are trying to delete actually go a long way towards explaining the difference between caste as it relates towards Hinduism versus caste in Indian society. If you leave them out, it will only perpetuate the belief that Hinduism oppresses people through caste. Please reconsider your desire to leave them out.
Hi. I'll be your advocate for the dispute regarding article Hinduism and its talk page.
I've skimmed through the talk page, and also this talk page. It has become lengthy and I can't get a grasp of what you need assistance with. I'd appreciate if you sent me a message or emailed me.
In general though I could advice you that well sourced statements are usually accepted in articles, so strive for that.
It's no bother at all, Swadhyayee! Anyone is welcome to join Esperanza, just take a look at the membership requirements, and if it all looks good, add yourself to the list of members. Just remember that as part of Esperanza, you are working with many people to create a community within the encyclopedia, and improve Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any questions, -- Natalya17:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Swadhyayee, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.
Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.
In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.
If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our administrator generalNatalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!
Thanks for the help. I feel pretty safe since I'm in a medium sized college town here so I have a fair amount of anonymity. Arrow74012:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I want to read on wikipedia about the number of Hindus killed by Muslims during the invasions, and the rapes and so on, where could I read that on wikipedia? Arrow74012:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the Muslim invasions of India. If you don't care about what happened then that's your business. What do you think about the article on Kashmir? It's seems to have a clear anti-India bias. Arrow74006:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you posted that clarification on my page. Rest assured I read the entire debate about caste. The version I voted for was the most NPOV, balanced and encylopedic version available to vote for. Also, from reading this debate it seems that your main concern is to remove any connection between caste and Hinduism in all of its historical manifestions, which as far as I understand it is a rather idealist and revisionist position. Why is it that there are always editors with specific religious affiliations, like Christians, Hindus, Mulsims, etc. who are willing to compromise history in order to make their religion look as good as possible? Your whole argument seems based upon a specific reading of essential religious texts, as if religion is defined through some "pure" exegesis of such texts. Academically that is very obviously a POV, not to mention as applied to a specific case, original research. And if it isn't original research, then it should be referenced as representing one POV, which, needs to be balanced by others. Again, the version I voted for presented such balance better than any other I could see. Look, just because the development of the caste system and the historical development of Hinduism may be related, doesn't make Hinduism any worse than the world's other major religions. No religion is perfect. Lets strive for factual accuracy, as well as a balance of POV, and not favorable versions history. Maybe the basis for caste in Hindu scripture is a problematic, but that doesn't mean that caste isn't signifcant in the development of Hinduism. The various facets of this significance need to be dealt with in the article.PelleSmith03:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletions of other users' comments on Your Talk Page
Wikipedia's official policies define the following as unacceptable behavior on your talk page:
Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.
Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through looks like this and ends up like this.
An apologetic exception: If you wish to retract a negative comment in the interests of harmony, insert a placeholder in the text such as, "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]", so your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"
Thanks for your note. I’ve tried to address most of your points. I would like to be on good terms with everybody, including you. I will take your comments to heart. I don’t know you on a personal level, and I probably never will. Nevertheless, I respect you because I can tell that you are a good person and you are trying to do the right thing, even though I sometimes disagree with the approaches you choose. I also feel an additional connection to you because we are both of the same religion, and we both value our religion highly. If we disagree on some editing decisions, that is not such a big deal. We have more in common than we have differnces. Life is a learning process, so hopefully we can both learn.
Ethical behavior vs. Wikipedia policies: I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. We can be ethical and follow Wikipedia policies.
Nothing personal: Good. I have nothing personal against you either. I hope nobody will have sinister feelings.
Good English: I never meant to insult you as a person, nor did I comment on your general English skills. I was only looking at the edits themselves, and many of them had errors. I admire you for trying to edit in a language that is not your mother tongue. I would be afraid to edit Hindi Wikipedia, even though I speak Hindi as a second language. If I did so, however, I would realize my limitations, and I would hope that others would tell me if I used bad Hindi. So it is good that you are contributing. It is quite natural that your English would not be perfect, and there is no need to feel bad about it. My English is pretty good. I am a native speaker and I am highly educated. However, I don’t expect people to evaluate my editing choices based on my credentials. They should look at the edits themselves and see whether they are good. I make mistakes just like everybody else, and when I make them, I hope others will tell me about it. When others point out my mistakes, I don’t take it personally, and neither should you.
Not understanding what you say: I’m sorry. If I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t take it personally. It doesn’t matter whose fault the misunderstanding is. Better to focus on increasing the understanding from both sides.
