User talk:Syamadas/2008Archive
AfD nomination of Srirupa Siddhanti
[edit]I have nominated Srirupa Siddhanti, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srirupa Siddhanti. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MBest-son (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Vamana Maharaja
[edit]I have nominated Vamana Maharaja, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vamana Maharaja. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MBest-son (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Syamadas Hello! Thank you for your note. I am not sure what is worse to have article that is deficient or not to have anything. Many hindu leaders do not have an article and are perfectly happy with that, in fact to say nothing is better then to say something bad or deficient, one who creates the articles should be more careful to update them. MBest-son (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD nominations of articles about Hindusim and Hindus
[edit]Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism to see the discussions about several articles related to Hindusim or individual religious leaders. Perhaps you could improve one or more of the articles by adding references. You may also want to participate in the discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to add another tradition to the list
[edit]| Invitation to create a Krishna centered Hinduism project | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Please discuss it here. Wikidās ॐ 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Bhaktivedanta Narayana again, third time
[edit]Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana (3rd nomination) John Z (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
How is Bhaktivedanta Narayana a Hindu acharya? How is he an acharya anymore than any other living Hindu guru? There needs to be reliable sources to back up his inclusion in the Acharya article. If you have these sources, please provide them so it will not look like just any other living guru trying to be called an Acharya. I look forward to reviewing any reliable sources you provide. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
purebhakti.com as a source
[edit]I completely understand your reason for using the purebhakti website as a source were well-intentioned, and pages on the website may be relevant in certain situations; however, the particular pages used from purebhakti are probably not the best choices as sources, and let me explain why. Purebhakti.com may be an appropriate source in certain situations; however, the particular pages used as sources from the website may not be considered reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. For example, let's use the ISKCON website you mentioned on my talk page as an example. A simple link to its front page, or an invitation to an ISKCON-specific event posted on the website, would not be an appropriate source, since neither would be considered a "credible published material with a reliable publication process" relevant to the article, as specified on the official policy on the subject. However, a link to, for example, a specific article from the ISKCON Communications Journal or another official ISKCON publication, could be used to illustrate the ISKCON perspective or opinion on a specific, relevant issue, if such an opinion is relevant and appropriate for the article. Similarly, the invitation on the purebhakti website would not be considered a "reliable source" for a Wikipedia article. However, if the opinion of the followers of Sri Narayana Maharaja was relevant and appropriate for a specific article, a specific article or official publication from purebhakti may be used if: it meets the criteria mentioned above and in the policy, it accurately represents the followers' perspective on the issue, and it is relevant and appropriate for the article. Also, while it was certainly well-intentioned, a link to any website that offers books and ebooks for download or purchase, including this one, is inappropriate for Wikipedia, in part because the website itself would not qualify as a reliable source per Wikipedia policy, and in part because there are so many of them (some of them which are of questionable legality) and none would be absolutely vital to the article. A better alternative, would be to cite a specific book or page of a book, to illustrate the perspective of followers of Sri Narayana Maharaja where appropriate, and link to the appropriate book itself in the reference (not the download page). (Google Books, for example, has been used to refer to the appropriate pages of a book in the past - see the Krishna article as an example of this.) I apologize for the lengthy explanation :) as well as any confusion on the subject. If you would like more information, see the official Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, and if you disagree or are confused about the usage of purebhakti or any other site as a reliable source, I strongly recommend that you post on the reliable sources noticeboard, where more experienced editors than myself will be happy to help. Thanks. --Shruti14 t c s 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
helpme
[edit]{{helpme}}
Wikidas continues to delete facts, nominate for deletion, Blpdispute, notability, anything he can to remove Bhaktivedanta_Narayana from any mention or page on wikipedia without trying to improve wikipedia or the entries thus relating to this.
This page has been nominated 3 times for deletion by him.
He indeed believes it is better for Wikipedia to delete every article that he can talk his fellow deletion-ists into voting for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhaktivedanta_Narayana&limit=100&action=history
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syamadas (talk • contribs)
- Disputes can be handled through the dispute resolutions process, and concernes regading inappropriate conduct can be raised for community inspection through one of the Disruptive editing forums, specifically at WP:ANI. You can also request assistance at the WP:WQA.
