User talk:Ism schism

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ism schism has not edited Wikipedia since February 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I-Foundation

I-Foundation had its first wikilink here.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ism schism, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please be more particular with your statement. Pointing out exactly what you're talking about makes it easier to correct. Thanks Chopper Dave (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three examples... Specifically I mean sources such as a personal website, http://www.devaswami.com or a blogspot such as, http://prabhupada.blogspot.com/2007_04_08_archive.html or editorials such as, http://www.dandavats.com/?p=1840. I do not believe that these would ever qualify as independent Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can be used on practically any BLP page. What is the point?79.97.0.103 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, this will explain to you wikipedia's policy on biographies on living persons. Each statement made in such an article must come from an independent reliable source. The above tag can, and will eventually, be placed on all articles who do not meet these strict requirements. These are Wikipedia's rules, not mine. To be constructive we should all use them as tools and guides in making our editing choices. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ism schism, I feel you are being very excessive with adding fact tags. Would it not be more constructive that when you find an article which needs references, either you add one banner at the top of the article, or even better, you try and find some sources? Especially if what is being said sounds factual, and non-controversial in it's nature. Otherwise we are just making more work for ourselves? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gouranga, I appreciate your concern. My edits were to point out the lack of references cited at the end of a statement of point which the article made. I have to disagree with you, there is much work to be done and standards should not be lowered. I added fact tags where I saw no reference cited. When a novice reads this information on wikipedia they need to have a source from which this information comes from, it can not just be what a person writes down, even if it is common knowledge to a particular religious community, it has to come from a reliable sources that has a citation. FYI, I feel that our time might be better spent finding real Wikipedia:Reliable sources for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes mere seconds to add fact tags. It could take some time to find correct sources. By adding them in so many places I really don't think you are not helping. Not unless there is something very controversial, or seemingly out-of-place written in the article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the obvious that it takes mere seconds to add fact tags and a minute to AfD a group. However it takes much longer for Verifiability to be established. Considering that there are no Vaisnava peer-reviewed journals and very few biographical books published in university presses, and that newspapers often are self-published sources as was the case of promoting I-foundation, we should allow for any other sources other then self-published and questionable sources. Also BLP should allow for material by persons described and we should not require high-quality reliable sources for each and every ISKCON or otherwise Swami. That just does not make any sense onless one is motivated to do this under the letter of the law of the WIKI. Wikidas (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike your articles, the I-Foundation article is properly referenced with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I suggest you use it as an example if you want to show people that the articles you write are truly notable and reliably sourced. Thanks and come again. Ism schism (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if the stub-like I-Foundation article is what Jimbo Wales had in mind when he invented Wikipedia! I really don't see your point? Wikidas is speaking common-sense. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is because User talk: Wikidas, User talk: 79.97.0.103, User talk:MBest-son‎ and you are all the same person. All four of you should use Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Please read this article Wikipedia:Citing sources

Quote: "All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source."

Please note that the above does not say ALL material, it says "ALL CONTENTIOUS material". There is a difference. A lot of what you are arguing about appears to be based on the notion that any information within an article should be deleted if it isn't referenced from a primary source. What is a reliable source depends on:

1) what is being sourced?
2) in what context?
3) how controversial is the information?

For example if we wanted to source when Nasa was first founded, and there was no controversy about the date, then the official Nasa history page on their website is perfectly reliable. Whereas if we wanted to include information in regards to the effectiveness or success of Nasa's as a scientific institution, or we wanted to know about details of the welfare of staff member then we would have to look elsewhere. That detail is subjective, and requires a number of scholarly sources. The same logic applies to the ISKCON articles.

Articles must be given room to grow over time. With citations being required especially on items of contention, and then gradually on all important information. The point of citing sources is to improve the articles in wikipedia, not to be used as an excuse to delete articles, where the information contained is notable, relevant, and for the large part accurate. Just because an article is a stub, or is only Start, or B class, does not mean we have to remove it.

I agree with pointing out areas for future improvement. I disagree with the attitude of removing good information for the sake of it.

Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that just MAKE IT SURVIVE should be our attitude.

To make sure as many devotees as possible survive on the Wiki. I had a look, and vast ammounts of Bio or any other info that is created in WIKI DOES survive, even its not '"at all notable if compared with Religious Figures or BLP that we talk about. To MAKE IT SURVIVE we should place decent references, and any reference that is accepted verifiable will prove notability in case of a religious figure, so I have changed my attitude and will act upon the above. Wikidas (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidas, I appreciate your concern and your contributions as an editor. For future articles, all of us editors should probably consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard every now and then, as this might be a good way to assure sources contribute to the notability of the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ism schism, I appreciate your consulting of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but from my perspective, when I know perfectly well that someone is notable it is somewhat frustrating when other editors (who are fairly new to Wikipedia) seem intent on deleting an article about them. The only way around this is to provide references I agree. Maybe taking each article in turn would be a useful approach? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gouranga, that sounds like a good idea. What direction would you advise? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ism schism for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON

Thanks for the note; I don't work on ISKCON articles per se. ISKCON is nothing other than a version of Gaudiya Vaishnavism

I work on all general Hindu articles.

Raj2004 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavism work group

Please note that the Hinduism banner is now set up for assessments for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism work group. I think the first priority is to go about tagging the articles you find relevant to the project, so that you can know what condition they're in. I'd help myself, but various other concerns are likely to take up my time for the near future. I am listing it on the community portal as a new project though. If you ever want any help with the group, even if I am working elsewhere, please feel free to drop me a note. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishanava dieties????

Deities like Vishvakarma and Ganesha are really not Vaishanava dieties, I didn't understand why you added the Vaishanavism Wikiproject link.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Redtigerxyz. I did pause and think before adding Ganesha to the Vaishnava project as he is part of almost all Hindu traditions. One of my reasons for adding him is that he is a deity which Vaishnava's respect and at times worship. Also for Vaishnavas, Ganesha wrote the Mahabharata, and there are other stories concerning Ganesha that Vaishnavas have endeared.

The choice to add Vishvakarma is due to various Vaishnava scriptures (Mahabharata and Ramayana included) which discuss in detail his relationship to Krishna. Vishvakarma is a central character in these Vaishnava narratives. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, Ganesha should not belong in the core stream of Vaishnavism. He is a devotee of Vishnu, yes, but then so are Shiva and Brahma. If you go about it in that manner, EVERY Hindu deity will fit under Vaishnavism! Perhaps some sort of subheading regarding the relationship of various deities to Vishnu is in order? Thanks! Silverballer47 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Western scholars section to the Vaishnavism article

Dear Ism schism, I really would like to talk to you about a subject that has been bothering me for months now. On the Vaishnavism article, in western scholar section; GaugangaUK put some very "questionable" people on the list. One that I am talking about was the head Sannyasa/guru of the main temple and gurukula was centered in the "Turley case". That temple/gurukula was one of the epicenters for the "things" that happened to the childern there. Please study on-line the name first listed in that section of that article. Please put a response in "my talk" of my user page. And, let me know what you think. I dont think this person should be listed on the Vaishnavism article. Please research him. Sincerely, Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikigroup Vedanta; List of teachers of vedanta section; 19th and 20th century Questions and comments

Dear Ism schism, I dont know if any one noticed, but, some ISKON/Gaudiya person put some ISKON/Gaudiya "guru"...some of them Notorious and very contriversial. I would like to take them out...I think it is unapropriate. The ISKON/Gaudiya editors really tinge all of these articles with their "group" slant and propaganda. Please take a look at it, study it and please tell me what you think. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree. I will look over these. These changes need to be made. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON work group

Hello Henrydoktorsky. I see you have made contributions to ISKCON related articles. If you are interested, there is a discussion concerning an ISKCON work group located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation, and please pardon me for my tardiness in responding, but after viewing the page you pointed to, I think this service may be beyond my abilities. Although I have some knowledge about Kirtanananda Swami and New Vrindaban due to my 16 years of service and more recently due to my research for a proposed NV history book, I do not think I can make meaningful contributions to more generalized discussions about ISKCON and Vaishnavism. However, I will periodically watch this page and add comments when I have something to say. Sincerely, Henrydoktorski (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question of personal ISKON gurus in articles

:Dear Ism Schism, I am not trying to be offensive...but, the <s>ISKON</s>(ISKCON) gurus that I am talking about are Tamal Krishna Goswami (most especially), Satsvarupa <s>Swami</s> (dasa Goswami) (second most) and maybe....<s>Hriananda</s> (Hridayananda) Goswami. Please study these devotees,especially the first two. I really think and feel that personal gurus should not be put on these lists in the articles. Especially if they have notorious histories or controversial. Please write back. [[User:Zeuspitar|Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA]] ([[User talk:Zeuspitar|talk]]) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC){Corrected spelling <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:Wikidas|Wikidās]]</span> 21:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)) ::Hello Govinda Ramanuja. To my knowledge, both Tamal Krishna Goswami and Hridayanada Goswami are notable academics. This feature does distinguish them probably just enough. Satsvarupa wrote the ISKCON biography of their leader, this seems to be his distinguishing feature, though I am not sure it is enough. I think a few prominent leaders from each denomination should do, the question is which ones. These three could be justified as representing ISKCON, but more than three, I feel, would over represent this organization in relation to others, and there are many others. Thanks. [[User:Ism schism|Ism schism]] ([[User talk:Ism schism#top|talk]]) 19:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrections in PERSONAL message to Ism Schism from Wikidas

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) 23:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.Wikidās 11:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I will be spelling ISKCON correctly for now. Namaskar Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion

Thanks. I have added my comments to the discussion. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Thelemic/Crowley section on the Krishna article

Dear Ism Schism, Hey, who put the Alester Crowley section on the Krishna article? This section is just incoherent, philosophical bumbo-jumbo babble!!! I lived in austin texas an live in L.A...I have had almost 15 years of experience with these Thelemites! First off, Yes, they might mention Krisna...but, their practices, their philosophy are absolutely Adharmic and Avedic!! They have taken a mixture of Black tantra, Crowleys speculations on various traditions. Can we please take this out.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Ekadasi and Ekadashi

Both articles discuss the same subject - the day known as Ekadashi. I propose that the articles be merged, as they discuss the same thing. What do you think? --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merging them is in order. Good idea. Silverballer47 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "Question about Western scholars section to the Vaishnavism article"

Thinking about it...I beleive you are right on all points. Thanks for taking the time to contemplate the question and responding back. Looking forward to corresponding with you in the future. One more thing, can you please let me know what you think about the Crowley section of the Krishna article. I feel that it has no place in that article. I really would like to protest it.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Crowley section goes, I completely agree. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some people who are insisting on leaving that section on the krishna article...I really would like to take it out. Please help.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Govinda Ramanuja dasa. Are you refering to the Crowley section in the Krishna article? I personally think the discussion at, Thelemic/Crowley section on the Krishna article supports such a decision to remove the material. Let me know if I can be of any help. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

Hey Ism Schism, abacadare is really insisting on keeping the thelema section of the Krishna article. I really would like to delete it. He has come up with a second qoute to justify keep the section. What can we do? Please help. And, please look at the Krishna article discussion page too.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the deletion of the gurus section. And, I'll help in any way possible. Can you please reply back on the abacadare/thelema article situation. Thanks. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Swaminarayan

That's great. I new to this workgroup, but I trying my best to help out. Many Swaminarayans are vaisnav because they not only worship Bhagwan Swaminarayan but also Lord Vishnu(primarily Krishna). Other Swaminarayans see Bhagwan Swaminarayan as supreme god, while others see him as an avatar of Vishnu though other Hindus do not see Bhagwan Swaminarayan as this. I know that Vaishnavs see Lord Vishnu as Supreme Lord, so this would be the only reason why Swaminarayan related article would not fit into tis category But I do know one thing for sure. If you were to go up to any Swaminarayan and asked them if they were Vaisnav, chances are that they will say yes. I really want to help this workgroup and article that this work group is fixing up. I know a lot about this topic. If you need help, leave a message on my talk page. Juthani1 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered one thing. Vaishnavs and Swaminarayans also have the exact same ritual. You will see differences between the rituals of Vaishnavs and Shivs folowers (not huge differences, it still is Hinduim, but minor). Everything that Vaishnavs and Saminarayans do is the same.--Juthani1 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Hindu views of Krishna

Hey Ism Schism, I voted "deletion" for all of the nominations. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Oh, what about the insistance of Imc and abadacare for the thelemic section on Krishna article? Can we do some thing like this with that situation? Please let me know.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be a priority! I strongly feel that this topic, if placed anywhere, should be on the Thelma page. I think the best way to go about this is to find a consensus. If editors from the Vaishnavism project discuss this in full, then maybe the project can speak with one voice. What do you think? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Can you correspond with shruti14, rudra and redtigerxyz to help us get this section out of the Krishna article. I have a feeling that Imc and abadacare are not true Vedics...their cryptic thelemites masking as Hindus, their too adamant in their stance on the subject. If you need me to vote on any thing or help with any thing...just let me know.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that concensus is the best solution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have edited Twice the thelema section and abadace changed it back. Please help, what can we do?Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my comments to Talk:Krishna#Non-Hindu views of Krishna on the Thelema debate. My comments center around the fact that since the Thelema religion has dismissed Krishna as irrelevant (see my comments on this) why should we? WP:UNDUE is also something to look at on this. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Krishna#Content and references for the Others section - Abecedare wants to keep the Thelema section and has proposed that instead of removing it, we add references to determine the weight it must carry in the article. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that we are finally beginning to reach a peaceful compromise on the subject, as opposed to the potential edit wars and blocks I had feared. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, if you haven't seen the Krishna article, the Thelema section has been shortened a lot (the rest is now mentioned in a footnote) and now other beliefs have been added. The article no longer puts so much weight on Crowley's views. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 04:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Project Vaishnavism

