User talk:Redtigerxyz/Archive 3

British Raj article

Your participation in removing bias from the current British Raj article is appreciated. A small group of people have overtaken this article to show British rule in India in a highly exaggerated positive light without any discussion of large scale atrocities, suppression of rights, racist policies, general looting of national wealth. See discussion at British Raj Neutrality Check DiscussionDesione (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dante's Cove delist discussion

Hey, thanks for the heads up on the discussion. I have some other articles I've gotten promoted, maybe you'd like to put them under discussion and not tell me about it too? Otto4711 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Hi Redtigerxyz. I currently have Kannada literature in PR. Kindly visit the article and provide your valuable thoughts how I could improve the article.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ayyappan Page

I don't know if it's appropriate to ask you this, but have you had a look at the article about Lord Ayyappa? I think it may be in need of some of your excellent attention. It appears to be more of a sort of online shrine, than a wikipedian article. There's a lot of information which appears to be the personal mystical experience of one author. I don't know the topic well enough myself to edit it properly, but it seems to be in a pitiable state. --AaronCarson (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON work group or subproject?

Hello. I see you have made contributions to ISKCON related articles. If you are interested, there is a discussion concerning an ISKCON subproject located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavism group

In fact, the Hinduism banner doesn't support the Vaishnavism group yet, although it could probably be changed fairly easily to do so. Can you suggest a specific public domain image to include for the Vaishnavism template? John Carter (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably go for the image of Vishnu myself, as the tilak image might be less than immediately understandable to a lot of editors. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter, the Vishnu image might be more identifiable. And, thank you Redtigerxyz for providing these images. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jodhaa Akbar

How have you been?? Long time...

Your recent message on Talk:Jodhaa Akbar was amazingly precise.

Please see Talk:Jodhaa Akbar#Jodha Bai history. I said the same. But this user was reverting my edits continuously. I tried to collaborate, but he wouldn't.

Also, I started a discussion on there.

The subject doesn't really interest me, and I don't really have a POV here, but the problem is that emphasis, misrepresentation, POV freak me out. And my analysis on the page clearly shows that this user was trying to emphasise his own POV. Regardless of what Akbar's wife's real name was, I think we have to present views fairly, not to make conclusions. I believe that the best way to present the matter is, "according to several historians, Jodhaa Bai was not the name of Akbar's wife" and not "Jodhaa Bai never existed". That's why I have written a new version of the text.

This user ignored my analysis. He tries to present his POV as a fact. I personally have no POV. Whether she was Jodhaa Bai or not -- I don't really care. I do care for the way it is written on the page. Historians' views cannot be considered as pure facts, especially considering they are just views and there isn't any concievable evidence to justify it.

But now your message supports my initial view that this info is completely irrelevant to this article. I still think it doesn't belong to this article. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavism work group

The Hinduism banner is set up for assessments for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism work group now. Please feel free to join the project if you are so interested. One option which might be open to you, if you were to so request it, would be to request at Wikipedia:Bot requests the automatic tagging for articles in one or more given categories for the new work group. If you were to want any help setting up such a list, please feel free to contact me. Unfortunately, what with various other things to occupy my time, I don't think I'll be able to do much personally with the group for a while yet. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Matrikas

Please let me know if you need any more images for that article. I may have some nice images of Sapta Matriaks in my collection.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Venkateswara discussion page

Dear Redtigerxyz, you wrote some time back the following on the discussion page of Venkateswara:

