User talk:Wikidas

WiKId^as

Please leave a new message.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1.2.3.4

Hello

I am well, thanks! I have been busy with school and exams, but my exams are soon to be over so I can return :) --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on your exams that are almost over ... keep well! 06:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits in the Hungarian Vedic Creationism article

Hi! Your edits regarding that article are not in line with any Wikipedia policy. Please consider using the Talk page before removing any sections from it. Thank you. G ambrus (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing how ignorant some of the regional wiki editors are about rules on reliable sources and original research, most of the sources are WP:SPS and blogs... Wikid ^as© 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swaminarayan GA

I think Swaminarayan is now ready for a GA - before nominating it, I request you to give your input on the articles talk page. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD problems

Re some of your nominations here, this is now the third time in my memory that I have had to ask you not to manually empty a category before nominating it for deletion. This is inappropriate, especially when you don't reveal in your nominating statement that you have done this and merely innocently claim that it is an "empty category". This is disruptive at CfD and it troubles many editors who participate there and it makes it difficult to assess the true merits of deleting the category. Consider this the last time I'll ask you not to do this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your expressing it. However moving one iskcon figure to the category that all such people are is not inappropriate or disruptive. It is factually empty category so no fault of mine. Wikid ^as© 16:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is inappropriate if you move an article out of a category and then nominate the category for deletion on the basis of it being empty. In this case the category could accurately apply to the person, so it wasn't a case of "mischaracterization" that you were fixing. You were inappropriately manually emptying it. As I said, you've done this before, and I've explained this to you before, and we have other editors complaining about it. Maybe you should take our words for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samadhi

If you want to use the {{db-move}} template, as on Samadhi, you have to tell us which page is supposed to be moved to that title. For example, {{db-move|Samadhi whatever}}. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda

Paramhans is honorific title, but some titles are not left out when being referenced in public. Removing the title would result in a discrepancy between naming in the press and naming on the Wiki, which would lead to confusion about who is who. See Paramahansa Yogananda as example. Another example is removing the title "pope" and saying only Paul. Who is that??? Another thing is that the name Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is on all his books and within his passport. This name can not be shortened as it is legally his name. Atmapuri (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction in the article states it is a title. Unless there is evidence from secondary academic sources calling him this way. I will be terribly surprised if there is, as it is not even spelled in academically acceptable way. Wikid ^as© 21:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Sanskrit in english is debatable. What counts is the passport. His passport yields: Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda. Nothing else. That is his legal name. That can not be shortened. Are you sure you will need a copy of the passport to settle this dispute? Why is in India possible to have a legal name like that (which includes spiritual honorific titles), is a separate issue. It's not allowed to just anybody. Atmapuri (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it will be against practice and custom of Wikipedia to base articles on the passport spelling. Swami Maheshwarananda is sufficient and does not include honorific, Paramhans is mislleading, we do not name an article His Grace Bishop Youssef, just Bishop Youssef, regardless of the passport spelling. I appreciate your concern, I am sure you were as much concerned when when the article was Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri. How many honorifics one can have, I guess they are all in the passport? Wikid ^as© 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OOK

I noticed your work to Outline of Hinduism.

Nicely done.

Please consider joining WP:WPOOK.

The Transhumanist 23:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		Swaminarayan Appreciation
		Awarded to Wikidas for his contributions to WP: Swaminarayan, in particular helping promote Swaminarayan to GA status. This is just the beginning. WP: Swaminarayan has a long way to go - keep it up! Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of WP:RS