Thanks for letting me know - Wheredevelsdare (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gour Govinda Swami

You mean an independent source, right? No, I do not no any of those. I can see his website and such, but that is not what you want, is it? By the way, what is your position on ISKCON swami articles? Do you think they should exist or do you think they should be deleted if no 3rd party sources can be found- because they never can be found. I wish they could be, but pretty much only the devotees and disciples of an ISKCON swami ever write about him. David G Brault (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I feel that an ISKCON swami is notable if: they have significant media coverage, or are on ISKCON's Governing Body Commission, or on the faculty of Bhaktivedanta College, or have had their works reviewed by the academic community. These are the type of standards that I feel show signs of notability. Also, the readers deserve a reliable source to go to for confirmation. The types of standards I have listed above allow for dozens of articles on ISKCON swamis, I do not think that they are placing any unusual requirments upon their notability. I am open to any thoughts you have. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content i have recently added is also repeated on the Pure Bhakti Gaudiya Vaisnava Website (http://www.purebhakti.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=788&Itemid=65) as well as www.gopaljiu.org here is another source for information http://www.bvml.org/SGGM/index.htm His listing on the Bhaktivendanta Memorial Library website in my eyes proves this worth Vaisnava's noteability.Syama (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy for Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaj

Hello. I declined your request for the speedy deletion of Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaj under CSD A7, as the article made assertions of notability. Also note that in cases where the article has been present for quite a long time (this one for more than a year), it is a courtesy not to speedy if it isn't a blatant violation of any of the speedy deletion criteria (which this certainly is not), and prodding the article or bringing an AfD forward are preferred actions. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work on the article on about SPOG

Hello Ism schism, I was wondering if you will be interested to work on the above article. There is number of sections that needs fixing and adjusting. Its a plan to add it as reference to the main article Krsna. Your approach is very valuable and will help to develop this article to the standards. --Wikidās ॐ 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Krishna Swami

WP:AfD outcomes do not create precedent. Just because an article on one swami was kept does not automatically mean any swami is notable. I have re-applied the notability template. Erechtheus (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Swaminarayan Refs

Wheredevelsdare and I are trying to add as many as we can. Thank you for working hard and try to keep Bhagwan Swaminarayan under the Hindu Gods category. I saw you discussion with Cuando. Again thank you for your edits to the page. My goal is to get everything referenced. The discussion about him being a god keeps on popping up. There needs to be some way we can get this resolved. I did come up with another point. Bhagwan Swaminarayan may be a minor god and not well recognized, but if the category is removed, the same will have to occur to many other article with many minor Hindu Gods that even I haven't heard of. Thanks again Juthani1 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iv noticed that you have been helping out a lot not only in the above subject but also in all Lord Swaminarayan articles - thanks a lot. Yes, I read your message on Juthani1's page - ill def keep the Vaishnava project in mind. My work on wiki is mainly related to Bhagwan Swaminarayan, though I do also work on other subjects whenever I get the time. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Underconstruction}} or {{stub}} ?

Hi, I noticed that you created some new and useful articles and added the "underconstruction" template, and I just wanted to confirm that that was intentional. To wit:

{{Underconstruction}} is used to indicate that the person placing it is planning to revamp/expand the article in the immediate future, and in the meantime the reader should be aware that the article content may be unbalanced, misformatted and constantly changing. See this
{{stub}} is used to indicate that the article needs to be expanded and the content may not be comprehensive. Also see WP:stub.

Finally, could you add the year, publisher information, page, isbn etc when adding book references; and date author etc when adding newspaper references ? Also when citing edited volumes, one should mention the specific article and contributor being referenced. If you wish you can use citation templates to help you organize all the information.
Please note, that all of the above is intended as helpful pointers and not a critique! Cheers and happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention: When you create a new stub, consider nominating it for the "Did you know" section on wikipedia's main page. That gives the subject greater visibility and encourages others to contribute. See WP:DYK for the selection criterion and nominating process. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that distinction. I will use "underconstruction" while working on articles and then label them as "stub" after adding the year, publisher, etc. Thank you for the advice, and especially for pointing out the Wikipedia:Citation templates tools. I appreciate it. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For books with isbn you can use this website tool to generate a filled in citation template. You will still need to enter the page numbers, url, and "authorlink" (if applicable) fields by hand, but it can save considerable effort. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Swaminarayan Article

I believe this article should be deleted. It is a popular phrase but pretty useless. If an admin saw it, he/she probably would end up deleting it anyway. The article is only 2-3 sentences long. There isn't an article about "Jai Shri Krishna" unless I'm mistaken. I know that the article has some importance so I need your opinion on what I should do. Should I tag it? Juthani1 21:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference I see between this article and other religious terms is that this one is not fleshed out and well sourced. Other Hindu religious traditions have articles for their mantra such as Aum Namah Shivaya and the chant Hare Krishna. I will look for some sources for this one - As far as tags... I would place and "underconstruction" tag on the article until it can be fleshed out and well sourced. I will be glad to help with any articles if I can. For the Swaminarayan articles, there really are only a few editors, so it will take time to flesh out some of these articles specific to this tradition. There needs to be more articles about this subject. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I hope I can help. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea ur right. I no of Juthani1 and some others like Harish101, Haribhagat and Bhudiya2 to name a few. Iv been in touch with these guys on how to go forward. Ideally it would have been best to have a Project Swaminarayan but, as u sd there are very few satsangi editors around. Thanks for offering to help - Pl. do let me know if I can be of any use, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Where is the list of sources anyway. Is it on wiki? Juthani1 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are at Talk:Jay Swaminarayan. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swaminarayan Workgroup

I think we need one. It will fall under the Hinduism Wikiproject. The article under this group can be tagged both as under the Vaishnav and Swaminarayan Workgroup if we can get one. Both group will improve these articles. If interested add your name to ths list. I know that you work on Vaishnav articles but you are a great editor on Swaminarayan articles and defend our beliefs so you ned to join this workgroup if I get enough supporters. Sign your name after clicking this link under interestered users. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Workgroup_Swaminarayan Thanks Juthani1 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Juthani1 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on proposed article Krishna in Gaudiya Vaishnavism

It appears that while some suggested it its not a very good idea. What do you think?

Its discussed in terms of changing the Svayam bhagavan article into it. I argued against it, let me know please what you think. see:Talk:Svayam bhagavan

Wikidās ॐ 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnuswami and Rudra sampradaya articles

Thank you for creating them. Do you need any help or input in creating them. Let me know please. Regards, Wikidās ॐ 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An award

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		A very belated acknowledgment of your singular efforts in organizing the Vaishnavism project and expanding/improving wikipedia's coverage on the topic. Keep it up and happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

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) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favor

I would do this on my own, but i don't have the time and other wiki issues to deal with first. This problem may cause problems in the future and I know that I can rely on you. The Krishna article has many citations missing. Could you add those in? If you can't I do understand. Thanks and please respond. Juthani1 21:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations of articles about Hindusim and Hindus

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) 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Swaminarayan Temples

Hi, if u remember during the afd debate of the above article, you had mentioned an article on Temples of the Church of Latter Day Saints. That article caught my eye and I thought it might be a good idea to base this article on that. Iv made templates for a couple of temples and put them on - pl. tell me how it looks .. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment - work is far frm over though - I gotta make templates for all of the temples on tht list - wch will prob take some time. Thanks again, though I dont no wher tht discussion is heading - maybe we shld take the proposal to the Vaishnava workgroup heads - req. for a sub-workgroup. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you commitment for making this project. That wil really help us. Juthani1 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, tht was a gud idea to put it on the Vaishnava discussion. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If u go bak to the article on Temples of the Church of Latter Day Saints u will find a world map right on top, marking each place where one of their temples exist. Id like to duplicate tht for the Swaminarayan temples page - any idea how to? Iv been working on the other boxes too - I hope to hv the page ready by the end of the week. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I noiced you tagging articles with the Vaishnava wikiproject. If possible, please assess the article too (if you have considerably not worked on it), for wikiproject Hinduism as there is a big backlog to be assessed. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Assessment. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, I will start tagging and assessing as well for Hindu articles when I tag talk pages. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCookie

Re:Project

I was thinking about that a few days ago, but I think we should hault for a month or two. I am goin to start making new articles and so is Wheredevelsdare. We need a 100 articles at least for a workgroup or else the group may be deleted. We should keep it n mind and I would love to see it right now, but many people would oppose. Juthani1 ^tcs 02:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a few users are saying. It would be best to wait. I will notify you if I need help. Ntify me if you need help. Remember, I am still knowledgeable about vaishnav article even though i focus on Swaminarayan Articles. Thanks Juthani1 ^tcs 03:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I do not see sufficient secondary sources material to warrant this article besides Svayam bhagavan article addresses most of the issues. There is an issue with primary sources on the talk page - your view is welcomed.

There is a second consideration, Krishna is the same person in and out of the Gaudiya vaishnava views, and the common article will ensure that Gaudiya views are sufficiently represented in it. Separate article will result in removal of most of relevant GV POV from the Krishna article and thus it will loose the WP:YESPOV balance that it has now.

There is need of gerenal review of the presentation of the GV views in Wiki. Lets discuss the details if you want.Wikidās ॐ 08:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Narayana/Swaminarayan Project

Vr in this toghether - so whers the q of thanks? Ill be editing the Narayana page soon. Im just waiting for the group to be formed, till then Im working kinda solo on this ATM, and together with others like Juthani, yourself, Wikidas, Raj, Haribhagat, Harish etc. when I feel I need help. Frm the way I see it, the formation will take time, so Im just doing whatever I can now, but we will prob be able to coordinate better one the Project is formed. Yea, 6 editors and I know of atleast 2 others who Iv left a msg for to join. BTW any idea bout the map thing I asked u bout yesterday? Is there any way we can circumvent the min of 100 articles and make a sub group under Vaishnava - mayb we cld put forth a proposal on the Vaishnava page. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When u hv the time pl. go thru the Swaminarayan temples page and gv me feedback - hv completed the overhauling. 23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wheredevelsdare, Lets widen the scope - There are only a few traditions where Radha Krishna is worshiped, this can be a basis of a new group and we can focus on a number of articles with a biggest scope. Let me know what you think, Krishna Bhakti workgroup - a bigger and better scope? Let me know what you think? Wikidās ॐ 06:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laxminarayan

Just started the article, pl. help expand if u no bout the topic n hv the time. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to add another tradition to the list

Please discuss it here. Wikidās ॐ 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ism schism, its a complimentary to main Vaishnavism area, but with a focus on Krishna. Wikidās ॐ 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Ism schism, I personally think that name of the project can be Radha Krishna sampradayas or Krishnaism. Radha Krishna and Krishna without ending does not sound right. I like the idea of a project with a separate assessments that will eventually grow into a portal (as in similar but separate to this one). Let me know what you think about the name and it being a separate project with a potential of a portal that overlaps, but has different structure to the one of Vaishnavism. I know the use of the page, and I never posted anything there (yet), lets conclude on the name of the project (rather then subproject). We have sufficient scope and sufficient number of editors and set it up if we agree the name. Wikidās ॐ 06:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Please discussion here on the naming and all redirects. Wikidās ॐ 11:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Religous Leaders

As of right now he is the only one presently who is notable (for BAPS atleast) Juthani1 ^tcs 15:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I dont know how much you know abt the Swaminarayan Sampraday, but heres a jist of it. Bhagwan Swaminarayan created 2 gadis (LaxmiNarayan Dev Gadi, Vadtal and NarNarayan Dev Gadi, Ahmedabad) to head the Sampraday and appointed 2 of his nephews as Acharyas of their respective Gadis. The administrative division is set forth in the Desh Vibhag Lekh. The Acharyaship is hereiditary. Now as spiritual heads, they are the heads of the Sampraday and there are no other Acharyas ATM. Iv put the list of Acharyas on the repective Gadi page. As far as the running of the Ahmedabad Gadi is concerned, the Acharya is still the admin head. For the Vadtal Gadi, it has been in litigtion quite a few times, the result of which has been the creation of a trust. The Acharya is the spiritual head and the ex-officio chairman of the trust. For admin, there are other trustees, which as per the court order are elected yearly by all followers comming under this Gadi. I dont know much about the present or past trustees. Well I dont exactly no of any notable saints either (Iv heard of Mahant Swamis of various temples such as Bhuj, but cant expand much), but there is an organisation under the Vadtal Gadi called Swaminarayan Gurukul, headquartered in Rajkot. There are notbale saints Iv heard of such as Jogi Swami, Devkrishnadasji Swami and Devprasad dasji Swami etc. from this organisation. This is a link to their site: [1]. Hope this helps, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland

Thanks, but thts not wht I was looking for. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! .... Hope you have forgiven my immature behaviour during this some time ago... Keep in touch -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for reverting

That vandalism was actually funny. Juthani1 ^tcs 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy for the project

Ism schism, I think we should discuss the strategy for the WP:KRISHNA and it needs to be developed more. Also correlation with Vaishnavism project. I see Vaishnavism taking priority on most issues, but most included in both. Let me know what you think. Thanks for contributions to biblio for the project. Its a useful stock of information Wikidās ॐ 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think before the project can take off on a direction, it has to know what it is about. So far on the project page it states, "This project has the common goal of improving articles related to Radha Krishna." First, I believe, it has to be established that Krishnaism is the religious tradition devoted to Radha Krishna. I have started working on the article for Krishnaism, any thoughts you have on that article would be greatly appreciated. I think once we map the extent of what Krishnaism is, then we can move further. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You surely do not think that there is only one definition of the term - I would take it as only one perspective on what it means not that it establishes that Krishnaism is that. Krishnaism is the name of the project but not a definition of the scope. Article could be good, but should accommodate all points of view (including RK traditions mentioned). Wikidās ॐ 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking too simple, I agree with you there are many definitions and these should be accomidated in the article. As far as the project is concerned, I am not to sure about where to start or what direction to take for further development - but I am open to any ideas and am very willing to help. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be too complex, I have done some research on what Krishnaism is and put in the article. Please review and let me know what you think. Wikidās -ॐ 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant articles to WP:KRISHNA

Ism schism, can you please suggest the articles that you feel should be included in the scope? The proposed banner is:

{{WikiProject Hinduism
|class=  
|importance=
<!-- Wikiproject specific tags -->
|vaishnavism=yes
|krishna=yes
}}

Wikidās -ॐ 06:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

ism. I would appreciate if you could examine my complaint and try to resolve my dispute with user:Zeuspitar here : Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zeuspitar. he needs a simple warning to not engage in incivility and harassment.