"The article at severe times says Venkateswara is "supreme god". This against the WP:NEUTRAL policy" According to the original principles of the Sri Sampradayam, to various supported puranic text and Sadhus; Venkateswara is the form of Vishnu for this age of kali as mention in many Sastras. Since He is Vishnu or Narayana...He is the "Supreme God", who is also mention in the original Vedas, main Upanishads, sattvic Puranas, the laws of Manu,by the original Vaishnava saints-the Alwars,by Ramanujacharya as the First and "Supreme God". That is Sastra, Sadhu and Dharma (Scriptures, holy men and tradition). That is what this article-writer is trying to say. In the philosophical context of the Religion; it is not against the WP:NEUTRALpolicy. I also see that you have helped with ISKON articles. And, I know that alot of ISKON people do not know about Venkatesha, because of the belief of Sri Krishna and Caitanya Maha-Prabhu. The awareness, knowledge and scripturally back premise that Venkateswara is God to be Worship by all in the kali yuga is unrefuted by the alwars, Yamunacharya, Ramanujacharya (who is suppose to be in the disciplic line of Gaudiya Sampradayam), Vedanta desika, and by Scripture, which is the most important. If you like, I can send you some websites and the names and email address of Sri Sampradayam Scholars that can prove what I said to be truth and absolute FACT.Zeuspitar Govinda Ramanuja dasa(talk) 19:41, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Redtigerxyz, Hey! every thing is cool! Actually, I hope and pray that I didnt come off too harsh or too fanatical. I was thinking about this all night. If I did, please, please forgive me. Actually, I better cool it on that too. I hope you have a good day. .Zeuspitar Govinda Ramanuja dasa(talk) 09:41, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

Avataras of Vishnu

Redtiger, I am from South India and I should know well. Balarama is considered an incarnation of Adi Sesha and not Sri Maha Vishnu. In some Puranas it was argued that Vishnu has 10 Avataras (Garuda Purana) and in some other like Bhagavatha Purana, He has about 21. But when Dasavataras are concerned, Balarama was not considered an Avatara of Sri Maha Vishnu. Legend has it that Sage Durvasa infuriated by King Ambarisha's lack of hospitality curses him to undergo further 10 lives. Ambarisha would then pray to Lord Vishnu and he was delivered from the curse and Lord Vishnu assumes the curse and takes birth as Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Prashurama, Sri Rama, Sri Krishna, Buddha, Kalki.

But in the later stage of evolution of Bhakti movement, especially the Chaitanya Maha Prabhu and Nimbarka Sampradayas, Balarama was considered an Avatara of Lord Vishnu, to downplay the growth of Buddhism and Jainism in India.

To quote you another example, after the Yadu Vamsha was annihilated by the curse of Gandhari, Sri Balarama attains niryana by going into the sea, sheds his mortal coil and becomes a white Maha Sesha. Refer to Mahabharata, Mausala Parva.

Just as mentioned in Vedas, "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahmasi", all this creation is a manifestation of Lord. We are not in a position to adjudge the number of Avataras of Lord. With all his innumerable forms and manifestations, He is always there and we are the least known beings in the Universe anything about Him.

Harishaluru (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Harish Aluru

Dasavataras of Vishnu

It is quite surprising you keep adding Balarama to the template despite the fact that you call this Dasa avataras. Dasa would mean 10 and with Balarama that would be eleven.

And check the example you quoted. That is said by some Mr. Jain et al... Do you really think Jain is a common last name in SOUTH India. I have seen your contributions and you seem to have done some really good work on Hinduism related articles (Kudos!!!). But please check before you make any corrections.

Even (though incorrect!) just buy your idea for a second that Balarama is considered one of 10 avataras in South India. But Wikipedia is meant to be a platform of majority opinion, not a whimsical anthology of a few guys from that hypothetical South India.