Do really you assert that MiD DAY and The Hindu aren't reliable sources as per your recent edit to International Society for Krishna Consciousness? __meco (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I would suggest that whoever adds such material checks the facts first with reference to sources that do not confuse things. ISKCON mentioned in the articles is NOT the ISKCON the article is about and is an organization that is in court with ISKCON proper for the use of company/charity name and property claims. It is very important not to confuse the two and to use balanced RS before adding sensational claims (about other organization) to this article. Wikid ^as© 07:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is understandable, but what does that have to do with using reliable sources? __meco (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It exactly the reason. According to the policy "Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details", what to speak of the above sources. If at all News sources to be used then only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. I have no problem otherwise. Wikid ^as© 10:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are radically out of step with consensus practice on Wikipedia in general with regard to the use of mainstream non-tabloid newspapers as reference sources. Although there certainly are incidents of the type which you generally refer to, that does not negate the fact that such publications are being considered reliable sources by the Wikipedia community. I hope you will find how to revise your general position (independent of the presently focused edit) before you run into more disruptive conflicts on other articles. Cheers! __meco (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted back the removal: You seem to say that Hindu and Press Trust of India are not high-quality news organizations! What they have reported (and i have added) that the government has initiated a probe against iskcon- which is as NPOV as it can get. If you read the article carefully, the first two lines state that ..is one of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/Hindu Hindu] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/Vaishnava Vaishnava] religious organizations.^{[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/Iskcon#cite_note-0 [1]]} It was founded in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/1966 1966] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/New_York_City New York City] by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/A._C._Bhaktivedanta_Swami_Prabhupada A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada] - hence this article is about the not just about the movement, but also about the organization -and any noteworthy news should be mentioned in the article! trakesht (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone has reverted back telling that this is a splinter organization :It seems I got it wrong :) trakesht (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New articles on ISKCON

User Eronel189 has created a bunch of new articles on ISKCON. Please take a look at them.

its speed delete material.

I think so too.--Gaura79 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Names_of_God

Thank you for your comments at Talk:Names_of_God but I'm afraid that until you can come up with the necessary sources to back up your assertions, Wikipedia policy does not permit editors to use article space to propagate their thoughts to the world. Feel free to come up with a rationale other than "its big", and to provide proper sources for your theories (whatever they are) as Wikipedia policy demands.

Should you insist on not providing sources, and not otherwise conforming to Wikipedia policy (which will defacto be your position if you choose to revert to your pet version), I'm afraid that I will have to assume that you are not acting in the interests of this encyclopedia and/or that you intend to compromise its integrity. Thank your for your attention. For further information, please refer to the policy pages linked at the talk page. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Since your seem to be specifically het up about Names of God in Hinduism, I suggest you create an article named Names of God in Hinduism and add that to the disambiguation page. "Names of God in Hinduism" is presently a redirect, so you may wish to recycle that for your use. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the confusion which can result from seeing multiple names for the same deity in some sources, I have to say that might be a really good idea. There are enough names to probably make a coherent list, and it would be useful to people reading some books and not knowing what the name refers to. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion [1] is self evident I think. Wikid ^as© 21:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the article is not under discussion, so the premise that the AfD can indicate anything is not even wrong, leave alone "self evident". What is under discussion is stated at the talk section that you refuse to say anything at. What is "self evident" is that instead of making your points (which are?) in a rational fashion at the talk section, you game the system by reverting in the name of WP:CONS, invoke an AfD that has nothing to do with the issues under discussion, and all the while blithely continue to violate every other policy in the book.

That the article is a mound of unsourced, unverifiable gunk (and an OR magnet to boot) is "self evident". That you refuse to address a reasonable alternative (supported by another editor above) is "self evident". That you refuse to say anything at article talk is "self evident". That you prefer to revert is "self evident". Those are the issues that are "self evident".

You do not have consensus. Consensus is derived from honoring policy, which you do not do.

Nonetheless, since you are insist on reverting, while I believe that editors are obliged to follow due process, I will give you 24 hours to knock that article into shape and/or make your case at article talk. Should you fail to do so, the article will be reverted to a sane state. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We will continue to follow the system. And unless you go and remove all unsourced material from anywhere in Wikipedia in the next 24 hours your threat is empty. I give you 24 hours to remove all unsourced material from anywhere in Wiki:-) You know perfectly well the little tags. ^{{fact}} - please use them and stop inventing deadlines you get in your school. We are serious people here. Wikid ^as© 14:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we, or at least that article, is not following the system as it has been established here. And your demands above are completely inappropriate, and do not speak particularly well of you. It is the duty of the person who seeks to include the information to provide the sourcing, no one else. Unsourced information can easily be removed at any time. Also, Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items makes it clear that listed items should receive reference citations in the list themselves. While I can and do agree that the arbitrary deadline is not particularly well defended by policies and guidelines, and probably is far too short of a time period in any event, I also have to think that the other rules/guidelines should also be followed, and this includes the one about the people who want information included to provide sourcing. Your comment about unsourced information everywhere is basically along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and it is basically impossible for anyone to try to remove such material everywhere. However, that is not a reason to say that people should not try to remove it when they see it in the course of their activities. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help. I actually have no objection to bringing unsourced stuff one by one on the talk page or tagging it first, I did it with a lot of African stuff on the same page. As long as it is not 'wiping out' the entire article 'clean' and removing by the way valid references that people have added painstakingly. That is not the system, but I agree that areas of unsourced material can be reviewed and removed even on the lists, sure why not? Wikid ^as© 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