Age etc: In general, I don’t wish to get into age /background on wikipedia, and I especially don’t think those things should enter into debates about the content of articles. As I’ve said many times, it’s best to evaluate edits based on the edits themselves, not based on who makes them. You could be 15 or 51—I’ll treat you the same regardless. I hope others will do the same for me.
How will I mediate other disputes? Don’t worry about it. Somehow I’ll manage.
Editing by others: Of course others can edit my edits. And I can edit theirs. And so can you. But in the process we do have to follow Wikipedia policies. This includes the policies on quality. If we don’t want to follow Wikipedia policies, we should go elsewhere. If I go to England, I have to follow English law. If I go to Pakistan, I have to follow that law. If you come to Wikipedia, you have to follow Wikipedia’s rules.
Wikipedia policies apply to everybody equally. There is not a separate set for you or for me.
This is the last time I intend to comment on your practice of telling me what I am thinking. You are wasting your time doing this. If I want you to know what I think, I’ll tell you. Otherwise, don’t waste your time guessing what is in my mind. In any case, most of your guesses so far have been wrong, and they often constitute personal attacks. Personal attacks, as you know, are not allowed.
Awards: You can give an award to anybody whose work you appreciate , and so can I. There is no requirement of seniority. If there is some policy on this that I don’t know about, I invite you to share it with me, and I will comply with it.
Informing others of Wikipedia policies is not a personal attack. On one hand you say that you can’t be expected to know all wikipedia policies, and on the other you say that you don’t like me to inform you of them. You can't ignore the rules and then plead that you didn't know about them. Generally, Wikipedia has exactly the policies I’d expect them to have. Like you, I haven’t memorized them all, but I have a general idea of what they say, because most of them are common sense. When in doubt, it’s easy to click the “help” button. If you don’t know a particular rule, and therefore you break the rule, you should expect somebody to tell you about it. That way you can learn how not to break it in the future. Don’t focus on the person who is informing you of the policy, focus on the policy itself.
I hope you will not be upset by the directness of my responses to your recent message. We should both make efforts to get along. Hari Om, Shantih Shantih Shantih. HeBhagawan03:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HeBhagawan.
I don't agree with this, "It is quite natural that your English would not be perfect, and there is no need to feel bad about it. My English is pretty good." See how many times you have to change your sentences.
I completed my school education in 1966 when I learnt British Grammar. I don't know, where are you from. My feeling is you are from Reston, Virginnia. I don't know where you took your education, rural India or U.S. I think, American English is not perfect. You could know the difference only after you read English Grammar. Just refer Wren & Martin.
One does experience difficulty in framing good or impressive sentences on a subject which one is not in daily touch. Students studying literature or philosophy are in daily touch of terminology and may be able to frame good sentences. I feel the words, salvation and re-incarnation are not appropriate. Salvation does not give right connotation of Moksha. Re-birth itself is sufficient to explain "Punarjanma". I have always heard re-incarnation with reference to God taking human form. Given a choice, I would always prefer to use re-birth for "Punarjanma" and reserve "Re-Incarnation" for "Avtars".
You say, you are native speaker. I have never heard English being mother tounge of Hindus. You may have been staying in states and used to English language as you claim yourself to be native speaker. Our English could be different and I may not be taking care as you take while framing a sentence nor I copy-print sentences from books.
There are ways to point out mistakes of others. If the pointings are modest, they are never hurtful. I do take your comments as personal attack so pl. be careful while you make comment.
Age etc: In general, I don’t wish to get into age /background on wikipedia, and I especially don’t think those things should enter into debates about the content of articles. As I’ve said many times, it’s best to evaluate edits based on the edits themselves, not based on who makes them. You could be 15 or 51—I’ll treat you the same regardless. I hope others will do the same for me.'
I do not mean the way you interpret.
"How will I mediate other disputes? Don’t worry about it. Somehow I’ll manage." !!!, You have to do justice to the cause you take on your hand.
8) I agree, you kindly see what is applicable to you and leave me alone to see what is applicable to me.
9) I am not guessing, I am telling what impression it could create in other's mind. Even, you may not be able to visualise your set of mind.
10) You may be able to give but it's like young giving pat to old and is usually laughable. It's a matter of decency.
11) It's always better one know the policy on one's own and regrett for his mistake.
"I am a native speaker and I am highly educated". Education, intellect and wisdom are three different things. For living life, you need wisdom more. Where hostility is generating, avoiding advice is a matter of wisdom. Another thing, why should you feel that you are the only person responsible for quality of Hinduism? What you may see as a loss of quality, may not be so seen by others.
Do you know about, "half filled pot" and "Bhindis of Bhadra"?