Harishaluru (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Harish Aluru

Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion

Hello Redtigerxyz. I have added the above discussion discussion to the Vaishnavism Wikiproject talk page at, Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion. Please feel free to add any comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Chamunda

On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chamunda, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional section to Bhakti yoga article

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

Revanta

On 22 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revanta, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kali (demon)

Thank you for doing some work on the article after the failed GA. I think some of the points raised by the reviewer were a little ridiculous, but I know the page needed some work. I just have not updated it for a long time. I've been very busy with other projects, otherwise I would have made the changes myself. You would not believe how long it took me to amass such a large amount of info on such a poorly reported figure! I would say 99% of the articles that I write are in some way connected to a book (use to be books) that I am writing. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GAR:Ali

Hi, Thanks for your review. I think it's good to inform User:Mpatel who is copy-editing the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check my comments and editions. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check my answers to your requests.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mahamadans

Hello, i been hearing that Muhammad is in the Vedas and i actually went through some of them and noticed Muhammad is mentioned in the Vedas. Do you think an article should be created for the text on Mahamad ? leave message on my talk page and let me know think and i can line up what i have. --Mohun (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Shayani Ekadashi

On 30 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shayani Ekadashi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ali

Hi, I did most of what should be done. Please check them. Frankly, as a reviewer of Good articles, I'm not satisfied whit some of your viewpoints and put Invalid tag before them. In some cases the issue wasn't clear. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, In some cases I couldn't understand the problem and put question mark. I would be happy if you explain which problems have been remained in details, so that I can improve the article further. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't disagree, but I hope you would spend more time and tell me your criticism in detail.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bath Abbey

Are you reviewing it? Because you placed an on review on the talkpage but didn't update the GAN page... --Relata refero (disp.) 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vaisnava-Sahajiya and Vaishnavism

Please note the discussion on Vaisnava-Sahajiya and Vaishnavism, per Sri Ramananda Raya article. The discussion is located at, Vaisnava-Sahajiya and Vaishnavism. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks bro! For review and suggestions on Sikh.Shalimer (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Viking funeral

I have tried to address your comments on Viking funeral with some help from Bloodofox. I hope that the present version is more satisfactory. Best,--Berig (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have further modified the article according to your suggestions.--Berig (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality on Venkateshwara

Dear Redtigerxyz, Hey, I want to discuss the neutrality on Venkata. How about saying that he is incarnation or form of Vishnu, instead of the supreme God? It does sound...not neutral to others beliefs in Hinduism. I'll go ahead and change it and just let me know what you think. Namaskar. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help in improving Viking funeral and for passing it as a GA. As you suggested, I will nominate Midvinterblot as well. Best,--Berig (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Jodhaa Akbar

Hello Redtigerxyz!!! Your help is very much needed.

This user keeps adding silly info re Jodhaa Bai and her name. Please come, I think we'll have to remove it completely if he continues. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying all historians are silly? You are trying to create an impression as if the movie is mostly correct when infact the name jodha itself is the biggest lie in being the wife of akbar.

Have you found one peer reviewed reference whom you can quote who says jodha was the wife of akbar?

We can take this matter to ANI if you are interested.

I am quite tired of your diatribe against me.

Itihaaskar (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an WP:UNDUE to the article. It's high time you get it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a page protection, but we must do something, it cannot be led in this way. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bettering Venkateshwara page

Hey, Redtiger, I am very thankful that we can help each other, comprimise with one another to improve articles. It actually is quite nice and fun. Please let me know what is wrong and I'll change them. Can you please help with the Sri sukta and Sri Vaishnava page.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvements on Venkatesh. page

Dear everyone, Hey, I really think that the changes that everyone has made to the Venkatesh. page are wonderful. It looks alot better than before. It's more stream lined, cleaner, and more user-friendly. I am very glad to have worked with you all in making this much better page than it was before. And, I am very thankful to have done this seva/kainkarya/devotional service to Vishnu and the public.Love and Namaskar. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Helping in the "Swayam Bhagavan" page

Dear Redtiger, Hey, I wanted to ask if I can help out with the swayam bhagavan page. I will be respectful and work fairly with others. But, some of the things mentioned in the page and discussion is very questionable, and I will like to help clairify in a cooperative manner.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Any way I can rope you into...

...doing a GA review of Mirth & Girth? I don't normally do direct requests, but I get the impression it wouldn't be reviewed 'til mid-May if I just left it to chance.