Read this section: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources#Self-published sources#Using the subject as a self-published source

Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.
These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

--Gaura79 (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of this policy, but the conditions of it are self evident. The provisions really only allow basic material, such as date of birth etc. In other words use is very limited, thus debatable if contradicts other policies. Wikid ^as© 09:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being too strict. Don't forget, that for religious bio religious sources are acceptable, in our case - ISKCON sources. And in case of Indradyumna Swami - he got quite a significant coverage in Polish media, but it's not accesible online. Also Bhakti Caru Swami is perfectly notable, Devamrita Swami could be notable. Jayapataka Swami certainly deserves an article in Wiki. Sivarama Swami is notable, I don't uderstand why you want to merge it with GBC article. On other articles I agree with you that they should be merged.--Gaura79 (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute that Bhakti Caru Swami and Devamrita Swami could be notable, I am sure Jayapataka Swami may have an article in Wiki if sources are found. Sivarama Swami - also possible, but if article is too short, it can be part of the GBC page in all of these cases. If it grows there, then per WP:SS the article separate from the GBC article can be created. Honestly, most of the notability comes from being on GBC and no notability outside of ISKCON management for all of the above, so it makes sense. I will accept religious sources, like iskcon.com/icj for example (not blogs). If references from Polish media translated -- it is fine with me, combination of these with his diary entries will make a good - verifiable article. If you have references to Polish media, scans of the Newspaper images will be fine I guess. I do not insist on merging any of the above, but I think a discussion can take place on the relevant pages, at least we agree that all of the stubs can merge into GBC article, lets see one by one others. Wikid ^as© 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still I would ask you not to merge beforementioned articles, that have been on Wiki for a few years. There's nothing bad in having stubs on those personalities. Now, some of ISKCON figures probably don't have standalone notability and thouse articles should be merged. Here's my list:

Fine, I agree that in all these cases it should be merged with an exception of Smita Krishna Swami, it is quite sizable at present, while sources could improve. Wikid ^as© 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wikidas. You have new messages at Warrior4321's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr.TrustWorthy----Talk to Me! 00:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ISKCON Sannyasis

Talk moved to Talk:List of current ISKCON Sannyasis

Swaminarayan Hinduism article

Hi Wikidas, As a new wiki user, I tried to edit the 'others' section of the above mentioned article as I feel it's not correct, only to have my edits removed and the article reverted. I am a member of the gunatit samaj and feel you haven't understood it's position when you talk about it "claiming successorship" I also tried to add in the other wings of the samaj (anoopam mission & gunatit jyot). Is it you I need to speak to about getting my edits accepted? Sincerely Jakrabbit27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakrabbit27 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUggestion -> copy exactly or very close what the source (book) say. As close as you can. 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Baghavata Purana discussion

Hi Wikidas, I'm guessing that it may have been my comments in an earlier discussion on the BP talk page that elicited your 'slagging Prabhupada' comment on Dbachmann's talk page. I didn't take any joy in presenting those very reliable sources that were so unkind to Prabhupada's translation of the Baghavata Purana. But the editor who kept insisting on using Prabhupada as a source in the article left me no choice, and I will respond the same way again if need be. As the article stands right now, I think it's extremely respectful of all traditions, of Krishna, of bhakti, and of a very sacred and beautiful scripture - and reflects my own respect for all of the above. Priyanath ^talk 20:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:DVDHaridasa.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DVDHaridasa.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your template on Avatar (2009 film) page

Hello, Wikidas.