I feel that he attacks me personally and on the basis of my religious affiliation, and I feel its unfair. Let me know if you can do that, I appreciate it. I know you we it tried before, but should not be bullied. Wikidās -ॐ 12:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please vote

You were on the board of 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)[reply]

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.

Assessment and banner for WP:KRISHNA

Ism schism,

I have done some work on it and its about a half of the unassessed articled that are already in your Vaishnavism project, and maybe you can help out on assessment and adding krishna=yes parameter to the articles that relate to WP:KRISHNA here[2]. I have done up to and including letter K. on this list of unassessed Vaishnavism articles tagging only the Kṛṣṇa related ones not the ones exclusive to Viṣṇu or Ganeśa. Of course this assessment also serves Vaishnavism and Hinduism projects so there are a few benefits of doing it at the same time. We can eventually have our own independent banner, but it could be years from now.

Generally the importance is rated from top to low and it is roughly described as such:

Epics - Generally classed as top importance.
Temples - "Mid" if in India , "High" if outside India, "Top" if a well-known temple outside India
Biographies - "Top" if outside India
Festivals - Probably High or sometimes even Top
Deities Top should be kept for about only the ten or twenty most famous. Others that appear in famous texts a number of times are High. The rest including local gods and goddesses are Mid or more likely Low.
Gurus/Swamis/Charyas/Rishis The founders of major Hindu sects and philosophies are Top while their followers and students are either Mid or Low depending on their influence.
Mantras/Bhanjans The most important mantra (and bhajan/aarti) in a major sect is Top. Other generally famous mantras are High or Mid. The rest, if they even have an article are Low.

Most others are a mid and low.

Wikidās -ॐ 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wikidas. I have been looking for articles to tag for the Krishna project - and will use the link you provided above to go through the "Unknown importance Vaishnavism articles" for my next edits. Thanks again for all your hard work and leadership on this project. Ism schism (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are quite interesting and should probably be noted on talk page of the project. Thank you for your support and help, very much needed indeed. Wikidās -ॐ 16:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is brilliant. Whenever you are about let us know. Wikidās -ॐ 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

This article needs major help- Rama Navami Can you help? Juthani1 ^tcs 18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK - another one

Happy to report, that Haridasa Thakur is on Sunday DYK due in an hour or so. Its an interesting article with a lot of illustrations. Its the fourth DYK of the Krishna project that will appear on the front page of Wikipedia! Wikidās ॐ 11:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Kalki

Hello, I notice you are an experienced editor on Hinduism related subjects. Could you please take the time to look at Kalki? It is currently (in his own words) guarded by Ghostexorcist. And I don't have the experience to know how to make changes that don't get reverted. These are my concerns about it. See if you agree.

An inordinate portion of the article is devoted to subjects tangential to the Hindu concept under the heading "Modern variations of the Kalki prophecy." I think this title itself is a contradiction in terms. What modern variation of the prophesy is there in Hinduism? It might read "modern interpretations" but Ghostexorcist will not allow even this to be discussed.
The way the section is put together it gives the impression that the views of one author Savitri Devi Mukherji that Adolf Hitler was Kalki is a part of Hindu thought. By excluding other similar silly notions he puts un-due focus to that one idea, making Hinduism look morally baron.
By having this Nazi allusion follow directly after Alejandro Biondini, a Nazi in Argentina, Ghostexorcist is de facto insisting on giving the Kalki concept a nazi connotation and I can't understand his motive.
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight holds that Wikipedia is not a repository for opinions that almost no one holds - such as that Hitler was Kalki - a view that apparently a single Hindu author who is now dead had. By insisting on having this rare opinion kept highlighted he gives the impression this is a genuine Hindu view by not saying it is not. This seems a clear case of "undue weight" as defined by Wikipedia.

What I was hoping is that you might know one or two experienced editors like yourself that could bring some weight to bear on that article. As it is it goes nowhere as all serious changes are reverted by Ghostexorcist who says he guards the article. Thank you for your time. I hope you will help. Vedantahindu (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana

Hello, I noticed that the Telangana article has been added under the Vaishnavism and Krishnaism wikiproject. I do not think the article qualifies under these categories. Please comment.

Hari (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashram ads

Hi Ism,

I just declined a bunch of G11 speedies you nominated related to Ashram spots. While I agree without hesitation that these articles need to be deleted/merged/seriously cleaned up, it didn't seem to me that the advertising content was the primary focus.

Anyways, I just thought I'd let you know! Feel free to nominate them for WP:PROD or WP:AFD. --jonny-m t 07:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of AfD

In some cases of clear mistake or duplication a #REDIRECT [[right name]] may be better way of doing it. Wikidās ॐ 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda and her thoughts

Please note that you have violated the 3RR rule and you shoud not assume that editors who are editing from an IP address are vandals. Anyone can edit wikipedia and they do not have to be logged on.--Matilda ^talk 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. --Matilda ^talk 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Matilda! This ain't no waltz!!! But, hey, I am now enlightened! Thank you for such knowledge, those anons and there edits do bring such clarity to the pages they vandalize. Thanks again, and please come back real soon!!!

Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong,

Under the shade of a coolibah tree,

And he sang as he watched and waited 'til his billy boiled

"Who'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me?"

Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda

"You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me"

And he sang as he watched and waited 'til his billy boiled,

"You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me".

Down came a jumbuck to drink at the billabong,

Up got the swagman and grabbed him with glee,

And he sang as he stowed that jumbuck in his tucker bag,

"You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me".

Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda

"You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me"

And he sang as he stowed that jumbuck in his tucker bag,

"You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me".

Down came the squatter, mounted on his thoroughbred,

Up came the troopers, one, two, three,

"Who's that jolly jumbuck you've got in your tucker bag?"

"You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me".

Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda

"You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me"

"Who's that jolly jumbuck you've got in your tucker bag?",

"You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me".

Up got the swagman and jumped into the billabong,

"You'll never catch me alive", said he,

And his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong,

"Who'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me?"

Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda

Who'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me

And his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong,

"Who'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me?"

Again, thanks Matilda, you sure are named after a good song. But, that is all. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayatri

Please justify your deletions, or revert them. It is not spam but scientifically relevant information. Shriramshishya (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gopala Swami

Regarding this article, which you nominated for deletion, i have now added a reliable source( a book ), which mentions him. hope this helps.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas see the afd discussion.I have included a weblink, in which he finds mention.This link also mentions the book "Jewel in the lotus and the page in which gopala swami gets mentioned.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD process

Just a friendly note, if you have nominated an article for deletion then there is no need to !vote delete as well, because the nomination is already taken as your view point (unless you are only doing a "for process" nomination, and you're neutral). In other words: the delete !vote does not count when determining consensus. Cheers, Chetblong (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate it and will take note, thank you. Also, I am just curious, what is !Vote This is a new term to me. What do you mean by it? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, !vote means that it's not really a "vote" but a way of determining consensus via discussion. Cheers, Chetblong (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Ganapati Sachchidananda

Swami Ganapathi Sachchidananda is a notable person beyond doubt and discussion. All you have to do is go through the links I provided. Please remove the entry for 'deletion' tag. Thanks Andhrabhoja (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Ganapathi Sachchidananda is infact highly notable. He has temples and centers worldwide. A host of websites regarding his spiritual music. Please spend some time to go through the links in the article. His ashram has been visited by whos who of India time and again. He has scores of devotees world over and centers in Europe and Australia. I mean if all these doesn't make him non-notable , then I dont understand what else will. Please do some more research and check following links. www.dattapeetham.com www.sadguruseva.org http://www.dycdallas.org/ http://www.dycusa.org/ http://www.dattatemple.com/history/index.php http://www.yogasangeeta.org/YogaSangeeta.html

Andhrabhoja (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, copied from the following user User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < User:Stifle Jump to: navigation, search

If you're involved in the deletion process, please don't limit your comment to "non-notable" or "nn".

This comment has come to mean nothing more than "I want this article deleted" and/or "I think this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia", and may give the impression that you are not bothered to actually check up on it or find a proper reason for deleting the article. Tell us why you think the subject is non-notable, and what you understand by "non-notable".

This goes double if you're nominating an article. "NN" is not a reason for deletion. "Fails WP:BIO", "I think this subject is of interest to only a very limited number of people", or "unverifiable" are. At the very worst, please expand on why you think someone or something is non-notable.

The exception to this is when referring to CSDs and the like. The nn prefix here refers to the articles lacking any assertion of notability. Andhrabhoja (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the sources provided

From wiki, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.

An article published on india-today magazine, the premier weekly magazine of India. http://www.yogasangeeta.org/IndiaTodayArticle_SGS.pdf http://news.bn.gs/article.php?story=20080325132706775.

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Following this criteria, there are multiple highly regarded secondary sources, the above ones and here http://www.opm.gov.tt/photo_gallery/gallery.php?gid=1172681335&id=1177530362

I don't know, if this is not notability, then half of people's bio on wiki should be deleted. Please do some research. I will provide more sources. Andhrabhoja (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful Deletion and Merging of Article Hindu Literature into Hindu texts: Help in DelRev

Hello I-S. The article named Hindu Literature has been deleted and a dismembered and into Hindu texts, probably by persons who are handicapped to comprehend the subtle yet vital distinction between Literature and Texts of Hinduism. This is to request you to help in sparking off a conducting a neutral & informed Deletion Review (delrev) as this user is not that proficient in WikiProcedures. Thanx. Hope u understand the gravity. --softy 12:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

AGF

Hi. I noticed your last edit at Talk:CPI(M). Although i think we both were bothered by Sindhian's behaviour in the past days, but you should still go along with good faith once Sindhian actually turned around on the core issue at the CPI(M) article. We will see whether this is sincere or not, but this comment is not helpful for a good tone of debate. --Soman (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will let you assume good faith and work with Sindhian, that is your call and none of my business. BUT PLEASE, do not expect me to believe that Sindhian, as you say, "actually turned around." I will wait for evidence of this in the future, but just today he discribed many editors as a "disruptive gang." While this may not be an issue for you, I find it just a unconstructive as vandalism. Things might change, but until then, happy editing and thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand how Ism schism violated AGF, especially while he is dealing with a user who labels opposing editors as "organized disruptive gang". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Do you have sugestion for any topic. my first priority is to fight anti-hindu communist propaganda and support the unbiased truth about hindu culture and organizationsSindhian (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on?

Could you clarify the reason for this deletion drive? [3] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I always like it when editors bring their questions to another editors talk page, even third parties. My answer to your question can be found at, Non notable Hindu ashrams and gurus. Hindu religious leaders and spiritual leaders and the categories that I look through for non notable book and/or guru advertisements. I hope this answers your question. Thanks, and happy editing. Ism schism (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion drive

Why talk to me on other people's talk page. You have been doing this today without even once commenting on any problem you had with me on my talk page. Searching for multiple forums for your concerns is natural, but if you ever had any concern with my edits you should bring them to my talk page. That is just good form. Also, I know you put a lot of effort into articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitsu Hadeishi, but you are NOT the focus of any conspiracy. As you say, I am not "targeting articles" that you created - only the non notable ones! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just terribly cynical, but I honestly don't see what good talking to you would have done. No user will admit to bias. Every user, even the most transparent political trolls, claims that they are working in good faith and for the good of the project. You happen to believe it is better for Wikipedia to delete every article that you can talk your fellow deletionists into voting for, even articles which are completely obviously notable like Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. I have a different approach to editing Wikipedia, which involves adding information to it. What you are doing is absolutely and clearly wrong, and you are being supported by people who hang out on afds all day and vote "delete". Furthermore, there is a very strong bias against religion at Wikipedia, especially New Age religion. This makes it much easier for people whose hobby it is to eliminate information from Wikipedia. Some of the articles that I created were started a long time ago, before the current Draconian policy of dead-tree notability was put in place. So they are probably not notable by your standards. Much success with your personal project. — goethean ॐ 03:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your your message. I appreciate your concern, but do disagree with you in your statement that I, "believe it is better for Wikipedia to delete every article that you can talk your fellow deletionists into voting for." This is quite an extreme statment. I am sorry if I offended you by nominating an article you created for deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitsu Hadeishi. It was not my intent to hurt you or your inspiration for the articles you edit. I hope that we can all learn from these Afd discussions on what is the role of Wikipedia in telling the stories of notable individuals. Thanks again and happy editing. Ism schism (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I offended you by nominating an article you created for deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitsu Hadeishi. It was not my intent to hurt you or your inspiration for the articles you edit.