- Hope this helps, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Jaakobou is giving you good advice. Wikipedia has plenty of avenues to pursue dispute resolution. In general I advise you to keep as civil and cool as you can, to make edits according to the rules and not worry too much about other people or let them get under your skin. I am personally glad you are working on the Bhaktivedanta Narayana article, you know infinitely more than me, and I had promised to work on it. If there is anything particular that you think should be in there but are having trouble keeping in, I would be glad to help. As long as one is patient, and has reason and usable sources on one's side, disputes tend to resolve in an acceptable way. I hope this helps a little too. Cheers,John Z (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and good job starting the Prajnana Kesava article. Might be some more good sources in one of the Bhaktivedanta AfD's, perhaps you have access to some of the harder to find i.e. not online ones. Underscoring Bhaktivedanta Narayana's notability, I just came across a reference to him (with a different spelling) in a general work on religion (not just Hinduism) in the modern world.John Z (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Jaakobou's advice - that would be the best way to resolve your dispute. However, because the two editors (Ism schism and Wikidas) have had prior disagreements, they are certainly not sockpuppets of each other. --Shruti14 t c s 13:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I can understand Syamadas, since Bhaktivedanta Narayana is his Guru-Deva, any action against him is an action of most degraded nature. Is it on Wiki? I would remind him, that it was me who added every single reliable source to the article about him, edited the article free from peacock honorifics and weasel words and voted to keep it in the very first nomination. It just reverts back to its old advertisement status. The purposes of the editors who are impartial to the subject in the way of him being Guru-Deva, often lead to this. The only way to keep the article objective and strictly to the guidelines of the WP:BLP is to quote reliable third party sources, and not own blogs and biographies. It is encyclopaedia and not some guru circus; where I am issued with threats not to commit 'the worst possible sin' of 'vaishnava aparadha' by removing dead links or inappropriate references. I know Maharaja for over 15 years and personally, and I know that he always was a 'bordeline case' for notability as far as Wikipedia material on his own. Since he has gained the notability as reflected or associated with ISKCON and his relationship with some ISKCON leaders from 1985 to 1994, I have concluded that it is THIS fact to be noted and is the subject of notability, not his personality, that is not be notable otherwise. That is my conclusion and I stick with it. I could be wrong, but unlikely to change my view just because of treats:-) If the editors were strictly to follow the rules of the Wikipedia as far as BLPs are concerned, I will see no problem with writing about him, but in accordance with Reliable sources noticeboard, his publications are not reliable sources, so stop adding them, its just a form of spam (on Wiki especially for topics outside of 'the beliefs' of the followers of BN - it is not to be used in Wikipedia). So far its me who is the ingured party, and its me who should be starting dispute resolution, because the user threatens me me personally and does not even bother to check that I am the one who voted and added the sources to the article [that need to be renamed I suggest to reflect the sources] in the first place. I am of course would be honored to be a sock of Ism:-) but unfortunately =;) that is just another product of imagination by Syama that is nothing else but personal attacks based on his beliefs. Wikidās ॐ 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Wikidas. I agree that people should always be civil and not make unfounded accusations, and am glad that you are being so calm about it. I am glad we came to rough agreement at RS/N. I would like to point out that a person's or organizations claims about themselves can fall into the category of uncontentious facts, if they are reported as claims, not facts, in the article text. You are pointing out a real problem in many Hinduism articles. They are often either too positive and based on iffy sources, but then a reaction sets in and too much is thrown out. The solution is to not argue so much about sources, but to write neutrally. There is no more widespread consensus on reliable sources than the agreement that it always depends on the context and how the source is used. Cheers,John Z (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I can understand Syamadas, since Bhaktivedanta Narayana is his Guru-Deva, any action against him is an action of most degraded nature. Is it on Wiki? I would remind him, that it was me who added every single reliable source to the article about him, edited the article free from peacock honorifics and weasel words and voted to keep it in the very first nomination. It just reverts back to its old advertisement status. The purposes of the editors who are impartial to the subject in the way of him being Guru-Deva, often lead to this. The only way to keep the article objective and strictly to the guidelines of the WP:BLP is to quote reliable third party sources, and not own blogs and biographies. It is encyclopaedia and not some guru circus; where I am issued with threats not to commit 'the worst possible sin' of 'vaishnava aparadha' by removing dead links or inappropriate references. I know Maharaja for over 15 years and personally, and I know that he always was a 'bordeline case' for notability as far as Wikipedia material on his own. Since he has gained the notability as reflected or associated with ISKCON and his relationship with some ISKCON leaders from 1985 to 1994, I have concluded that it is THIS fact to be noted and is the subject of notability, not his personality, that is not be notable otherwise. That is my conclusion and I stick with it. I could be wrong, but unlikely to change my view just because of treats:-) If the editors were strictly to follow the rules of the Wikipedia as far as BLPs are concerned, I will see no problem with writing about him, but in accordance with Reliable sources noticeboard, his publications are not reliable sources, so stop adding them, its just a form of spam (on Wiki especially for topics outside of 'the beliefs' of the followers of BN - it is not to be used in Wikipedia). So far its me who is the ingured party, and its me who should be starting dispute resolution, because the user threatens me me personally and does not even bother to check that I am the one who voted and added the sources to the article [that need to be renamed I suggest to reflect the sources] in the first place. I am of course would be honored to be a sock of Ism:-) but unfortunately =;) that is just another product of imagination by Syama that is nothing else but personal attacks based on his beliefs. Wikidās ॐ 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Jaakobou is giving you good advice. Wikipedia has plenty of avenues to pursue dispute resolution. In general I advise you to keep as civil and cool as you can, to make edits according to the rules and not worry too much about other people or let them get under your skin. I am personally glad you are working on the Bhaktivedanta Narayana article, you know infinitely more than me, and I had promised to work on it. If there is anything particular that you think should be in there but are having trouble keeping in, I would be glad to help. As long as one is patient, and has reason and usable sources on one's side, disputes tend to resolve in an acceptable way. I hope this helps a little too. Cheers,John Z (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Prajnana Kesava
[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Prajnana Kesava, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. I would however support un-deleltion, if reliable sources are found. I can volunteer to write a proper article on this personality, please supply your list of references for this. At the moment previous deletion was filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prajnana Kesava. There is a due process that needs to follow in order to restore this article that involves supporting notability sources by notable or third party sources. Wikidās ॐ 14:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What's up?
[edit]Hi there. You used popups to revert a number of pages back to old versions, some several years old, but didn't leave an edit summary. Was there a reason for these edits? I've reverted your changes for the moment. - Eureka Lott 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
There was a user User:212.117.126.138 that put a lot of spam up i was following their changes and reverting sorry if i messsed up Syama (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)