I could see your suggested inclusion of a Hindu Vaisnava disambiguation template on Avatar film page as a well-intended move, albeit now reverted. On a slightly different front, I have been researching and trying to add the movie's well-reported connection with Hinduism, but the current consensus there seems to be against its inclusion in the Critical reception section (however it is footnoted in Themes and inspirations).

To cover these and other existing worthwhile religious and cultural analyses of the movie, I am contemplating a separate article "Avatar (2009 film) -- Underlying religious themes" or something similar, which would provide a better place for information on its religious and cultural aspects, with Hinduism connections among them. Would you be interested to participate? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Ronnie Nelson

With your permission, I'd like to request that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Nelson be closed early as "userfy". I've been helping out the author, and he's emailed me several print sources that suggest to me that the subject is notable. I'll help him rewrite it before we move it back into mainspace.--Father Goose (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under what policy you try to do it? Nothing stops anyone copying article after or before AfD to the user's space. WP:USERFY has another alternative -- to incubate it. Even after AfD is over -- administrators can undelete a deleted page and move it into your userspace, without creating a redirect. Why don't you just upload scans of the print sources and bring it up in AfD -- so far nobody has voted much. Wikid ^as© 09:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't upload them; they're copyrighted. I just don't want to perform the rewrite of the article while the AfD is underway, as AfDs tend to have a certain momentum regardless of whether the article gets rewritten halfway through. (I don't oppose your nomination -- the current article is a wreck.)

If we do userfy or incubate the article, there's no point to continuing with the AfD. It's your choice. We can userfy it now, or we can wait until the end of the AfD.--Father Goose (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can userfy the article at any moment. You can note it on the AfD page, but it is not a reason to stop AfD process. Wikid ^as© 10:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've userfied it, following the steps outlined at WP:USERFY.--Father Goose (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question on edit related to Bhagavad Gita

Hi I noticed you have removed the titles of 18 chapters from the Bhagavad Gita page Bhagavad gita. Your comment refers to lack of reliable source. I had added a reference to Gita press website as the source. Gita Press is a well known and well established publisher of religious texts. Refer Gita Press page.
Can you please clarify what additional source is needed to add that information? I am assuming you are not doubting the accuracy of the information.

Sbinfinity (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Sbinfinity[reply]

I think you are missing the point of it -- the point is that there is no reference to the informaion you added in the source cited, and it is not independent source.

Comment

I'd appreciate you don't call me Devamrita Dave, cheers. I don't practice any form of religion anymore and am no longer affiliated. My concern with the deletion of the Harikes page is simply on the bounds of the original AFD reason, which imo is invalid. Chopper Dave (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Devamrita's Dave, I did not know that it was your name. I thought you are were a prominent editor for now deleted Devamrita Swami's article. Who talks about religion? Harikesh used to be Devamrita's buddy, when Devamrita came back into ISKCON shortly Harikesh left. Wikid ^as© 12:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my name :) That's true though. I just don't want to be called or referred to like that if it's cool. Cheers Chopper Dave (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afd Asaram Bapu

Hello. Thanks for the message. I do understand that over the period of time the article has changed shape and matter but I think that's not enough to mark the article for deletion. I think we should spend time to improve the article and not delete it. Rohit (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for ISKCON Guru System

On April 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ISKCON Guru System, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Why the reversion? Is not he an antievolutionist? Againme (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Undeletion of Wiki Page :- Paramahansa Srimat Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Dev

Hello,

we are the devotees of Paramahansa Srimat Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Dev, who is one of the most revered and beloved Gurus from India. Recently i found that his page "Paramahansa Srimat Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Dev" has been deleted from Wiki.

My sincier request to you and Wiki, to restore the page. If you have any concerns about the content on the page please let us know. If we have not provided necesssry references, then it may be due to our mistake, or we never found out that the page needs some kind of citation or something like that nature. But that does not diminish or falsify the information we provided about our GURU.

Please restore the page , and let us know what are the things you need to adhere to wiki's standards. Actually I am not a very technical person, but I will try to learn and fix those issues. Subrat Nayak 13:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COI

May 2010

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Please ensure that those you report are warned prior to being reported. Welcoming new editors who may be misguided but acting in good faith is also encouraged. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karma in Hinduism

Jai Shree Krishna, Wikidas I have extensively wrote sections on Karma in Hinduism. Do you or other members have information on Sri Caityana's views on karma? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Hinduism#Vaishnavism for other saints' views.