Now you are implying that the only problem that I have with your deletion drive is that it affected an article that I created, when in fact, the article that I specifically mentioned, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, which you are undoubtedly aware is a much better example of an article on clearly notable subject which ~~you~~ was nominated for deletion anyway. Comments like yours, which deliberately misrepresent the obvious, only add to the cynicism and suspicion that pervades the project. — goethean ॐ 04:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I did not nominate Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj for deletion; I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitsu Hadeishi. If you are hurt or offended by my votes, then that is your problem - I vote as I discern the subject before me. If you want to help the articles that you are attached to, then I suggest you find reliable sources as well as claims to notability - as both are needed. If you need any help, please do not ever hesitate to ask, as I will always be around. Thanks and happy editing. Ism schism (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ism schism, since you're getting much unjust criticism, I want to add that I see nothing wrong with and support your efforts to get certain articles deleted. If there is a "pattern" you're following, I think it was laid out by the creators of these sub-standard articles rather than by your own bias. - House of Scandal (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Good work. Someone needs to be sane about the process. I personally know several god men who claim to have addressed UN and have written books and have followers in prominent people. All th criteria, fellow wikipedians quote to keep such articles. Yet I don't think they deserve an article here. They are not notable. Once again. I applaud your efforts. Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Amiel

I do not know if the Jain writer Pierre Amiel is the same person as the artist described at http://pagesperso-orange.fr/pierre.amiel/en/artist/bio/bio.htm , but perhaps he is notable as a painter. --Eastmain (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your tireless effort in AFD-ing non-notable Hindu gurus and organisations! Gizza^Discuss ^© 09:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your tireless effort in AFD-ing non-notable Hindu gurus and organisations! ChiragPatnaik (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

CFD

Hi again Ism. Your efforts in AFDing non-notable Hinduism related articles has inspired to do my part. Please see Category:Manifestations of Godhead which I have nominated for Cfd. My reasons are outlined on the Cfd page. Thanks Gizza^Discuss ^© 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brhmoism

Have a look at Brhmoism and at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brhmoism. Cheers. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View

Hi,

I request you to add your views to this debate - [4]

Thanks, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Vishnuism

I have been opposing the merge due to historically it being sometimes looked differently. I will explain the sources for such historical separation of Vaishnavism and Early Vishnuism or Historical Vishnuism. I would suggest renaming this article to one of these names, please let me know what you think. Yes sources will follow to support the notion that worship of Vishnu (Vishnuism) is different from earlier or separate traditions that are now called Vaishnavism. Please also look at this 1 merge proposal if you support it please let us know.

Wikidās ॐ 07:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paramahamsa Hariharananda

Hi there, Ism schism! Unfortunately I have not come across any reliable source other than that Miami Herald one, which could very well be nothing but paid PR. I sincerely believe that if there are ever any those sources should have already come out given the seeming desperation of a certain editor to put the man in a pedestal. The subject appears to be a non-notable lightweight in the field, no landmark achievements, no bestselling book, no substantial following like Yogananda, Ammachi, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, etc., and his only claim to fame (being a disciple of Sri Yukteswar) is not accepted by people outside his cult. I sincerely believe that an AFD is in order at this point. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jclemens/Acharya_S

You proposed that Acharya_S's article be deleted. I've been doing a bit of work to raise it to Wikipedia quality. I'd like your input on what needs to be added before you believe it's sufficient for reinsertion into mainspace. I'm aiming to show her notable under WP:FRINGE. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply My problem with the article, in its present state, is the same as with the original article which I discussed in the 2nd Afd discussion. The notability of the subject is still questionable, and the fact that the article leans on her on website, truthbeknown, is not helpful. I think that more reliable sources are needed - these will help address the issues concerning questionable notability. Most important is that the claims to notability be verified with reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now, what there was of that article has been merged into Jesus myth hypothesis, focusing on her writings and criticism thereof. It's cut down on the length considerably, and keeps the most encyclopedic content regarding her. It seems to have been one spot of the article that no one was fighting about. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

purebhakti.com as a source

I have explained on Syama's talk page why the particular pages used from the purebhakti website were not the best choices as reliable sources. I hope my explanation was clear and accurate. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sankara Saranam

This article has been tagged as unnotable for more than one year and all the references are self-published by the subject. Peering through it I discovered that a trick has been done since the same article has already been deleted by way of AFD, the trick lies on the name of the subject. The present article bears the pen name or alias of the subject Sankara Saranam, but the deleted article bears the actual or real name of the subject Eric Dwight Ben-Meir. If you read the present article you will discover that Sankara Saranam and Eric Dwight Ben-Meir are just the same person. It is, I believe, a trick to confuse WP system. – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Invitations

Thank you for the invitation to join Krishnaism

Re: Invitations

Thank you for the invitation to join Krishnaism Prahlad 108 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Agama Yoga Deletion Issue - Offer Of Sources

Dear Ism Schism, If you have concern regarding the sources cited in the article please leave me a message with your email and i will send you a scanned copy of the articles. Tomeryogi (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barsana Dham. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Please also be sure that all of the content you are restoring is verifiable by highly reliable sources and that it is consistent with all of the WP:BLP guidelines. EagleAg04 (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, but please do review the edits you comment on. In my last edit I restored a deleted section that was referenced, and have only edited the article Two times in Two months. Thanks again though, I do appreciate your concern. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is not a WP:BLP. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official policy clearly states that "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page", and that "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages". Given that this is regarding a WP:NPF, restraint seems warranted here. In regards to the restored material, only the first half was referenced. There was no violation of WP:3RR, but I feel that following WP:BITE and WP:BRD would be more helpful. Perhaps additional reliable sourced can be found which can help to present this content in a WP:NPOV manner.EagleAg04 (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned with the article, I suggest you edit it yourself. I saw a statement, which cited the Austin American Statesman, that was removed. I restored it. If there are other edits you prefer - PLEASE MAKE THEM, as an editor you have this ability. I do appreciate your concern. You have taken the time to comment on my talk page twice concerning two edits I have made in the past two months. We need more editors like you on Wikipedia that have lots of time to look over these important issues. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

Dear Ism schism, I have made several contributions to Kriya Yoga, notably the section “Difference in Techniques”. ~ priyanath ^talk consistently removes this section. Shannon Rose accused me of Vandalism.

What is your advice? I am not a Vandal but think that there should be a balanced view about this issue of Kriya Yoga. It seems only one point of view, that of Yogananda followers is presented. I myself use the techniques of Yogananda but there are other, older techniques, and people should know that. By the way, Shannon Rose herself uses Swami Satyeswaranada's "Kriya, Finding the True Path" when making an argument regarding Hariharananda: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Hariharananda. Walter Elyon 16:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Preah Vihear temple

Excuse me, why are you so strict with the sources of that flag sentences. This and this would POSSIBLY suit you. It is RELIABLE. The ISBN is right. Or, if you want me to change the source title into Thai language I can do it for you. Or do you want me to scan the book cover or inside of the book and asks some Thais to translate? They would answer like what I wrote.

Do you have your own hatreds with the article? CHECK THIS OUT, and never delete it again. --Passawuth (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vedavyasapriya Swami

I have replied to your query at my talk page, and also at the Vedavyasapriya Swami talk page. Henrydoktorski (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, just wanted to say a big thanks for preventing vandalism on Ramakrishna article. Thank you very much. Also thanks for the cn tags, this has helped me remove unnecessary stuff. Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check before removing any text

Dear Ism schism, I would request you to read the text/ any recent editing before knocking it off blindly. A few of them come here not only to read but also to enrich the articles or to write fresh articles by collecting materials from various sources. Regards. (Ketoki (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Reply Wikipedia:Reliable Sources are needed, and not "various sources," and/or "no sources." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links

This problem concerns the Sadhu article.

My Sadhu Photo Gallery - containing more than 500 sadhu photos (thus the largest organized collection available on the web up to date) - has been removed twice by you (Ism_schism) and marked as spam as can be seen it in the Sadhu Article History page:

15:42, 17 September 2008 Ism schism (Talk | contribs) (13,050 bytes) (→External links: rm spam) (undo) 
11:15, 14 August 2008 Ism schism (Talk | contribs) (12,972 bytes) (restore deleted section) (undo)

The Sadhu Photo Gallery is definitely NOT SPAM, but THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF SADHU PHOTOS AVAILABLE ON THE NET. I want to know WHY you not accept it as an External Link !!!???

Please study WP:DR if you must and place my link back. I will wait for an answer for the next 5 days, before I do it myself. But this should not resort in an Edit war.

Thank you for your cooperation! (Cyberguru)

Reply Because, it is SPAM. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You have not studied the Dispute Resolution (See:WP:DR) and thus I will not accept this as an appropriate answer. A Photo Collection of the given subject is not SPAM. You should study the Wikipedia Spam (WP:LINKSPAM) and External Links (WP:LINKS) definitions. The Sadhu Photo Gallery falls under "Links to be considered" no.1. cited: "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews." (See: WP:ELMAYBE) If you insist on deletion we should request for comments. (See:WP:RFC) I think you should be a bit more precise and cooperate. Thank you! Cyberguru (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CyberGuru, Kindly see Wikipedia:EL#AVOID, — "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." The link is a personal website, why dont you consider uploading the images to wikimedia under a suitable license, it will be a great addition. Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't look like that would work, as it appears CyberGuru is not the photographer but instead has collected photos from sites all over the web, most likely violating others copyrights in the process. Bob (QaBob) 19:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vedavyasa Priya Swami

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Vedavyasa Priya Swami, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Vedavyasapriya Swami. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

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) 00:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me-too philosopher?

Hi there, There are evil forces at work with an aim to portray Hinduism are some kinda tribal polytheistic belief system. I had major revisions on the Polytheism page. You can't just monkey around deleting other people's corrections. That's really not an NPOV approach. You should know better. The last thing I had expected was a dimwit Hindu to go in and revert to BobAllah's posts which were cleverly ridiculing the soft polytheism of the Advaita sect of Hinduism. If you have nothing to contribute, at least don't go trampling around on other people's hard work. Take care! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VedicScience (talk • contribs) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you too? I appreciate your attempts at editing articles on Wikipedia. Please know, I am always open to helping new editors. In the meantime, happy editing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Hello dear friend Ism, I am interested in all schools of Vedanta and Yoga philosophy. Please check out the following links which I found particularly interesting in educating myself about Hinduism:

http://gopalkeerty.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/shankaracarya-siva-mayavada-philosophy-truth-revealed/

http://gopalkeerty.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/the-actual-secret-of-lord-siva-mayavada-advaita-sankhya/

I'd also like to remind you about "disruptive edits" and 3RR policies of Wikipedia. If you engage in continued rvs without first checking out reference links, or even posting your arguments on the talk page first, you might get yourself reported. Be well and edit with NPOV. Take care. ADvaitaFan (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do love this. You do one reversion and he gives you a 3RR warning, when in fact he's up to 3.

Hmmm. So someone else also ran into your disruptive editing. You should study more instead of engaging in so many stupid and useless rvs that you trip up people and frustrate them so much as they want to report you and get you banned. You really need to work on your NPOV. I noticed that you continue to dabble in with your POV on the Henotheism page as well after the recent Adityas debacle. Let me remind you that “civility” is best understood as rational commentary. So you should go debate on the Talk:Henotheism instead of engaging in edit reversals pushing your own POV, without paying attention to references added by others (in this case ADvaitaFan) for verifiability. It should also be noted that “rational debate” does not just mean the usage of a good tone, but also willingness to compromise and adapt to the positions of other editors: simply repeating your original position ad nauseam through rvs in the face of questionable verifiability of your edits – is not civil, but merely tendentious. Be well. VedicScience (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Hi Ism, Thanks for the welcome. I've already run into a dispute; do you have an opinion on this conflict (Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Akbar_the_Great)? Thanks for your time, Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workgroup Swaminarayan

The workgroup is now reality : WP: Swaminarayan. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on the tedious work of putting up all the banners. Did you put the banners on all the pages, just need to double check Juthani1 ^tcs 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are still quite a few more articles to tag for the project. I will be tagging these in the short term. Please do review them per their assessments, I am not that qualified to assess all of these articles. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to give the job of assessing to User:Redtigerxyz. I will tell him to do as much as he can, it's a huge work load. I bet you had one too tagging all of those articles. We should have split up the work. Excellent work again Juthani1 ^tcs 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template Substitution

Hi there. When you add a welcome template to a user’s page please remember to substitute it. If wish to reply to this message please use my talk page and if you need help feel free to talk to me there or you may find Wikipedia:SUB helpful. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)T[reply]

Speedy deletion of Joewurzelbacher2010

A tag has been placed on Joewurzelbacher2010, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be based on web content which in itself is not notable. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (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. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your hangon tag, on this article, please see my post on the article's talk page. You will find there my reasoning for the tagging. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Best Wishes on the Occasion of Diwali -- Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Builder

Though with the number of issues I see on your talkpage, I'm probably a)telling you nothing you don't already know and b) shouting into a hurricane: Before you re-add a piece of content that has been removed as unencyclopedic, it's considered good form to DISCUSS it on the article's talk page and to offer evidence (other than "Jon Stewart mentioned it OMGPONIEZ!!!1111!!! it must riLLy b important") as to how and why it's encyclopedic. The burden of proving that an item should stay lies on those who would include the reference. Gladys J Cortez 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeituni Onyango re-written

This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Jones-Kelly

Care to comment on the latest thread re: her political donations? Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can guess you're reluctant to get involved, but the article now has a nice long list of negative editorial comments courtesy of an editor with a chip on his shoulder. There's also a query on the WP:BLP notice board. Mattnad (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peace house

I noticed the AfD and came up with a suggestion that might interest you - [5]. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sankarshan Das Adhikari

I have nominated Sankarshan Das Adhikari, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sankarshan Das Adhikari. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikidās ॐ 12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

odd content on talk page

hi ism schism. you welcomed me last year, so perhaps you can help. the page: Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/music/Albums‎ has very odd content posted to it. i added the sig of the poster and my own comments. should this list of questions be deleted from a talk page? im really just trying to flag it for someone more familiar than me with wiki ins and outs. sorry i didnt visit your page before. as it turns out, i have a strong interest in hinduism myself (though i am not a hindu), and related subjects. i will probably see what you have written.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neat trick

I love it how you edit war with me, and then place a warning tag on my talk page. I got to remember that one. — goethean ॐ 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goethan, its not just "you", make it "you, Nvineeth and at least 4 more editors", OK? --Nvineeth (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordination of projects etc.