And I promise the article will be interesting. :-D

Thanks! —Rob (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Editing

Dear Redtiger, thank you very much for editing my user page. It was very thoughtful of you. Love and Namaskar. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mirth & Girth

I happened to be up ridiculously early today, but I left a reply on the talk page. I won't be back for about 3 hours though. —Rob (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The RFC syntax is broken on the talk page - I don't know where you requested the RFC, so I can't fix it. Can you? Thanks! —Rob (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed your concerns. The Chicago Tonight section should stay - it relates directly to the Mirth & Girth controversy. —Rob (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN:Cultural depictions of spiders

I think I have addressed your concerns there. Forgive my excitement as this is the first GA article that I have heavily edited.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for promoting the article to GA status.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hindu category

As far as I could tell they were redundant categories and disorganized. Is there a difference between gods and deities? Most of the articles referred to them as "deities", and that category seemed to be more complete, so I started moving the "gods" category into that one. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:National Museum of Beirut my reply

> * Expand lead to emcompass all major points discussed in article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• hi and thank you for ure effort, i expanded the lead a bit, but i'm not quite sure if "notable" and "fame" are objectionable words here. thank you for your reply.Eli+ 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nara-Narayana

The article wasn't as much of a personal essay as it was unsourced. Thanks for adding the refs - the article is beginning to see more improvement. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay, you got a DYK.

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

--Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits on Svayam Bhagavan page

Dear Redtiger, I have made some edits on the Svayam Bhagavan page. Please let me know what you think and any suggestions. Namaskar.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Redtiger, the reason I put "the personality of Godhead" was to make sound more iskcony because of the style of the page, that all. Please give me any comments of the edits I did on the page...this page has a lot of work to be done on it.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kalasha dyk well done!

On 30 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kalasha, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/krishnaimage/

Hi; you removed this link with a note saying 'dead'; it is very much alive as far as I can see, and I put it back. If you think there's something else wrong with it, please let me know. Thanks. Imc (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Further to your message, the link was working for me when I added it, on the evening of the 29th April, and it was working when I readded it yesterday, the 30th. And it is working now, on the 1st May. The subsidiary links from the article page e.g. [1] are also working. There are two main possible reasons for it to be consistently unavailable to you but not to me. The first is the different times of day that we use for the visit, if the website is on a daily quota which has run out by the time you check. The second, because your ISP may have blocked it (for a comparison, my ISP has blocked the quite inoffensive www.tree-care.info). I have checked for it on the ODP at [2] and this shows that there are five listings. Since the ODP runs an automated linkchecker that filters out unavailable sites, including the time limited ones, I'm guessing that the problem is with your ISP. Incidentally, there are other good articles elsewhere on this website, also worth reading.. Regards. Imc (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Svayam Bhagavan article

Redtiger, can you please help with the S.B. article. Please look at the edits of mine and wikidas's. Can you please help with the article. It appears there might be some friction between wikidas and myself again. I really would like to contest alot with what has been put on this article. Please Help.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Redtiger, I need your help with dealing with wikidas. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

LaxmiNarayan Dev

Hi,

Iv seen your work on the Narnarayan Dev page, good stuff! I was thinking of making a Laxminarayan Dev page, but did not have much information - could you help out?

With regards to Gadis of the Swaminarayan Sampraday - Gadi is something like a seat. There are two different seats. I intend on adding more sections to both pages tht will be totally diff.

Thanks, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Do u mean info on the Nara-Narayana (We say NarNarayan Dev - prob the same thing) page? Wheredevelsdare (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hv added a section on the Nara Narayana Page with regards to the Swaminarayan Sampraday - lemme no wht u think. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Get ur point - but the sites part of the sampraday - info from it can be used here for the purpose of educating people about the sampraday. I hv changed the wording to fit into wikipedia standards. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ashtalakshmi.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashtalakshmi.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

NarNarayan Dev Gadi and LaxmiNarayan Dev Gadi merger

After the merger tag being put, I have added info on respective Acharyas as well as subordinate org. info (on the NarNarayan Dev Gadi page). This makes the two pages very different, hence can you pl. remove the proposed merger tag? Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

More Mirth & Girth

All right, I've tried to distill the section on African-American responses. Hoping that the balance of the article is maintained. Let me know what you think. —Rob (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Template???