Thanks for your help. Raj2004 (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidas, any help? Raj2004 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Try Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, by Swami Tapsyananda Ramakrishna Press I misplaced my copy. Raj2004 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also try Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, and his commentaries on the Brahma Sutras. Raj2004 (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any secondary sources by a reliable/academic publisher? I have primary sources, but they are not suitable for wikipedia alone. Wikid ^as© 11:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of; if there are any commentaries on karma from the Gaudiya Vaishnavite tradition, it would be on Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Raj2004 (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could be but all selfpublished and not reliable sources. In other words these would be primary sources, I do not think that will help your article to advance. Wikid ^as© 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaunaka Rishi Das

Dear Wikidas, I need your advice. I note that you changed the spelling of my name as follows:

(moved Shaunaka Rishi Das to Saunaka Risi Dasa: Consistent spelling)

I have a problem with this as Shaunaka Rishi Das is my legal name - it represents the legal spelling of my name. the point about consistency is strange as you cannot pronounce the latter spelling properly without Sanskrit diacritics. therefore is it not consistency with a bad norm. I would prefer if, in this case you could change my name spelling back to how others expect it.

I am sorry to be late in spotting this but other pointed it out, including people from academia, BBC, government who, when looking me up on google are not sure if it me or not, and I doubt if wikipedia is designed to confuse.

I have taken the liberty to write to you as I cannot find out who else to contact. I hope you can help.