Ism schism, Thank you for your Message.

I hope you are well. It seems the page you pointed out is up for deletion. Maybe an alternative method could be used, I would love to hear your suggestions on coordination of the same as per your message. I am open for suggestions and to a degree can dedicate my time for such correspondence, even it is limited. Wikidās ॐ 19:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Do you any objection if I represent WikiProject Hinduism? Since you are the only one who reacted to the message on Hinduism notice board, asking you. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have my full support! You are easily one of the most qualified and even handed editors. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please express your views on Hinduism notice board. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New comment

Hello Ism, In your comment you mentioned that you see that Yadunandana already taken sannyasa initiation. i am however puzzled as how exactly you saw it, since I can not find actual reference, except that there was a plan for him to take sannyasa on the 10th of March 4mU. Please clarify. Wikidās ॐ

Weathermen and BLP problem

Please do not add unproven accusations of murder against living individuals, and please do not re-insert material that has been removed as a WP:BLP violation, as you do in these six edits.[6][7][8][9][10] I have opened a discussion on the subject at Talk:Bill Ayers.Wikidemon (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The short and well sourced paragraph that you keep deleting is;

On February 24, 2009, leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association stated that there is “irrefutable and compelling reasons” that establish how Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, are responsible for the bombing of a San Francisco police station in 1970 that killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell, a 20-year veteran of the department.^[1] The San Francisco Police Department’s Park Station was bombed Feb. 16, 1970, killing Sgt. Brian McDonnell.^[2] Eight other officers were injured. McDonnell died two days after the bombing.^[3] The case has yet to be solved. ^[4]

This above text is not an accusation; the closing states that "The case has yet to be solved." This is a neutrally worded text of an event verified by mainstream media. For more info, please see;

Fox News' article Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing, PR Newswire's article Attorney General Urged to Investigate Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn by Campaign for Justice for Victims of Weather Underground Terrorism, Accuracy in Media's article Bernadette Dohrn, Bill Ayers and the bomb that killed a cop, and Chicagoland's Television's article San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers are a few good examples of this current event. This event, involving San Francisco Police Officers Association and Bill Ayers has been well noted by multiple reliable sources that have verified its notability. As such the section should be not be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting again. Do not re-insert BLP violations. You are welcome to discuss on the talk page (although consensus does not justify a BLP vio), and most likely, AN/I and/or the BLP noticeboard or an RfC. Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to state how this current event, reported on by mutltiple reliable sources, is a BLP violation. Until you state exactly how this is a BLP violation, you are just making accusations. There are multiple reliable sources that have reported on this event, there is no reason why it should not be included. Reports by mainstream media do not violate BLP - if you disagree - state how. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning. I have instructed you to stop. You should not be edit warring in the first place, but edit warring to add BLP violations is a serious issue here. Please self-revert your latest ones; otherwise I will seek to have you blocked from editing to avoid reprinting defamatory accusations like this. We can discuss in due time. Incidentally, I have brought this up at WP:AN/I#Bill Ayers / BLP vio. Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning part II Your comments have been noted, multiple times. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting, then continuing to edit war, is the problem. Anyway, the articles are protected for the moment so you can talk about the substance rather than the process issues around edit warring. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ""Police sergeant dies of wounds"". UPI. 1970-02-19. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ ""Police union targets '60s radical"". The Examiner. 2009-03-12. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ ""1967-71 -- a bloody period for S.F. police"". San Francisco Chronicle. 2007-01-27. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "" CHARGES IN KILLING OF S.F. OFFICER"". San Francisco Chronicle. 2007-01-24. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Deleted page

Please see Talk:Barack_Obama#Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama for my rationale. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sankarshan Das Adhikari

I'm not sure why the article on Sankarshan Das Adhikari was deleted. It was being accessed by many people around the world. I need your help to reinstate it. It certainly was not self-promotion, and he is a well-known guru to Vaishnava devotees around North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. His daily email newsletter has nearly 10,000 voluntary subscribers. Bindumadhava (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All stop

In this edit you linked to an AFD closed in December 2008. Script/bot gone haywire? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

You nominated for deletion a huge series of "criticism" articles. This has been debated numerous times, and the articles were kept. It would be huge waste of time for many users to vote in all these unnecessary AfD nominations. I reported this to WP:ANI, and you are welcome to explain your actions. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with S Marshall[11] and suggest that a RFC for all "criticism of" articles would be the way to go. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the advice and will pause for some time on Afds, though there are a few that need editing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should nominate for deletion the entire Category:Criticisms with all its sub-categories. Please realize: criticism is healthy, criticism is good. As a professional researcher, I can assure that criticism is enormously helpful in scientific work, as in any other area of human activity.Biophys (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

I have an outline of a lengthy and legitimate article at User:THF/Obama with not a single "nutball conspiracy theory" in it. I'll draft it off-wiki this weekend. I encourage editors to participate in this project by sending me sources (or perhaps fully drafted paragraphs) rather than battling at DRV or on the Talk:Obama page about intermediate stages. If we present a fully-sourced, well-written neutral article, there shouldn't be a problem -- and if there is, it will be pretty damning of Wikipedia. THF (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hridaya Caitanya Dasa article

Dear Ism,

I have started Hridaya Caitanya Dasa ‎article. Should you know of any sources to add to it, please do not hesitate to add. He is a GBC member since 2002. Wikidās ॐ 19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Wikidās ॐ 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of mayors of Wasilla, Alaska

I have nominated List of mayors of Wasilla, Alaska, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Wasilla, Alaska. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DR

I've never really been to Deletion Review, but I'd suggest that is a good place to go if you are contesting the deletion itself. If you are contesting the notability of the subject rather than the validity of the article that was there you should probably just recreate the article with the new sourcing. Ironholds (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect RFC

Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on user Collect [12]. You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber for quite some time so your perspective might be helpful.Mattnad (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry if there was an WP:edit conflict on Levi Johnston --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Alan Brook

It's moot at this point, but if you honestly believe that Brook claims that Ashkenazi Jews are Khazar converts to Judaism, you have not actually read or understood his books. On the contrary, he asserts that Ashkenazi Jews are primarily descended from Israelites, but that other people, including Khazars, have contributed genetically from time to time over the centuries. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Johnston

FYI: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 7#Levi Johnston. Will Beback talk 20:13, 7 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} 10:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jbolden1517/Bristol Palin

I'm not going to go too crazy until I see the result of the LJ AfD, but at some point maybe we should work on the page for Bristol. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion lists

I think you were probably just taking a joke too literally, but I suggest undoing the recent additions of the LJ AFD to miscellaneous deletion discussion lists. It's possible to go too far, and that was probably over the line. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Pointy-ness at Afd. Will Beback talk 12:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add them. I only noted on the page that they had been added. Remove them from the listings if you want. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I confused you with another editor. I retract my statement entirely. Will Beback talk 12:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Criticism of Ovadia Yosef

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Criticism of Ovadia Yosef, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

1. As per WP:OR Unpublished analysis / synthesis of published sources (e.g., "For instance, in April 2001, Rabbi Yosef was widely criticized for what was interpreted as a call for the unconditional annihilation of Arabs, saying, 'It is forbidden to be merciful to them ... '" - The article concludes that "THEM" was talking about all Arabs, not just terrorists)

2. As per WP:RS WP:REDFLAG

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. shirulashem (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Ovadia Yosef

Hello. Several days ago you added the "Under Construction" template to this article, but you haven't made any changes since then. Should the banner be removed, or do you intend to edit the article in the next few days? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in your edits on sdg's page you used source that is not used anywhere in the wikipedia as a reliable source. are you sure you want to keep it? It is a blog site as per page titles that only on occasion publishes official responses for blogger? does not suit BLP sourcing, especially if person himself does not want the item being mentioned? please reply here. thanks Wikid ^as© 20:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very open to discussion. The Dandavats website is edited by Pragosha Dasa, a member of ISKCON's Governing Body Commission, and a disciple of Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. In the references used, Dandavats cites both a GBC Executive Committee report, and a letter from Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. This is valid information, from a verifiable source, that is directly related to teh Satsvarupa dasa Goswami article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that just a 'disciple' publishes something about someone it becomes a reliable source. Source clearly states, "blog archive" - blogs are not acceptable as reliable or verifiable sources, unless they are quoted by reliable secondary sources. It is primary information (primary source?) at best that does not deserve to be included in the Wikipedia, unless it have been already included in secondary reliable sources, that are plentiful. In other words wiki isn't the first place where information is published; it's just a collection of important information that has been published by the reliable sources. If it was really important, then the newspapers, the religion magazines, or the proper major online sources that write about Krishna Consciousness, such as iskcon.com would mention it, I would not even suggest academic sources or newspapers, that would be better. Dandavats or chakra blog site is not such a source and never will be accepted as such, regardless of what they have published. Do you have ANY other reliable sources that can support this? If not then we can just stick with the good sources quoting GBC executive body, if there are any. Only then GBC EC views can considered notable for inclusion on Wiki. It seems that you confuse verifiable and reliable. I do not have a prejudice on inclusion sources that are fine with the policy on living people. Wikid ^as© 07:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Article you have nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhakti_Vikasa_Swami) was deleted but has been recreated and is currently on AfD. here. Wikid ^as© 07:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Jarett

Hi, Ism schism. I am new to Wikipedia. On August 25, 2009, I edited the article on Valerie Jarrett to include a section on her relationship with President Obama and his wife Michelle. The next day you removed it all citing "pov" and "or." So I looked through what I had submitted, and revised anything that seemed to fit either of those criteria, making changes accordingly. I then edited the article again on August 31, 2009. On September 2, 2009 you again removed it all, this time citing "rvv" which I understand to be terming what I had done as vandalism. As far as I can tell my submission is well-sourced, and no unwarranted claims are made. As I said I'm new so perhaps there is some procedure I am not following. At any rate, I posted my contribution on the discussion page for the article "Valerie Jarrett." I would appreciate your input. Thanks. Mels18 (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teitel DRV

You forgot to sign your comment in the Teitel DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Veda Vyasapriya Swami

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Veda Vyasapriya Swami. 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/Veda Vyasapriya Swami. 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, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anibal José Chávez Frías

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Anibal José Chávez Frías. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya S deletion

Please see Talk:Acharya S#Move mess for an explanation about the article's history and naming. You are of course always able to nominate the article at AFD, but this isn't a simple WP:CSD#G4. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trikkonnamarcodu Sri Durga Devi Kshetram Thalavoor

Could you please take a look at Trikkonnamarcodu Sri Durga Devi Kshetram Thalavoor? Another editor thinks that it should be deleted. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:ISKCON media

Krishna Avanti Primary School

Hope I didn't step on your toes too much adding to the article. I mostly categorize and new-page patrol, but I have a soft spot for school articles. --Oddharmonic (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

One more thing, a quote from 3RR:

"Exceptions by content type:

Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

Sole Soul (talk) 02:10, 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) 01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Bhaktivedanta hospital

I have nominated Bhaktivedanta hospital, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta hospital. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikid ^as© 10:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Prabhupada's Palace of Gold

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Prabhupada's Palace of Gold. 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/Prabhupada's Palace of Gold. 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) 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be time

for you or someone to bring a 3rr or other action against that edit warrior.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian

I have nominated Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Prezbo (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging proposal

Article you have created (Kadamba_Kanana_Swami) is being considered for merging in the GBC body article. You views are welcomed on the article's talk page. Wikid ^as© 16:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Urmila Devi Dasi

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Urmila Devi Dasi. 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/Urmila Devi Dasi (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) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Rashad Hussain

I am looking into this, but until I look further into the facts, I am considering this to be a content dispute. As such, I should caution you against continued reverts per the WP:3RR. Please do not take offense. I need to remain fair an neutral - warning all parties equally. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the Rashad Hussain since you both continue to edit in violation of the 3RR. On a review of recent edits, I see that there are reliable sources supporting multiple points of view. I am hoping that the two of you will take this to the talk page and attempt to work out a compromise that fairly presents material from all sides. The goal is not to reach a conclusion of fact, but to present available information in a neutral manner. I hope you will work together toward a resolution of this dispute. If necessary please make use of the resources described in WP:Dispute resolution. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

I guess tagging for ad hominem reasons is the last resort of the edit warrior. I see it has taken place at the Emerson article as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palin page

You said that mentioning that Palin said something about death panels was out of date. If you like removing out of date things, shouldn't the majority of the article, which is about Palin as mayor or governor, be deleted first?

You said that it was an WP:UNDUE violation to describe Palin as saying more about death panels than the death penalty, tort reform and so forth. Do you agree with yourself on this one? I thought the opposite was very WP:WELLKNOWN and well-documented. If I'm missing something here, please point it out.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of International Society for Krishna Consciousness members and patrons

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of International Society for Krishna Consciousness members and patrons. 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/List of International Society for Krishna Consciousness members and patrons. 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) 01:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lokanath Swami

Why do you say that this reference is unusable?--Gaura79 (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the link the info cited - where the info exist? That is what is missing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to provide a direct link. But the articles are available on Gale database (that's where I found them). Just go and check it.--Gaura79 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the link where the info exist? That is what is missing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title:Discourse on holy scripture.(News) Post (South Africa) (Sept 3, 2008): p.5. (388 words) From InfoTrac Custom Newspapers.

