User talk:Wikidas

Archives

RS discussion

If you think there is an "anti ISKCON conspiracy", why don't you try discussing ISKCON at ISKCON instead of Vedas or Vedanta? It is granted your book may have some notability to ISKCON itself. Don't tout it where it isn't on topic. dab (𒁳) 15:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you here. Its vedic by both principles and academic understanding. Wikidās ॐ 15:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then please read WP:RS. If you can cite academic references, we'll have no problem. ISCKON publications aren't "academic references". dab (𒁳) 15:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This book is cited in academic presentations and was published in the academic journals. So no problem with it citing. Wikidās ॐ 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good, then pray guide us to a review. Where was it reviewed and by whom? dab (𒁳) 15:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has a review and foreword from DR. THOMAS J. HOPKINS Department of Religious Studies Franklin and Marshall College

please also see:

"ICJ - State and Society in Ancient India - Hrydayananda Dasa Goswami". www.iskcon.com. Retrieved 2008-04-20.

"iskcon.com - ISKCON Communications Journal - ICJ". 64.233.183.104. Retrieved 2008-04-20.

Its a clear case... Wikidās ॐ 16:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a clear case that this has no notabilty whatsoever beyond the pages of ISKCON-published literature. A little honesty would stand you in good stead at this point, don't you think. dab (𒁳) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

same goes for you thanks. Wikidās ॐ 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration in not having your edits approved (to say the least) by the Wikipedia community. However, my reference to WP:FAITH was in that you had attacked other editors with unfair terms such as "ISKCON-hating folk" and deemed a non-existent "anti-ISKCON conspiracy" as the cause of this disapproval, prompting me to remind you of WP:FAITH. I will say that there was an ISKCON leaning to many articles that lacked adequate and/or appropriate coverage of more "mainstream" traditional groups within Vaishnavism/Hinduism, something that is largely being taken care of thanks to cooperative collaboration. The editors against your point of view fear that what has been termed as an "ISKCON bias" will return to the articles, and are attempting to maintain a more neutral and comprehensive point of view that does not put too much weight on a specific "non-traditional" sectarian group. (Note that I didn't say non-Scripture-following - that is an arguable point that is ultimately in the view of the believer.) In any case, the editors had only good intentions and my reminder to assume good faith was simply in reference to your unfair accusations towards well-intentioned editors. I can understand why you feel that there were "personal attacks" against you, although I am certain that most of the editors did not have any such specific attack in mind. I understand that you disagree with their point of view, but increased tension will only be problematic for yourselves and Wikipedia, so might I suggest a reasonable compromise with the editors to which all sides can agree on? --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your religious differences and past confrontations, I humbly request you to please avoid any future confrontation with Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA or making any statements that may come across as personal attacks against Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA. The situation will only escalate and become worse by not doing so. I have requested Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA to do the same. Thanks. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 05:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna article

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

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

Radhika Ramana Dasa

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

WP:TALK

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

Shrinathji

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

Re: Your question

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

Re: Request

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

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

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

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

Hi - Just came around to say tht Iv added a line on Bhagwan Swaminarayan along with a reference on the Svayam Bhagavan page. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoption

Well, if you want adoption, I could do it. Lord knows your field of main interest isn't exactly my specialty, and I acknowledge that up front, but I'd be willing to help as I can. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, I would appreciate it. You need to change my tag on the first page, please. Regards, Wikidās ॐ 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacinandana Swami in Washington Square News

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

Recent edits to Bhagwan Swaminarayan Page

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

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

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

Swaminarayan Project

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urmila Devi Dasi

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