Shaunaka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaka (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you move it to your legal name, provided it is you and you can even include a good reason for it. It is however not the requirement for Wikipedia to use legal names or to follow legal name spelling. There is a separate convention for naming, so if legal name was Shaunaka Patrick Rishi, we do not have to use it. But I suggest just move it to what it should be according to the sources. However according to this source [2] the name is "Shaunaka Rishi Dasa". And it is rather good source published by a good publisher. Regards, Wikid ^as© 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK minor issue Hello! Your submission of Kurt Mausert at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! I'm not a DYK regular, so I don't know whether the 200 character limit is inclusive or exclusion of the opening "that" and closing "?". In your case, it makes a difference, if I count correctly. I've got a question in to Daniel Case, but if you know the answer, please let me know. I'm also posting to point out that the first image includes two people, but doesn't identify which one is Kurt. Can you modify the caption to indicate? Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Pañcaratra Hello! It's been a long time since I've heard from you; hope you're doing well. :) I wanted to ask your opinion on the editing of an article - the Pañcaratra texts are a critical part of the devotional literature of Gaudiya Vaishnavas as well as Sri Vaishnavas; however, there is a clear distinction made about which texts are included in the devotional literature of each tradition. The Pañcaratra article as it stands now appears to be VERY heavily focused on the Sri Vaishnava perspective, and no clear distinction made between the included texts (and derived beliefs/practices) of each religion. Perhaps there should be a reorganization of this article - but how should this be addressed? --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 17:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree with you Shruti. Nice to hear from you. Would you suggest any online sources. I had a look at Beck and Surendranath Dasgupta. I do not have a specific reliable source for Gaudiya views, but I try to look for it. Yes article is largely Sri Vaisnava oriented and is in a bed shape, I did some initial cleanup. Let me know what you think of the direction. Wikid^as© 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Initial cleanup looks good so far. I don't have any specific reliable online sources at the moment but I'll search for more addressing the Gaudiya position. Srila Prabhupada references Pancaratra literature (and its associated method of worship) in his translation of Srimad Bhagavatam and in his other works; that might be one good place to look. IMHO there needs to be a clearer split in the article separating the Gaudiya and Sri Vaishnava perspectives - where do you suggest this should occur? Article needs help in a lot of other areas as well. I've sent you an email, by the way. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 20:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well resources do not have to be online, while Prabhupada's views are notable, they are often taken as primary sources, except if they represent his specific Gaudiya perspective and have some support from secondary sources. Let us see what you think for the article and see how you can improve the article. Please tag the body and use the talk page. Thanks Shrutiji, Wikid^as© 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Right, I'll have a look at whatever sources I can find; online sources were suggested because they may be most easily accessible. The article at present has virtually no references of any kind; more Sri Vaishnava sources need to be added as well. I've posted on the article's talk page for more discussion to take place. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 21:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Kurt Mausert Hi. You really need to stop puffing up the Kurt Mausert article. A lot of the text you're adding is poorly sourced or uses non-reliable sources). You're also skewing the article towards a WP:POV that's heavily promoting Mausert, which violates policy. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am discussing it with you on the article talk page. Any POV ;-) can be discussed there. (you did not mention it there for some reason...) Wikid^as© Something else Hare Krsna, why did you revert everything? You delete, but what good do you do instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.79.202 (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reverting is good sometimes. I will leave a note for you. Wikid^as© 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] factual error re Prof. Friedhelm Hardy Your entry of 4 Aug 2008 on Friedhelm Hardy contains an important error. Friedhelm Hardy did not convert to Hinduism. He was sympathetic to and learned in in all aspects of Hinduism, but he was not a convert. I have edited the page and changed "one of the first and prominent westerners converted Hindu Professors" to "Professor of Indian Religion". Enverhodja (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Krishnology I am rather annoyed with the deletion of Krishnology. I would have preferred turning it into a redirect without going through AfD, in order to preserve the valuable information in the edit history. I consider this the result of your uncooperative attitude. I do hope we can now work together to produce an encyclopedic discussion of the topic of "Krishna theology" at Krishnaism. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] wait, I see the history has been preserved here. This is a good idea, and I hope we can gradually export the valid items to the live article. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, it looks like article has been userfied as suggested here. Thanks. Wikid^as© 20:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Vanipedia Dear Wikidas I was wondering if you would be interested to write an article entitled "Vanipedia" in Wikipedia. As yet we have no article about this project. Vanipedia's presence is growing daily and it would be good to have it represented on Wikipedia. Please let me know if this interests you. I am contactable at visnu.murti@pamho.net your servant Visnu Murti dasa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.42.40 (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hi Visnumurti, If you send me the list of say 5 or 6 newspaper articles, or couple of books published about the Vanipedia, it will be possible to write an article. Basically, it should be an article that is based on existing published material, see WP:V, WP:OR and most importantly WP:RS. Thank you for asking. Wikid^as© 10:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Great, I will gather some articles that were written and send them to you. Hopefully in the next two days. Then you can see if it is enough material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.73.100 