Full Text:COPYRIGHT 2008 Independent News & Media PLC BYLINE: VERUSCHKA MUNGROO THE Srimad Bhagavatam is regarded as the source of all holy Hindu scriptures for the knowledge it provides. To pay tribute to the book, ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) will host a Bhagavata Katha from today (Wednesday) until Saturday at the Sri Sri Radha Radhanath Temple (Hare Krishna Chatsworth Temple) in Bhaktivedanta Circle, Chatsworth, at 6pm. The four-day discourse will be conducted by His Holiness Lokanath Swami Maharaj, pictured, of Maharashtra, India, and will include the Vrindavan pastimes and teachings of Lord Krishna. The public relations officer of the Hare Krishna Movement, Champakalata dasi, says Lokanath Swami Maharaj, is billed as the foremost preacher of Bhagavat Dharma. The world famous swami, who will speak for more than three hours non-stop everyday in English, is an astute scholar within the Hare Krishna movement and a senior disciple of His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (the founder of ISKCON). He became famous when he inaugurated the Padayatra walking pilgrimage tour of India where, together with a group of devotees, a cart and books, he treaded his way on foot across the length and breadth of India, preaching the eternal knowledge of sanathan dharma in 1976. He continues this voyage annually, during the month of Karthik (October), and has since travelled the globe more than 30 times. "The swami, who forsook his study of chemistry in favour of studying the Bhagavad Gita, became a sannyasi (renounced order of life) in 1975. He also masterminded the collection of holy waters from over 1008 spiritual places in India," added dasi. At the weekend thousands of Hindus were "mesmerised" by the katha at the New Jagganath Puri Temple at the corner of Pandora and Longcroft streets in Phoenix. "The presentation was spiritually enlightening. Visitors were inspired by the glorifications of the holy name and pastimes of Lord Krishna. "The profound rendition of ancient Hindu scriptures illustrated swami's deep realisation and devotion to the religion and the sacred scripture enthralled the audience," said dasi. The scripture, written by Sage Vyasadeva, carried down through disciple succession, consists of 335 chapters and 18 000 verses. The swami will be accompanied by musicians from America, India and Mauritius.

Source Citation "Discourse on holy scripture." Post [South Africa] 3 Sept. 2008: 5. InfoTrac Custom Newspapers. Web. 20 Jan. 2010. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=mtlib_2_1035>.

Title:Swami captivates for five days.(News) Post (South Africa) (July 18, 2007): p.5. (406 words) From InfoTrac Custom Newspapers.

BYLINE: VERUSCHKA MUNGROO

THOUSANDS of devotees from around the globe gathered at the Sri Sri Radha Radhanath Temple in Bhaktivedanta Circle , Chatsworth, to commemorate the first Bhagavata Katha. The ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) temple, also known as the Chatsworth Hare Krishna Temple, made history by presenting, for the first time in South Africa, a five-day discourse on the Srimad Bhagavatam, a book regarded as the source of all holy Hindu scriptures. The discourse held from Wednesday until Sunday, was conducted by His Holiness, Lokanath Swami, pictured, of Maharashtra, India, and included inspirational stories of the Vrindavan pastimes of Lord Krishna, from the time and circumstances of his appearance through his childhood. The public liaison official for the temple, and a lecturer at the Department of Education at the University of Kwazulu Natal, Edgewood Campus, Smita Krishna Das, said: "The presentation was spiritually enlightening which caused the mood for intense devotion. Visitors to the temple were inspired by the glorifications of the holy name and past times of Lord Krishna." The swami, who spoke for more than three hours non-stop everyday, is an astute scholar within the Hare Krishna movement, a senior disciple of His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (the founder of ISKCON) and became famous when he travelled through the major cities of India by bullock cart in 1976, preaching the eternal knowledge of sanathan dharma. He also initiated the padayatra (pilgrimage by foot), which has become instrumental in propagation of Krishna consciousness. "The profound rendition of the tenth canto illustrated swami's deep realisation and devotion to the religion, and the sacred scripture was proven through the enthusiastic and mesmerised audience." added Krishna Das. The scripture, which was written by Sage Vyasadeva and was carried down through disciplic succession, consists of 335 chapters and 18 000 verses. The discourse was backed by captivating musicians from India, USA and Mauritius, who chanted the holy name for hours. Scenes from the swami's lectures were illustrated in a daily drama by youth and was followed by an aarti for the Srimad Bhagavatam. A visitor to the temple, Neera Behari, who attended every day said the discourse helped her realise the true essence of her religion and she was inspired by the devotion of the devotees. That about summed up the experiences of most of the enlightened devotees. Plans are already on the way to host another Bhagavatha Katha next year with the sponsorship confirmed. Source Citation "Swami captivates for five days." Post [South Africa] 18 July 2007: 5. InfoTrac Custom Newspapers. Web. 20 Jan. 2010. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=mtlib_2_1035>. Title:Tribute tothe holy book.(News) Post (South Africa) (July 11, 2007): p.7. (254 words) From InfoTrac Custom Newspapers. Full Text:COPYRIGHT 2007 Independent News & Media PLC BYLINE: VERUSCHKA MUNGROO FOR centuries, the Srimad Bhagavatam has been regarded as the source of all holy Hindu scriptures, for the pure knowledge that it provides to humanity. To pay tribute to this holy book, ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) will be hosting a Bhagavata Katha from today (Wednesday) to Sunday (July 15) at the Sri Sri Radha Radhanath Temple (Chatsworth Temple) in Bhaktivedanta Circle, Chatsworth. The five-day discourse, conducted by His Holiness Lokanath Swami, pictured, of Maharashtra, India, will include the Vrindavan pastimes of Lord Krishna which emminates from the tenth canto of the Bhagavatam. The festival will also be a feast of music and drama extravaganza with internationally renowned musicians from America and Mauritius. His Holiness Lokanath Swami is a direct disciple of His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (the founder of ISKCON) and a spiritual leader to the Hare Krishna Movement. The swami is involved with many worldwide activities to propagate Krishna Consciousness. Set against the backdrop of the Naimisaranya forest, the Srimad Bhagavatam describes a conversation between many great sages discussing the importance of maintaining the aspect of God and the various incarnations of Lord Krishna.The holy scripture, which was written by Sage Vyasadeva and was carried down through disciplic succession, consists of 335 chapters and 18 000 verses. Source Citation "Tribute tothe holy book." Post [South Africa] 11 July 2007: 7. InfoTrac Custom Newspapers. Web. 20 Jan. 2010. <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=mtlib_2_1035>.

Again You need links that work. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it mentioned? Couldn't find it here or anywhere else.--Gaura79 (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point. Your references have to not only be reliable, but verifiable as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

I've done everything appropriately. If you need to verify, you can go to a library or find cited articles on Gale database. All the information is provided in inline citation.--Gaura79 (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Bhakti Narasimha Swami

I have nominated Bhakti Narasimha Swami, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Narasimha Swami. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gaura79 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Smita Krishna Swami

I have nominated Smita Krishna Swami, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smita Krishna Swami. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gaura79 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Judaism

I rolled back a large set of changes you made there, please join us on the talk page if you'd like to make such changes. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your rapid editing of Criticism of Judaism, and join us on the talk page, we are currently working to achieve consensus as to how we should move forward. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've referred twice to the talk page for this article in your edit summaries, but you haven't explained your actions, could you please clarify your intentions in regard to these significant alterations you are making? --Nuujinn (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe an editor from another major world religion portal is a welcome sight to the mix of editors currently working on that page. Diversity may lead to NPOV and a better consensus. Thankyou for your attempts and I hope you can continue to bring your expertise to the article. Besides, you are in for a deep experience in the area of building Wikipedia consensus. The journey on that page so far has traveled through most every Wikipedia principle there is. Alatari (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhaktivinode for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. wiooiw (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persia??

Why is Persia mentioned in India's homepage??? its India's page! hindustan was an Indian idea not persian!!! only stan came from them hindu comes from sindhu ! first mentioned in the rig veda! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruvekhera (talk • contribs) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jazeera edit

Hi there! I just noticed you removed my edit on the Al Jazeera page about the Hamas attack on an AJ journalist earlier this month. Please could you explain? Msepryor (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Elijah Muhammad, Jr.

A tag has been placed on Elijah Muhammad, Jr. 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 important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Muhammad, Jr.

Hi, I've restored the above to a userspace draft, found at User:Ism schism/Elijah Muhammad, Jr., so that you can improve the article. When you feel that it is ready to bring it back into the mainspace, let another administrator (such as User:SchuminWeb, who deleted it), know. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kadamba Kanana Swami for deletion

The article Kadamba Kanana 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/Kadamba Kanana 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) 08:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sewak Sanjaynath Page Deletion

I am not sure why have you deleted the Wiki Page for Sewak Sanjaynath. Your comment which says that he is not a notable leader states that you donot have enough information about the person. Pls let me know what all information is required so that the page can be restored. Just FYI he holds the title of Jagatguru Vamacharya in the field of Vam Marg and Tantra sadhna. You can refer the website www.vamtantrasamrat.com for his details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashmi.shri (talk • contribs) 10:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tynetta Muhammad

Thanks for the comment and for keeping me honest! I need to get myself to the library for the reference info: they're listed in Evanzz's The Messenger. There is a Jet article listing 4 kids but Evanzz is more definitive. Njsamizdat (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus or Christ as acharya

Brother,

can you help me? Jesus or Christ topic has no Hindu point of view.

Do you know references to status or role of Jesus or Christ as acharya?

I am think Jesus or Christ were not avatars from Hindu point of view but higher than master of siddhis. No mention in Vedas.

Thank you. (Januarythe18th (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radha Madhav Dham

Hi. I realise that you are quite a specialist on Asian religions, but in view of the complexities of the two articles involved, perhaps an attempt at dialogue with the other editors would have been more appropriate than reducing one article to a stub and sending it summarily to AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them. If the other editors where not Anons, it would of been easier to hold a dialogue - but given there Anon status; I have no idea who I am talking to. Also, I must admit, I am a bit skeptical of Anons. Then again, you bring up a good point. Next time, I will attempt a more engaging dialogue as the starting point. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Madhav Dham

I don't know what your issue is with this organization and I don't particularly care. But this is blatant coatracking. You don't dump the contents of an article into another one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These were not "dumped" but removed by another Anon editor. Please do Not remove reliable sources that detail the history of subject. If you have opinions - please take them elsewhere. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the content now appears in another article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is not Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place for this discussion is the talk page of the article. Anyhow, the history of the temple, and especially any history that is recorded by reliable sources, and is notable, should be included in the article. Also, please, let us continue this discussion on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you want a record of your extremely questionable edits on there? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take these discussions to the article's talk page. You can vent your opinions there. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Radha Madhav Dham. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing, POV

I'm not going to issue a formal warning here or the mandatory block for edit warring. I will however, offer some friendly advice in that your editing is now becoming disruptive, and that your AfD nomination and subsequent comments on it were shown to appear to be possibly your own point of view. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct your comments to the talk page of Radha Madhav Dham. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor behaviour issues are best addressed initially on the editor's talk page. Please don't order others about where they should be seeking or giving advice. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WCI 2011

Hiya, Im currently helping out with WikiConference India 2011 [13] (first such a national annual Wiki event in India). Just wondering if you can spare time to help out with the programming Team. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson page

Hi - I just noticed (I'm fairly wiki oblivious) your involvement with the Thompson page. I'm open to any general advice possible. thanks Sdmuni108 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin page edit war

I understand. I was trying to add information, which kept being deleted by people who were showing bias. I added more sources and will stop engaging in war, even though I was only adding info and not showing bias.

Thanks. I appreciate you adding sources to back up the claims - thank you! Also, there is a bit of an edit war going on there. I really respect your decision to take time away from the article. At times like these, editors should take a day or two off. We are all human... Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding and I apologize for the disruption. I will spend the next few days away from wikipedia and will familiarize myself with the rules before I return to editing. I apologize once again.

Please do not be discouraged. Taking a day or two off is always good. If you need any advice, please feel free to talk to me here. Becoming familiar with the rules and etiquette of wikipedia can take time - other editors will understand this - we've all had to go through it. The main thing is to just be honest with other editors about what you are doing - there are MANY people who are sincere and want to help!!! Thank you for your contributions. Ism schism (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Palestinian rabbi for you!

Thanks for your support at the Afd on Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Ism schism, please be a little less hostile. Also try re-reading WP:AGF. Also, do not edit war like you are doing now. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are pretty much alone in your POV. Take a few days off - stop your edit wars for a few days - that is my suggestion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment is wrong. You seem not to have studied all relevant discussions. In addition, I take issue with your aggressive tone. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please see Wikipedia:AN3, where I have decided to report you before this gets out of hand. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made yourself look bad on that one - though - Thanks for the laughs! Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Your sarcasm is not appreciated. Very uncivil. Makes you look even worse. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You got blocked - not me! Your edits do waste others time... even if they are a bit funny. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Palestinian rabbi for you!