Swadhyayee,
If you violate Wikipedia policies, somebody is going to tell you about it. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. It's the same as if you violate the law where you live: somebody is going to say something, and you should be appreciative if somebody gives you a friendly warning before the police find out about it. If I don't tell you, somebody else will--perhaps somebody who will discipline you, as has happened a couple of times now. I suggest you try to learn about the policies and follow them. HeBhagawan12:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, you may be interested to know that in the USA there are many Hindus whose mother tongue is English. Most of these are of Indian heritage, but were born in the USA, or arrived at a very young age. Among such Hindus, some continue to speak an Indian language at home, while others speak only English. Many speak English better than they speak the language of their parents, and many are illiterate in Indian languages even if they can speak them. Others are completely bi-lingual, with native-level proficiency in both languages. They have to make a special effort if they want to be able to read and write well in Indian languages, because those languages are not widely used in the USA. Courses are available in Universities, however. Of course, there are also a small number of Hindus of non-Indian ancestry in the USA who do not speak any Indian languages at all. A few of these have subsequently learned Indian languages through study, but most of them know only English. So there are many different categories of Hindus who are native speakers of English. If you don't believe that I am one, that is fine, but I thought you might be interested to learn that such peole do exist. HeBhagawan13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on this talk page. You do not own your talk page and edit warring over it is as unacceptable as anywhere else. Please take a day off and reconsider your attitude to editing. --Sam Blanning(talk)04:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for your comments, the merits of a revert are irrelevant; if you persistently make the same revert again and again and again, you will be blocked. If posts on your talk page are without merit, editors will realise that, you don't have to edit war. --Sam Blanning(talk)04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to discourage irritating policy citing by HeBhagawan. He has been using Wikipedia policy to his advantage. He used sock-puppetry / meta-puppetry to pass incivil comments and there exist some friction on article editing. I believe he should dis-engage from advising me which he feels as my wrong. My wrong may be his individual perception.
I have seen many editors removing contents from one's talk page, I cited an example of RaraTheAppleJuggler which I remembered. When RaraTheAppleJuggler is permitted to remove his talk page contents, why the same thing is seen as wrong when I do?
{{unblock|I just wanted to discourage irritating policy being daily cited by HeBhagawan. He has been using Wikipedia policy to his advantage. He used sock-puppetry / meta-puppetry to pass incivil comments and there exist some friction on article editing. I believe he should dis-engage from advising me which he feels as my wrong. My wrong may be his individual perception.
I have seen many editors removing contents from one's talk page, I cited an example of RaraTheAppleJuggler which I remembered. When RaraTheAppleJuggler is permitted to remove his talk page contents, why the same thing is seen as wrong when I do?
What I meant by notice that I was not issued 3RR notice nor I was told why different treatment to me and RaraTheAppleJuggler? Is someone holding grudge against me for my outburst against terryJ-HO and last block? (unblocked)}}. swadhyayee05:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with many users, you attempt to avoid the validty of a 3RR block by blaming other users for causing you to get blocked. I will make this amazingly simple for you: If you revert more than three times on one page for 24 hours you will likely get blocked. This does not mean reverting less than that will not get you blocked. Other users breaking policy is not an excuse. I suggest you read 3RR, and stop accusing administrators of holding grudges- you break the rules, you get blocked. It is not difficult to understand. I highly doubt you will get unblocked early. Learn from this... it's something you don't seem to be doing. --Lord Deskana(swiftmend!)21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is formatted automatically as I selected "minor" edit when edit summary not provided. This selection prevents edits going without edit summary when necessary. In continuous discussion or reply, I do not change the edit summary. That's the reason, m reflect with my edits. I will see what I can do. swadhyayee02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but this is the first time that I've heard the term Naivedhya, though I often wondered if there was a name for prasad before it has been returned to you, blessed. If I can help you in any other way, please let me know, but I am not knowledgable enough to help you in the way you asked, though I would have liked to. Good luck!
My apologies for the misunderstanding. Based on how you've spelled it in the roman letters, I will spell it in devanagari. I just use the Hindi Wikipedia to do this.
Is this what you wanted: नैवेडय ? I am not sure if it's correct.
Namaskar. I see you just wanted me to add it to the glossary? I don't have any sanskirt dictionaries, unfortunately, and I don't know where the glossary is.
Namaskar. I am not sure whether the 3rd character is representing "gh" or "dh". You may type both and hope you can find out whether it represents "gh" or "dh". "dh" top left curve comes out and above where as "gh" the curve is inside. Thanks.
swadhyayee19:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
|| Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher . . . these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects, Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively.
