User talk:Wikidas/archive2

• Hello Wikidas. Your recent edits on Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's references are really first class and some of the best I have ever seen on Wikipedia! Ism schism (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is now a Vaishnava project located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism. Any Vaishnava related discussions can be listed here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wikidas. I have added the above discussion (from the Krishna talk page) to the Vaishnavism Wikiproject talk page at, Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion. Please feel free to add any comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added a few cents there. Wikidās

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Svarupa Damodara, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/sastra/literature/texts/svarupa.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is a stub. References to original material addedd. http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/sastra/literature/texts/svarupa.htm. is not original source and does not hold a copyright on the information published by other authors.

BTW others contributions are welcome on this particular topic.Wikidās ॐ

Please make this much much smaller. The amount of information it presents is irrelevant for most pages it is on. At worst it should just be a stub at the bottom of the articles, at best it shouldn't exist... Chopper Dave (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Please expain (rational) reasons for the above suggestion, except for your POV.Wikidās

Hello Wikidas. Thank you for working on this template. If I may add my few cents, I think it might be better if centered on Prabhupadas' sampradaya as is done on the template at the bottom of Swaminarayan Sampraday's page for his sampradaya. I really appreciate all of the work you have been doing for the Vaishnava project. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chopper Dave, the template in it's current form seems too "over the top". Although I applaud the idea of having a template, I would prefer it were made smaller, and specific to Gaudiya Vaishnavism generally, rather than to "Prabhupada's Lord Caitanya Sampradya" which is a total ISKCON-ism. What does that even mean in scholarly terms? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It was supposed to be ISKCONism. As its for the ISKCON people to use (if they want to). I will look at making it smaller.. But if to be honest its hardly Gaudia Vaisnava in general its specific line of acaryas, so Gaudia Vaisnava will not fit as a suggested title by GourangaUK.Wikidās ॐ

Wikidas, I believe you have made a good start on this template. I agree with your comment on the "specific line of acaryas" needing to be mentioned. The templeate could show Prabhupada and ISKCON's place in the Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya sampradaya via ISKCON's line of acharyas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wikidas, I have started adding the template to articles relevant. I appreciate your work on this. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikidas, even IF...I wrote the message to Ism Schism with incorrect spelling. You had no reason to come and edit A PERSONAL MESSAGE, between the both of us. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It if adds to the weight of the message (or lack of it)... Wikidās 08:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your entire above message should not only be corrected, but should be removed to comply with WP policies:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".WP:LIVING

The above message (Private claimed is actually PUBLIC) did not place any reliable sourse in the text that is about LP. Content like that should be removed. Please see:WP:LIBEL - all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. That applies to both main text articles, personal pages and Talk pages. If not removed it will be reported to Administrators. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ....wow, you have the nerve!

Thats typical for An....ISKON (and notice that I spelt it wrong, just for you)This is the Typical behavior for you guys....Long sorid history, for your group! Filled with petty, neurotic things and actions like this. This is WHAT kind of person your are and your "group".Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs) It is not typical for us to misspell Sri Sampradaya. Out history is not so long, unlike yours. With kind regards, Wikidās ॐ 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I will be spelling ISKCON correctly for now. Namaskar Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! If you're going to reject all negative references in SDG's page, you need to defend your position on the discussion page. Accusing people of vandalism is a cheap shot. 75.117.52.108 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP in regard of controversial material insertion.

Please note that it is the policy that editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies.WP:LIVING for more see your own talk page.

Wikidās ॐ 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The information was there for many months. You deleted it. I'm just restoring it in a more sensitive way.75.117.52.108 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, 75.117.52.108.Please note that all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. This is the policy that should be enforced and is being enforced by me on a number of edits. See also my other reverts: [[1]] Hope this helps. Wikidās ॐ 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. _GB^T/C 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort it out on the talk page. Page protection is not for content disputes. _GB^T/C 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the information is neither libelous, nor unsourced or poorly sourced, or particularly controversial. He's put his views forward on the talk page - I suggest you discuss it with him there. _GB^T/C 16:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

He has said that the information is sourced from the person's own website. See this edit. _GB^T/C 17:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As GB says, the material is from his own website and could barely be described as contentious. If you revert again you are very likely to be blocked. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. _GB^T/C 17:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not determined by the number of categories an article is placed in. Having more categories is not better than having fewer categories.

An article is not supposed to be placed in both a category and a subcategory of that category. For example, if the article was on blue eyed tomcats, one would not place it in ALL of the categories 'cats', 'tomcats' and 'blue eyed tomcats', just in 'blue eyed tomcats', which would be a subcategory of 'tomcats' which would be a subcategory of 'cats'.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are the extracts that you are quoting on the talk page from public domain documents ? If not, you may be violating copyright law as well as wikipedia policies by copying and pasting them here (usually a couple of sentences is fine, as that is considered fair use). I would recommend that you delete the extensive quotes and instead add links or references to the original source; that will also enable other editors to judge if they are from reliable sources and usable in the article. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks have declaration of consent. So this one is fine.

The copyright issues is also pertinent to the text you apparently quoted here. if those are your own words, then it is ok as far as copyright is concerned. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did not get one from here. But its public domain as is evident from the url.Wikidās ॐ 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand. Can you please explain, which quote and which URL you are referring to ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

here is the url. Its printed right under the quote. Wikidās ॐ 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that this is public domain ? The project main page says that all content is copyrighted by ELMAR Project. please be more careful in the future.

PS: Is there a particular reason you have disallowed section editing on your talk page and moved the TOC to the bottom of the page; it makes collaborative editing more difficult and is thus not advisable. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<---Please keep this line alway below your text or comment--->

A tag has been placed on Larry Shinn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —BradV 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, after the recent Afd discussions on ISKCON leaders, I must admit to you that I was wrong concerning the articles Sacinandana Swami and Indradyumna Swami. If there are any related articles that you feel need to be created, please let me know and I will work with you. I have already began work on an ISKCON article, Gour Govinda Swami‎. Again I apologise for being wrong on the above two articles, please let me know if I can be of any help. I am not anti-ISKCON, so please let me know of any areas that I may help with or new articles that need to be made. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted an Admin DaGizza about your recent edit changes to the Krishna page and sock puppetry for the comment on my dicussion page. I think we better find some resolution from DaGizza and other "Hindu" editors on the subject. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Govinda Ramanuja dasa, I appreciate your comments as being completely unfair. You seems to have an incorrect ideas and you are exchanging personal attacks with other users on the personal basis. You are incorrect and I did not write this[2] comment that you deleted and you should not have offended me making unfair assumptions, please see WP:FAITH. I suggest you should read WP:BP to have a better picture on what constitutes persistently making personal attacks; I wish you well and I hope this mistake will not influence our working relationships as editors. I actually do not have content dispute with you and will always try to find NPOV on all issues, of course you must provide verifiable references - in the future, I will not accept unverifiable references from you, because I suspect that you are unable to maintain NPOV on some issues. --Wikidās ॐ 07:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No one takes you or ISKCON slant seriously. Every thing I have been saying is back by Shruti and sadhu.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the redirect - I didn't know it was done by an admin. However, can it stay for now until I receive a response from the admin? I have contacted User:NawlinWiki, the admin who redirected the page, and am awaiting a reply. There is much to be discussed on the article, including WP:NPOV, grammar, spelling, general cleanup, red links, noncompliance with WP:MOS, and a major contradiction regarding the philosophy. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Krsna svayam bhagavan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)