User talk:Wikidas

Archives

1.2.3

[edit] Capitalization

Will do that from now on. Thanks for resolving the problem    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the review of Climate

You made a couple comments that there were POV issues and breadth issues with parts of the article. Which parts? I'd like to make the relevant changes to help get it along the FAC track. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra

Thanks for reviewing the GA nomination. However, can you cite examples for the POV issues, on the basis of which it was failed. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Swaminarayan Images

I have added [[Category:Swaminarayan Images]] to 81 images related to the Swaminarayan Faith. By doing this we now have a category for all Swaminarayan Pictures. If I missed an, please add [[Category:Swaminarayan Images]] to the image    Juthani1   ^tcs 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please sign my guestbook. I use it to get to users I frequently contact. I would appreciate it    Juthani1   ^tcs 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Don't you think that this edit might be a little WP:NPOV-ey? Stating unequivocally that he "possessed inate ability" is pretty subjective, even with a reference... Tan | 39 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem then is that it's not presented as a quote - it's presented as a fact. Something should be added to make this clear; "XXX believes that...", or "Some critics believe that...". You can answer here on this page, instead of breaking up the conversation over two talk pages. Tan | 39 20:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B class

Namaskar,

I was thinking of nominating Sahajanand Swami and Swaminarayan temples for B-Class status - wanted to know your thoughts on the same. Around The Globe^Contact 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,

I dint realise tht the rating of the Sahajanand Swami article has been changed. Could you pl. tell me how I could better the temples article to B-Class within this scope? The temples outside India are pretty much covered (80 to 90% you could say), whiles the Indian temples list is miniscule compared to the actual number (there must be atleast 200 within India - probably more - I hv no Idea how many). Iv added all the info on the temples tht I hv. Around The Globe^Contact 14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Iv req Juthani1 to do the Gujarati thing - hes supposed to be able to write intht script .. I not devnagari script but I dont hv the software and I dont trust my spellings! Around The Globe^Contact 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Juthani1 has added it in Gujarati n Iv added it in Devnagari. Around The Globe^Contact 16:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Good articles in Wikipedia

INTRO of WP:GA

"Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach featured article quality. Good articles should meet the good article criteria and have passed through the good article nomination process successfully. In short, they should be well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses. Good articles need not be as comprehensive as featured articles, but they should not omit any major facets of the topic: a comparison of the criteria for good and featured articles describes further differences. Currently, of the 2,404,103 Wikipedia articles, 4,264 [update] are listed below as good articles (about 1 in 563), and 2,078 are listed as featured articles (about 1 in 1,150). Articles are not included on both lists, so when a good article is promoted to featured article status, it is removed from the good articles list. Adding good and featured articles gives a total of 6,342 articles (about 1 in 379).

The process for designating an article as a good article is intentionally straightforward. If you find or contribute to an article meeting the good article criteria, you can nominate it on the good article nominations page for impartial reviewers to assess and, if it is accepted, it will be added to the list of good articles. Similarly, anyone can propose that an article which no longer meets the good article criteria is delisted by following the delisting instructions. If an article's nomination fails or if an article is delisted, an explanation and possible improvements should be provided on its talk page by the reviewer or delisting editor.

Disagreements over article quality can be resolved on the reassessment page, which WikiProject good articles helps to maintain." press update. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: DYK

Great job - congratulations! Qudos to you for getting the article up within a week! Around The Globe^Contact 12:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haridasa Thakur

On 8 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Haridasa Thakur, 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.

[edit] 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Vedantahindu (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

Dab had a few points, particularly regarding the creation of Krishna avatar sub-articles and placing them "under construction". It is generally much better form to place such articles in a sandbox, like User:Wikidas/Article name here, and keep them there until they're developed. If the articles are, for whatever reason, already extant in a way, such as having an article on the subject in a general sense, as opposed to as an avatar, then it will often work much better to just add that content to the existing article, and only branching off if the size gets unmanagable. Also, I do get the impression, as have others, that you do take any perceived slights as being an insult to your beliefs and/or to you personally. If that is true, trust me, all of us, including you, would be better off if you could develop a thicker skin about that. I think I've seen Jesus described as Satan incarnate at least one place in here, and, god help me, that statement, or rather the more specific statement that Jesus was the serpent in the Garden of Eden, is what those people believe. To me, it is a joke, an insult, and a blasphemy, but they believe it, and in content relating to those groups, it is both relevant and appropriate. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John, I think its a very insightful observation. I will try to improve. Wikidās ॐ 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article

Probably the best thing to do would be for the existing article to be renamed something like Govind Dev Ji temple, Jaipur, move the content related to that structure from your article to that, and add a short summary section to your article, with a "see also" link under the section heading to the separate article. But the building in Jaipur is, I'm guessing, notable enough in its own right to have a separate article. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Thank you Wikidās ॐ 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)