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hi Wikidas these are the articles that i could find that have been written about Vanipedia. Let me know if any of these help, and if you need more info. thanks for helping. Much appreciated. your servant Visnu Murti http://news.iskcon.org/node/1480 http://www.dandavats.com/?p=6641 http://friendsofthebbt.org/vanipedia-first-year http://friendsofthebbt.org/vanipedia http://news.iskcon.org/node/3145 http://friendsofthebbt.org/[title]-109 http://brihadmrdanga.com/?p=1871 http://brihadmrdanga.com/?p=1375 http://www.dandavats.com/?p=7964 http://www.dandavats.com/?p=5232 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.73.100 (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] It will be impossible to build an article on these sources. But you can create a section of an existing article, as for example the article for Prabhupada himself, or you can choose. Better however if you had some actual "newspaper" articles about it. Usually things that are notable have some newspaper reports published. By newspapers I mean not "your own" promotions, but something by "others", like local or national press. Dandavats, brihadmrdanga are "blogs" (it says so on the Dandavats and it is not used in Wikipedia), the friendsofthebbt and iskcon.org are good sources but not intellectually independent, thus it is not possible to create a "separate" article on the topic, in lieu of independent media or press. Was there any TV show made about the subject? Any radio interviews? All that would make it possible, otherwise, just a section in another article of your choice. Wikid^as© 21:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hi Wikidas thanks very much for your honest feedback. The comprehensive nature of Vanipedia's research and presentation should indeed make it very successful in time. I guess we are just not there yet. A little info for you. I founded this project on the 15th of January 2007 when we bought the domain Vanipedia.org. Unbeknown to me, that was the day Wiki turned 6. Now amazingly so, I had not heard of Wiki until only one month previously. Thus it had existed for 6 full years without my knowledge. So after 4 years Vani has come to appreciate very much the ethos of how Wiki runs. While our "wiki" is specific we do draw a lot of inspiration from Wikipedia. We are maybe still (in the eyes of the world) only at the foundational stages of construction. A few people working to get an herculean project rocking. We do not have any independent worldly articles on Vanipedia as yet. Your suggestion to add it on to an existing page (Prabhupada's would be the best) is a good idea. What is the procedure for that? Can you help with this? thanks for taking your time to help me in this learning curve. your servant Visnu Murti dasa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.73.100 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math I am definitely being stopped from expanding the article Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math, The said article has been deleted prejudicially, without proper considering it's notablity or importance. <snip> Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Snthakur, I ask you to follow the correct procedure to appeal the deletion. You can contact administrator who deleted the article to get instructions on how to do it. If you find sources that actually support notability WP:Notability certainly it can be undeleted. So far your sources are not by reliable publishers and not intellectually independent. Wikid^as© 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] AfD Malati Dasi Hello Wikidas. I thought you might be interested to look at this AfD Malati Dasi and take part in the deletion discussion. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] It was a keep vote, sorry I missed the chance due to travel. Wikid^as© 12:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nomination of Yadunandana Swami for deletion The article Yadunandana Swami is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yadunandana Swami until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gaura79 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nomination of Hridaya Caitanya Dasa for deletion The article Hridaya Caitanya Dasa is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hridaya Caitanya Dasa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gaura79 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nomination of Kurt Mausert for deletion The article Kurt Mausert is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Mausert until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gaura79 (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for letting me know. Wikid^as© 08:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Give me a Break! Hello Wikidas! Regarding the ISKCON logo: You are acting as if no organization in the history of planet earth has ever changed its logo after the founder's logo! The article is about ISKCON, not about your personal opinion of what ISKCON should or shouldn't do. Also you act as if I have added some "illegitimate" logo on the page. I have added nothing. I have simply removed a historic logo which does not belong on the masthead. The historic logo certainly has a place on the page, just not on the masthead. 24.21.65.7 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] The logo designed by the founder-acarya has more value as far as Wikipedia goes, than a logo designed by someone else recently for any given reason, is there any particular reason you do not like the original logo? If yes, please state the reason why. We do not disagree with the fact that you could use some other logos (that do change often and regionally in many religious or secular organizations with time). But it is only logical to use first logos first. Do you have reliable third party source suggesting the reasons why the old logo is not valid anymore? Obviously you are not suggesting that Wikipedia policy should follow in any way the promotional nature of commercial style changes? It is not a purpose of Wikipedia, as a new contributor you are welcome to study aims of Wikipedia. It is NOT a resource for conducting business. Wikid^as© 07:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Wow, this is one of the strangest things I have ever read! You are accusing me of "conducting business?" That is bizarre. I'm a bookkeeper. How could correctly editing wikipedia be conducting "business?" Very, very strange. Also your questions are completely irrelevant because they all have to do with opinion and not fact. You claim: "The logo designed by the founder-acarya has more value as far as Wikipedia goes..." Actually no. This article is about ISKCON, and whether you like it or not ISKCON has a new logo. If you don't like it, then you can try to have it changed or include the old logo in a historical perspective. You ask: "is there any particular reason you do not like the original logo?" What I like or dislike is totally irrelevant. The old logo is simply not the ISKCON logo. To say that it is would be a blatant falsehood within wikipedia. It is as simple as that. Whether anybody likes the artwork or not is moot. You ask: "Do you have reliable third party source suggesting the reasons why the old logo is not valid anymore?" Another totally irrelevant question. The reason why the logo was changed is totally separate from the fact that IT WAS CHANGED. What is so difficult about the concept that the ISKCON logo was changed and if people are coming to wikipedia to read about ISKCON, the outdated logo should not be on the masthead? You then go on to accuse me of having some sort of "business interest" in correctly editing wikipedia, even though I'm just a bookkeeper!? Come on, please. You then go on to insinuate that because I am a "new contributor" I have less claim to the facts then you. Wikidas, I respect the amount of time and effort and energy you have placed into wikipedia, but from time-to-time you will be wrong, and that's alright! 