Thanks for your support at the Rename on Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Richard L. Thompson

You have not properly nominated Richard L. Thompson for deletion. A second nomination needs to be made following the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO or in the AfD template on the page. I have reverted your addition of the old deletion discussion to the AfD log, as it is closed, and a new one needs to be created. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:40, 14 October 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://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Victorgrigas

Abusive and False Tagging of Radha Madhav Dham

You seem to have an issue with this article. Please discuss it on the talk page of the article before adding future tags. 109.255.71.203 (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of This is Herman Cain!: My Journey to the White House

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as This is Herman Cain!: My Journey to the White House, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". 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 page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the article. Have you considered nominating it for WP:DYK? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
– Lionel ^(talk) 03:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Herman Cain, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Pillsbury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia

Hello Ism schism. I appreciate your scrutiny of the article Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia, but with the new developments in the Parliament of India today: [14], [15], [16], this issue is notable beyond any doubt, but the AfD template is stifling further work on the article in many ways. Could you please consider withdrawing the AfD nomination? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for withdrawing your AfD nomination. Could you notify an administrator to have the AfD closed soon? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. You may want to place a notice and an AfD closure request at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Kemp Commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily news (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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} 11:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Herman Cain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaiyyanism

Hi, thanks Ism Schism for your input into the Aaiyyanism page. I agree that it would be better to delete the entry so i can find some 3rd party reliable references. I don't know how to move the page though and userfy it - i don't think i have the privileges. I was wondering you can help - maybe move it for me and then delete the original Aaiyyanism entry if you have admin rights. All the best and keep up the good work as a wiki editor :). Yoga. Yogaraman (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin

Your contention that the New Yorker is an unreliable source is utterly absurd, and merely repeating this assertion instead of justifying it does not make it any more true. Gamaliel (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan civil war

You can't move articles by copying the content. You need to get the article moved properly, thus I've reverted you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please review WP:VANDAL. In Wikipedia parlance, vandalism is bad faith editing with no effort to improve the encyclopedia. Good faith efforts are not vandalism, even if we personally disagree with them. I see you've been reverting a number of apparently good faith edits, labeling them as vandalism ("rvv" = "revert vandalism").[17][18] If you really believe this is vandalism I suggest reporting it at WP:AIV so it can be dealt with. If you don't think it's vandalism then you need to find a different reason for deleting sourced text. Will Beback talk 20:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the advice, and will be more specific in detailing the reasons for my edits in the future. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kemp Commission in Gingrich article

Hello, Ism schism. You have new messages at Talk:Newt Gingrich.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tvoz/talk 20:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hindu Council of Russia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Outlook and Economic Times (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop misusing edit summaries

You have already been cautioned about this last week when you falsely described an edit as vandalism. This time you say use OR which means Original Research in this edit. Dont misuse edit summaries again please. Pass a Method talk 21:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Omnientheism

Hello Ism schism. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Omnientheism, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: to the extent: I can understand what is meant here. That is enough for the criterion to fail. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JahSun (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upanishad article

Dear Ism Schism, which part of the changes I made troubles you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestTeacher (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC) I have barely removed anything, most of my changes were limited to moving stuff from the lead to where it belonged.ForestTeacher (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gita Talk

If you have some time, you can have a look here. Is it a conclusion of any consensus that a Hare Krishna person(!) can not edit Gita article? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 05:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of James Oler

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on James Oler 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 important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Aaron Booth (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaura79

It is absolutely true that Gaura79 is a fundmentalist Hare Krishna who inserts uncited material all over Wikipedia. Click here. Most of the edits are ISKCON related and always unsourced. AssociateLong (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many diffs in the above link where Gaura79 vandalized Wikipedia pages as well. AssociateLong (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hinduism coordinator

WikiProject Hinduism is in need a volunteer coordinator. The volunteer coordinator would have the following responsibilities:

Do whatever needs doing in the WikiProject Hinduism, or getting it done alongwith others.
Do everything that needs doing in the WikiProject, or getting it done alongwith others.
Look after the interests of the WikiProject community in general and the articles in specific.
Represent the views of the WikiProject wherever representation/participation is sought; to get & put forward the community's viewpoint.
Innovate and bring forth new initiatives, continue existing ones and retire defunct ones.
Maintain the WikiProject infrastructure of pages.
Community development - recruitment, motivation, empowerment.
Join the mailing list for Wikipedians working on India related content on English Wikipedia (wikimedia-in-en [at] lists [dot] wikimedia [dot] org)

The Volunteer coordinator is a volunteer from the community and is answerable to the community. He enjoys the informal recognition and full support of the community. However, he is open to recall by the community, should the community so decide. I have been requested by User:Ashlin to recommend candidates and I have recommended you. Let me/Ashlin know if you are interested. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon fundamentalism template

I understand you are trying to update things, but I think you've misunderstood the template. It does not reflect the current leadership of any given organization. It reflects present and past leaders, and the ones who have recently been removed from FLDS leadership are still appropriately listed under the FLDS head, because they have no notability apart from their past FLDS leadership roles. It doesn't matter what they are up to right now—what matters is why the were notable fundamentalist leaders, and that was within the FLDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra-Rock Dance poster for FP

Ism schism, just wanted to bring to your notice that the Mantra-Rock Dance poster is nominated for FP, should you wish to take part in the discussion there. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help wanted re Wikipedia style

Thanks for welcome. In the small bio of Ingvar Kamprad, it lists Annika Kihlbom as his daughter, but she is his adopted daughter. I think this should be made clear, somehow. What is Wiki policy re listing adopted children in a mini bio under a picture? --12:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Lepton6 (talk)

Vadasserikavu Bhagavathi Temple

Another editor has created Vadasserikavu Bhagavathi Temple. Could you please take a look at the article and improve it if possible? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

?

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

Nomination of Chuck Franco for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chuck Franco is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Franco 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 high-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. yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Egeymi really appreciates your creation of a new article, Turki bin Muqrin bin Abdulaziz, using just a little piece of information. Egeymi (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Egeymi said :). I just saw Mohammad Jihad al-Laham - keep up the great work! Ironholds (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor at Talk:Radha Madhav Dham

You should know a lot better than to do this. By all means, respond to the points, don't delete them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, read more!!! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever that keeps you going. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Martinez edits

You don't have authority to block me, and the edits you present on the page are unpopular by consensus. And I won't take a user that is accused of sockpuppetry serious. I don't think anyone would. Have a great day! Rr0044 (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ism, you also stepped over 3rr with your latest revert. Since Rr's fifth revert as an IP could be interpreted as a 3rr-evading sockpuppet, I'm not going to revert you or block you; but in the future, you should avoid doing that. Bring up the issue to someone else, or at a noticeboard. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that advice. Will do! Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mishari bin Saud

I hope you do not have any plan to write an article about Mishari bin Saud. Because it was written and soon will be here. Now it is under review. Also, please do not put links without content. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a serious problem. You cannot publish this article, Mishari bin Saud, since it has been under review. The other thing is that please try to be original. I will apply for related desks for this event, FYI.Egeymi (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What link with no content? I saw info about a notable individual and created an article. He was already notable as a governor. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with his notability. I created the article for thi person two months ago, it has been under review and I have been waiting for the result. Can you understand the point now. Egeymi (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, but will try to. Why the review? I am confused. I will add more to the article. It is notable, and should have existed years ago! I appreciate your hard work. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments: Firstly, the article heavily relies on the Arab Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Secondly, the article is obviously based on the draft Egeymi mentioned (and wrote), and I believe Wikipedia's license requires that in such cases the original author be credited with his work. Huon (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned just addressed the second concern by merging the histories. Huon (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ism Schism. I've published the article fully now, it didn't seem too problematic. What was problematic was the manner in which you published it. For one thing, the copying and pasting lost all history of how the article was built up and who worked on it, and for another your edit summary didn't make it clear that it was someone elses text. As Huon explains, the license requires that you attribute the original author. Don't let this happen again, it can lead to big head aches for administrators to tidy up and blocks too. Worm^TT(talk) 17:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Odd rules, but I get it. People want to be recognized, that's cool. I'll look over these rules so this does not happen again. The article exist now at - Mishari bin Saud bin Abdul-Aziz. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say "People do not want to be recognized", just want everyone to follow the rules. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good Egeymi, thank you for your hard work. I will read up more on rules. Thank you again. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, I'd suggest moving the draft instead. That should not only be easier than copying and pasting, it will also preserve page histories and avoid the attribution problems. Huon (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Ism schism today the page Nayef bin Abdulaziz is on the news page. I made me so happy that I want to tell you. I have looked for the news for Prince Hazloul, but there is nothing yet. As said before, if I find anything, I will inform you. Lastly, thanks for the barnstar, I really like them:)) Cheers, Egeymi (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ism schism, I put some info and infoboxes on Turki and Hazloul. I hope these and my other edits on the pages are OK for you. Mamdouh bin Abdulaziz's page will be expanded further because he is much more active than Hazloul. Egeymi (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update for Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia

Ism schism, thank you very much for the updates posted at the article's talk. Unfortunately, I'm extremely busy in RL at the moment and for a few more weeks to come, so unless you would like to add these updates yourself, I may have to take a while to get to them. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Ism schism, if you have time, can you come and deal with the deletion request for Mika Yamamoto. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Barn Star for you!

		The Hinduism Award
		Worthwhile contributions... Great Job... abdars 07:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Luhansk status referendum, 2014 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| part1_caption = [[Voter turnout]]:<br/>75% (Luhansk People's Republic)), <br/>24% (Ukraine Interior Ministry)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP nomination for Yogapith temple

Hello Ism schism. Would you be interested to review the FP nomination for Yogapith temple? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Cinosaur (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sulayman al-Assad

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Ali Sulayman al-Assad, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Sulayman Ali al-Assad. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article merger

The article in question was merged 6 months ago. You need to initiate a discussion and gain consensus for your proposed un-merger. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a consensus to merge. As such, the article stands. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian (2nd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

donetsk offensive

Do you mind if you could help expand this draft i am creating? I talked to RGloucester about it and he said it would probably be okay. The draft is about the offensive in the donetsk region since slovyansk was retaken by Ukraine.

Here it is: Draft:2014 Donetsk Offensive

Speedy deletion nomination of Amazing America with Sarah Palin

Hello Ism schism,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Amazing America with Sarah Palin for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Asdklf; (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you nominated the article. It seems you didn't take the time to read the entry. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrior?

How can you accuse me of being an "edit warrior"? Where you accuse me to be one, I have reverted you once, while you have reverted me twice! Is this a joke or what? Are you trying to confuse other people about your own war? Simply show me one other article in WP where I may have made an edit war. Show me or shut up. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to engage in an uncivilized dialogue with an editor who uses phrases like "shut up." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will have to be wondering all the time why you have been the only user here that I have told to shut up... Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tag bombing 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

Please do not tag bomb articles under major reconstruction as you are currently doing to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine: particularly the lead. The number of citations and fact checks you are asking for looks extremely WP:POINTy. The appropriate thing to do is to add an article clean-up tag for the entire article (redundant at this point while it is undergoing a clean up). In the second instance, you are not using the talk page. If you have serious issues with the content, leave a comment on the talk page in order to discuss your concerns with other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am marking where proper citations need to be. Please do help with this, as much work needs to be done. Thank you for helping. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are marking reliable sources with "verify credibility" tags in an obvious attempt to make a WP:POINT and adding "fact" tags to text which obviously already has citations. Volunteer Marek 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Volunteer Marek 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Aside from the fact that your edits are disruptive, it seems you've also violated 3RR on the article in question. Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 22:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again trying to attach POV tag to "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" article.

Here [19] is the talk section. I'd be happy to have any support or comments you can provide.Haberstr (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The POV editors are trying to ban me for NPOV edits of Ukraine conflict entries

I notice that you're an NPOV editor when it comes to Ukraine conflict Wikipedia entries. I am currently under severe attack -- see Haberstr -- for also being an NPOV editor of Ukraine conflict entries. Any comment or support at the Arbitration will be greatly appreciated! Maybe if enough of us protest the obvious, anti-Wikipedia bias, we'll get things moving in the right direction.Haberstr (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

September 2014

Your recent editing history at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ali Khamenei. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. RGloucester — ☎ 03:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you > RGloucester , I've posted to the talk page. Thank you for the advice. Ism schism (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user has complained you are edit warring

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Resumed edit warring by User:Ism schism. You may now be blocked if you don't agree to stop warring on the POV tag. Tags, like any other article content, require consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning at 22:40 on 12 September, you made four reverts of the POV tag in less than 24 hours. This broke WP:3RR, and you were reported at WP:AN3. No action was taken that time because you seemed to have stopped. Now at 04:41 on 19 September you resumed the same war by restoring the POV tag twice. I will block you under the original AN3 complaint unless you will now agree to stop editing 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and its talk page for seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sept 12 was 3 reverts in 24 hours. I made sure to not go over that. In the past 24 hours I have also not gone over the 3 revert rule. I did nothing wrong, and acted within policy. When warned by another editor, I have taken time to pause. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

See previous section of your talk page for the rationale. Regardless of revert counting, you have a long-term pattern of edit warring on this article which was documented by the submitter in the original AN3 complaint. If you will agree to change your approach we can talk. See my above proposal that you take a voluntary break from the article. Do not be surprised that admins respond vigorously to disputes on hot-button articles that are covered by WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pancha Bhoota Stalams

We are interested in the method of worship in the Pancha Bhoota Stalams. WE need to know the pujas and yagyas that are done in each place to worship the respective prakriti of the temple. Do you have this knowledge or can you refer us to some experts in this area. Drs. John and Sara Konhaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKonhaus (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India

You are welcome to participate in WP:INCOTM amd WT:IN. Thank you! --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samarth Ramdas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swarajya. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IAST Transliteration

Why did you undo my revision? In the IAST Transliteration, which is what I revised, there is no letter é. According to IAST the transliteration is simply veda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilietha (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Verne E. Rupright for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Verne E. Rupright is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verne E. Rupright (2nd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for your contribution in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Keshvari. AliAkar (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for your contribution in adding new sources in Ahmad Keshvari article. AliAkar (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Messaging through wikipedia mail

Can you enable your email or email me? Delibzr (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for your cooperation and contributions in the page for Khamenei's letter to the Western youth! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jake Shade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allegany County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification

FYI... I have decided to nominate Jake Shade for deletion. I appreciate your efforts to improve that article, but I am just not seeing enough to support the idea that he is notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Moshe Yosef (rabbi). If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Badatz Beit Yosef