Its part of an intricate design used on the Shri Swaminarayan temples page. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the type of architecture that was used in the article tht I borrowed from - dont know much of this. W/O this on top it dosnt show properly.Wheredevelsdare (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the change of pic u made on the Laxminarayan page. I dont mind u changing it - but dont u think having a pic of murtis would be better than a stone carving? We could hv a pic of only Laxminarayan Dev and not with anyone else (unlike the previous Vadtal one). Wheredevelsdare (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the Swaminarayan Template that I created. The main purpose is to maintain neutrality within the Swaminarayan sect which has different branches. The branches share many of the same ideas and neutrality is needed so the purpose is to incorporate everything. If you have any more questions, ask me.    Juthani1   ^tcs 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. You had retouched this image for me (Image:Somanathapura Keshava temple.JPG). Can you get rid of the date stamp also?. I could just reload this image and crop the water mark, but all your hard work in retouching the image would be lost. So I thought its better to request you. There are a few more images that need some retouch work and watermark removal, if and when you have time. please Let me know. thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Radha Ramana

On 22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Radha Ramana, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD: Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs

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

For a consessus

Redtiger Hi! re: WP:KRISHNA, I thought you may want to check the proposal of merger and cast your vote in relation of the additional section to article Krishna. Thanks. --Wikidās-ॐ 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope, update and voting Whats new at Krishna's project Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism - whats new and happening! Discussion on the scope of the project: Krishna-worship. First DYK of he project Radha Ramana 22nd May 2008 Pages under construction Radha Krishna, Bala Krishna, Krishnaism. Consensus is now reached on the proposal of merger of the new article Krishna Vasudeva into a separate section of Krishna here: Please note the results of the vote on the proposal of merging new article on early worship of Krishna Vasudeva to the main article dedicated to the Hindu deity Krishna. Krishna Vasudeva may have been worshiped in 4 century BC as a monotheistic deity. This article is to be incorporated in a separate section of Krishna article. Also, if you are ready to help with editing and assessment of the scope, please see the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. While the name of the project is WikiProject Krishnaism in common language many seems to prefer a wider term "Vaishnavism", which however appeared to relate to Vishnu. Krishnaism is more of an academic term. On the other hand even one of the first Indologists to use the term, Albrecht Weber was to consider that that the essence of Krishnaism, bhakti or the principle of "God is love", was pre-Christian. There were and are many traditions where Krishna is worshiped and His names revered. There was a discussion (and a heated one) on the scope of the project and the term here. Currently the scope is quite wide and aims at improving articles related to Radha-Krishna and associated traditions where they are worshiped: Manipuri Vaishnavas, Bhagavata, Gaudiya Vaishnava, Nimbarka sampradaya, Swaminarayana sampradaya, Vallabha sampradaya; If you see a need to widen or restrict the scope please voice your opinion - it is wanted! Just leave a few words here.

AW

Redtiger, I had clarified diff here with a reason. I accept, of course, that its a Vishnu temple, but as an architectural monument it relates to the subject as it provides illustrations to the point. Please feel free to discuss it further. Thanks, Wikidās-ॐ 07:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Vitthala

Here is some research material by Dr. Kulkarni, Dr. Dhere and others on the deity[3].Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

dyk nom

On 28 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bala Krishna, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

nom

I appreciate your suggestions. Please of course note that I am not really a member of Hinduism Wikiproject as such. But that can be a hairsplitting difference. Will do other things you mention. It appears that some items on the list are terribly delayed. Wikidās-ॐ 08:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)