24.21.65.7 (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for writing. I appreciate that you want to have something up-to-date. As I said the "current" version of logo was released under a restricted and conditioned copyright notice that just does not allow use on Wikipedia, unless you get Peter releasing it under a different notice. As far as the wikipedia is concerned there is no no harm in displaying a historical logo. It can be 100 year old logo if no other is available. I hope you can understand. I do take your edits in good faith so should you, but repeated removal of content is disruptive (it is good to read up on these policies, so you can not just force the issue without being reasonable or provide an alternative. Wikid^as© 09:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mantra-Rock_Dance/archive1 Hello Wikidas. Since you are interested in the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and ISKCON in particular, I thought to let you know of the ISKCON-related FAC nomination. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Behaviour not up to the standards of Wiki Dear Wikidas, you have clearly expressed your disappreciation of [Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda]. Everybody has their own right to the their oppinion. However, to systematically go fishing around articles where could be references to his work and delete them can hardly be considered ethical and in the spirit of Wikipedia. As I can see from your comments, you dispute the value of a reliable source when his works are being referenced. Reliable sources on Vedanta and Advaita can only include those, who are considered an authority on the subject by those who actually study and follow this teachings. Within Hinduism, the Vedanta and Advaita are followed by the seven Akharas established by Adi Shankaracharya. The Mahanirvani Akhara is considered one of the major ones. If you read the biography of the author for which you dispute source reliability, you will notice that he holds the highest title of Mahamandaleshwar in Hindusim as the memeber of Mahanirvani Akhara. His view is not the view of one yogi, but shared by all followers of Adi Shankaracharya. The Acharya of Panchayati Mahanirvani Akhara said during the Kumbha Mela 2010 in Haridwar that: "... there are many stars among Mahamandaleshwars of Vedanta but among them the very incredible star is Swami Maheshwarananda..." and other member of the governing body said "... Swami Vivekanada also went abroad, but the work of Swami Maheshwarananda is unexcelled... ". The 15min video from Haridwar recorded in Feb 2010 can be seen here. Do you have other information? Atmapuri (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Yadunandana Swami In your opinion, is he notable? If so, how per Wikipedia? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] ANI Notice Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help with Repeated insertion of material regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. New ANI Notice I see you haven't been notified about the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing - Systematical removal of edits out of religious prejudice regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Speedy deletion nomination of Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj A tag has been placed on Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space. If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Wikimedia Stories Project Hello, My name is Victor Grigas, and I'm a storyteller at the Wikimedia foundation. We're telling stories of Wikipedia users, editors, donors, programmers and staff to paint a picture of who uses Wikipedia - for the 2011 fundraiser. I am in the process of planning a trip to India to gather stories from Indian Wikipedians in face-to-face interviews (possibly on video). My primary goal is to conduct 15-20 interviews, and hopefully enough of my interviews will make compelling stories that will effectively solicit donations from the public. These stories may also be used for other communication purposes by the foundation. I found your userpage on a list of prolific Wikipedians and thought I’d reach out to you. Prolific editing is always a good story to tell! If you are interested in participating, please contact me via my email: vgrigas@wikimedia.org Thank you for your time! Victor About me: I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, and have a background in film, video and audio. My userpage can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victorgrigas Images on Krishna Krishna, WP Hinduism GA seems too have one to many images, some violating MoS. As a regular editor, would appreciate your comments here. Thanks! Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj Hare Krushna, I see you have a sandbox for article Kripalu ji maharaj. User talk:Lotusjuice already has created Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj and I made it to dyk. Please review and add missing points. Thank You. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 14:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Removal of unsourced content Thx for removing tagged/unsourced from 'Names of God' (in 2008!). On 'Talk' I had queried a particularly questionable statement/sentence in the article. There was no response. But recently I discovered that you had removed the offending sentence about 6 weeks later! Great! I'll sleep much better now! (True!) Thx again. Regards --Lepton6 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] File permission problem with File:Balakrishna.jpg Thanks for uploading File:Balakrishna.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion. If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) -Not used no more.[reply] I==Help with Jagannath== As a prominent ISKCON related contributor, can you write about Jagannath in Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the ISKCON movement in the article on Jagannath.This is an impotant topic not covered in the present article sids (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think I left a notice that I am busy in real life. So I could be excused for not contributing at the large scale. --Wikid^as© 04 30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)