Hi, I'm Fisheriesmgmt. Ism schism, thanks for creating Badatz Beit Yosef!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Great start! It would be good to expand this article if possible. Is there more information that could be included on this page?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ahmad Motevaselian (March 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Samee was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Ahmad Motevaselian, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ahmad Motevaselian and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SAMI ^talk 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Ism schism, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SAMI ^talk 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ahmad Motevaselian (March 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Samee was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Ahmad Motevaselian instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ahmad Motevaselian and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SAMI ^talk 17:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous republic

You returned it to the state it was when it was changed by Europa Universalis vandals - not sure that you realised that. Lutie has reverted you, correctly IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

You undid an edit at Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha without providing an edit summary. Would you please explain your undoing of that edit? There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Consider sharing your views there. Otherwise, the original edit will be restored. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ism schism, if you revert again at the article, you risk being blocked. You're not even attempting to resolve the dispute on the article Talk page. Kapil.xerox, don't revert the edit regardless of what you think the equities are.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I'll remove unsourced comments and POV wherever I see fit, if you want to talk about stuff, feel free to do so on articles talk page. Thanks your your concern. Ism schism (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your threat, I've blocked you for 72 hours. See WP:GAB for appeals.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ism schism I don't think that you should be banned from editing an article for any period of time and that is not fair. I am learning all the ins and outs of wikipedia and it would have helped to state that you were removing that unsourced comment but it seems like you were blocked for another reason. If you have time to give your input on the talk pages towards the end regarding the discussion that is occurring there after your unblocked, I would appreciate and get more clarification if I am doing something wrong or should I wait. Swamiblue (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swamiblue I forgot to add an edit summary. I apologise, that was not helpful, I also didn't see evidence of an edit war. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the editing for this page. My reasoning for the edit is that it looked like a POV, but most importantly was unsourced. I usually try to remove info that is questionable and unsourced. Just continue to work with the other editors on the talk page and your consensus will benefit the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ism schism. I have a crazy history on here but I am working hard to stop that but when I get frustrated with groups of users controlling a topic and then have to deal with admins who sometimes don't fully get what I am trying to explain. I hope that you can be unblocked without being forced not to give your input on certain articles because based on your editing history, it seems like you give a balance unbiased input and help everyone out. I look forward to seeing you on the talk pages.Swamiblue (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#Lead_Section_Neutrality.2C_Length_.26_Court_Proceedings_leading_to_excommunication_of_Shastri when you have a chance. I am interested in your opinion.Swamiblue (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ism schism (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not involved in any edit war. I saw no sourced POV and made one rv of unsourced material, was warned about it, and then blocked for questioning the warning - I was threaten with a block for one edit. I don't care to edit war. I made no further edits since the rv. That was my only edit.

Accept reason:

Per discussion below and editor's agreement not to edit Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha for one month. Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a disruptive history of slow - and sometimes not so slow - edit warring, and not just by Ism schism, but by several editors. However, Ism schism is omitting the fact that on March 18 they reverted twice at the article. Also, Ism schism did not just "question" the warning. They effectively said "I'll do what I want." Nor is Ism schism doing anything to resolve the heated content dispute. Instead, their conduct is largely inflammatory and does not benefit the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on the 18th have nothing to do with my recent one edit. I saw unsourced POV was added, and I made one rv yesterday on it. After this I had 2 editors harass me about, And I did not engage in an edit war with them, I don't have any personal investment in this article. Where I see a POV, especially unsourced, I usually try to remove it. For my 1 revert yesterday, I was threatened and blocked. There is no reason to block me for three days because of a conflict I wasn't aware of, and did not participate in. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you promise to stay away from the article, regardless of what kind of editing you see on it, I will unblock you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stay away forever? I have no problem staying away from the article for a given period of time. But, I don't think one revert should mean I'm blocked forever. That would not be fair. Thank you for not being so severe about this. I'm use to having POV pushers threaten to block me when I do a revert. And I overreacted to your threat to block me. For that I apologize. But please also understand, that at the time, I didn't see any edit war, and don't care to participate in one. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about "forever" and agree that would be unreasonable. The problem I have in setting a timeframe is I don't know how long this content dispute will take to resolve, and my only interest at the moment is keeping disruption at the article to a minimum during that period. I'm tempted to lock the article and may still do so. Would a month be acceptable to you? I'm willing to shorten it if the article returns to some semblance of normalcy beforehand.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, looking at the talk page discussion, a lock might be constructive at this point, or they may work it out... I have no problem not editing this article for a month. I don't have anything significant to add to it anyhow. Thank you for discussing this with me. Ism schism (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for cooperating with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Is user Ism schism banned from the baps talk pages from a month also? I really hate to keep our discussion on each others talk pages because of few reverts. Swamiblue (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya S

Hello Ism schism,

Would you mind not gratuitously using The Name in talk page discussions? I understand that you think that Ms Murdock is being silly and asking for the withdrawal of already public information, but perhaps you can appreciate that other editors disagree and there is no reason to gratuitously insert The Name into talk page comments just because you can? I don't think it reflects well on your judgment. AgnosticAphid talk 18:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote required here

You might be needed here

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Bengali_people#List_of_people_in_the_collage

Please give your suggestion about this edit war http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bengali_people&diff=654315907&oldid=654314886--223.176.15.244 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhaswarupa section of ISKCON guru system

Hi Ism schism, Why are you undoing my edits in this section, when I'm just correcting what's wrong in the section as per the cited source, i.e., http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=OgMmceadQ3gC&pg=PA411

Tojoan (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not what you are doing. Aside from this book, you keep adding multiple links to a website that isn't a reliable source. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I only added one link and that too only to provide a source for something that was already written. I had also moved 2 sources to be at the end of the section. Other than that I edited the existing link of the above book to make it so it shows in English (rather than in Filipino). In any case I will now edit the section without adding the link I had previoulsy added.

Tojoan (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Keshvari

Your recent editing history at Ahmad Keshvari shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ism schism reported by User:Anders Feder (Result: ). Thank you.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

First, go here. Second, I strongly recommend that you archive the first few years of your userpage (you've got +7 years of messages here). DS (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Iranian martyrs

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:Iranian martyrs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Diako ^{« Talk »} 07:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azov Battalion

Ism schism, your information about Azov is outdated. The unit was transformed into a regiment since September 17, 2014 and on November 12, 2014 was admitted to the National Guard of Ukraine. It is a regular government formation, not an all-volunteer unit as the leading paragraph claims to be. This is not POV pushing either as you claimed in your revert, you simply choose to follow media claims rather the real facts. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) you need 2 things, reliable sources to back up your claims, and some consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt shia edits

I find it rather bemusing that you, as a hindu (!), are so adamant upon adding info that inflates the shia in egypt when even the source does not corroborate what is edited. This misleading editing is unacceptable. You may either re-word it to reflect the thruth of what the source says or you must keep it out. BTW: if you break the 3RR i will report you to be blocked for edit-warring.120.18.146.224 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hopkins. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Your recent editing history at Ali Khamenei shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Propaganda in Iran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For protecting various BLPs and other pages against SPA vandals. BlueSalix (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorina

Hi, I noticed that you put a tag atop the Fiorina article, stating: "Tag per POV disagreements, unresolved POV fights, and POV edit wars - need to resolve on talk page first". I'm not sure whether the tag belongs in a particular section instead of atop the article as a whole, because I'm not sure which unresolved matters you're referring to. Could you please clarify at the article talk page? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...

FYI, the editor adding an attack on someone who criticised Carly Fiorina thinks that WP:BRD means Bold, Revert, Add it back in, Don't bother discussing. I'm the one who's taken it to Talk. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iranian martyrs

Category:Iranian martyrs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Drako (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Will Hurd page

Hi Ism schism - First, full disclosure. I work for Congressman Will Hurd as his DC Communications Director. I know the rules for Wikipedia and know that I cannot make any edits to his page and have no intention to. However, I noticed that you have made unbiased edits to his page, so I am appealing to you to see if you would be willing to reverse a recent edit to his page which had no referencing to justify it and is definitely made with political bias, of which Wikipedia is supposed to free. The editor was anonymous, using the IP 50.195.38.49 This is the link to the change I'm referring to - https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?diff=687175059&oldid=685550931 Thank your for your time. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me here or by emailing me at shana.teehan@mail.house.gov. ShanaJean (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you, Ism schism. I appreciate it. ShanaJean (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ism schism - Once again, someone is making edits to my boss's page for political reasons. This user, Billy Hathorn,^[1] who was blocked indefinitely from making edits in November, has made several edits to Congressman Will Hurd's page. Here is a page with the biggest problem.^[2] Will's voting record is a fact that can be confirmed, so we have no beef with that. But including Gallego's quote about the voting record is inserting political opinion. And in fairness, including Will's campaign manager's countering opinion is just as bad.

MavsFan28 made the appropriate edit ^[3] of moving a Billy_Hathorn addition ^[4] about the 2016 election from the lead and down to its own section (line 46); however, the original insertion of that paragraph misspells the city Alpine, spelling it Aline instead. Could this also be corrected?

Hathorn also made the edit in the first paragraph under Early Years to say "the Aggie Bonfire" instead of just "Aggie Bonfire". (Here ^[5] and here ^[6]) Traditionally, the word the should not be used in reference to this Texas A&M tradition. It's either called Aggie Bonfire or simply Bonfire, but not 'the Bonfire'. ^[7] Again, feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need me to reference or justify any of the requested changes. I just want to keep things fair. Thank you ShanaJean (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks again for your fairness. ShanaJean (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Specifically be aware that you violated the 1RR restriction with your reverts on Eli Ben-Dahan‎‎. Also, I do not appreciate your WP:WIKIHOUNDING and wholesale reverts on other pages either. Please stop or I will have to report you, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Eli Ben-Dahan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Nithyananda

The last edit in the Swami Nithyananda page was, using self published sources, WP:SPS (that too which in no way prove anything) in Sun TV section. They seems to be a random bunch of papers send to NABL lab with no connection to this subject. Also it qualifies self published sources, is another point for not including these. This also doesn't go well with the WP:BLP WP:NOR policy. Secondary reference, that is the news article confirm the same. Reverting your edit. Please discuss in the article's talk page. Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Prakashanand Saraswati, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Draft:Ahmad Motevaselian concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ahmad Motevaselian, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ahmad Motevaselian

Hello, Ism schism. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Ahmad Motevaselian".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for List of grandsons of King Abdulaziz ibn Saud by seniority

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of grandsons of King Abdulaziz ibn Saud by seniority—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ism schism. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Verne E. Rupright for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Verne E. Rupright is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verne E. Rupright (3rd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Stein (mayor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Stein (mayor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stein (mayor) (2nd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Since you had some involvement with the Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GreyShark (dibra) 07:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ism schism. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A decade later - thanks!

Hi Ism schism! Ten years ago you left a message on my talk page, welcoming me to Wikipedia. I never responded to your kind gesture, but in the time since then, I have come to realize that one should not take such kindness for granted. So, thank you! --IamNotU (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nathaniel Muhammad

The article Nathaniel Muhammad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable -- Notability isn't inherited, first source in article doesn't support sentence it's being cited for, and nobody noticed that he died in 2017.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Emmanuel Muhammad

The article Emmanuel Muhammad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable -- Notability isn't inherited.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ism schism. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mustapha Farrakhan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mustapha Farrakhan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustapha Farrakhan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. schetm (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Hinduism

WikiProject Hinduism

Hello, Ism schism. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. We would like to introduce a newsletter to Wikiproject Hinduism. A newsletter is always help to inform recent changes in the project to project members and help for effective coordination. Now we have launched a new newsletter for the Wikiproject. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Also do not forget to contribute to the newsletter. Thank you!

Subscribe

Sent by Path slopu on behalf of WikiProject Hinduism. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gour Govinda Swami for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gour Govinda Swami is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gour Govinda Swami until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Venkat TL (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hanumatpresaka Swami for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hanumatpresaka Swami is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanumatpresaka Swami until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Venkat TL (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gour Govinda Swami moved to draftspace

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonathan Samuel, 5th Viscount Samuel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jonathan Samuel, 5th Viscount Samuel 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 real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pilaz (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Gour Govinda Swami

Hello, Ism schism. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gour Govinda Swami, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Missing Wikipedians

Howdy! I noticed that you've made more than 1,000 edits (over 15,000 actually, which is incredible!) and haven't edited since February 3 2021. I thought it would be appropriate to add you to the list of Missing Wikipedians. If this is just one of your long breaks, or for whatever reason you don't want to be on the list, feel free to remove yourself :)

Have a good one! Defunct But Not Forgotten (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Jonathan Samuel, 5th Viscount Samuel

Hello Ism schism, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Jonathan Samuel, 5th Viscount Samuel, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Samuel, 5th Viscount Samuel.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Pilaz}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Pilaz (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[UPI_09-1] ""Police sergeant dies of wounds"". UPI. 1970-02-19. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[sfexaminer_09-2] ""Police union targets '60s radical"". The Examiner. 2009-03-12. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[San_Francisco_Chronicle_09-3] ""1967-71 -- a bloody period for S.F. police"". San Francisco Chronicle. 2007-01-27. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[San_Francisco_Chronicle_09_2-4] "" CHARGES IN KILLING OF S.F. OFFICER"". San Francisco Chronicle. 2007-01-24. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[5] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Billy_Hathorn

[6] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Will_Hurd&diff=next&oldid=690753174

[7] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Will_Hurd&diff=prev&oldid=693311137

[8] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Will_Hurd&diff=prev&oldid=690752922

[9] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Will_Hurd&diff=prev&oldid=690753082

[10] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Will_Hurd&diff=next&oldid=690753174

[11] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Aggie_Bonfire

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]