User talk:Moksha88/Archive 1

Swaminarayan Dispute

Dear Sfacets,

Is it possible to create a separate article devoted solely to the Uddhav Sampraday (Original Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday)? Our friend Haribhagat has toned down his rhetoric but continues to insist that the article on Bhagwan Swaminarayan should be devoted solely to the Uddhav Sampraday. My suggestion was to devote the article on Bhagwan Swaminarayan solely on his life and have links to the separate groups within the Swaminarayan faith (e.g. BAPS, Uddhav Sampraday).

Again, let me know what you think. I am currently tied down but will get to the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article soon.

I think it's a good idea keeping the article a biographical one, however we could keep short paragraphs on the page with summaries of the different sects, and link these to the main articles in question, as these are part of the legacy left by Sri Swaminarayan.

Above all, spliting the article like this will help avoid all confusion aring from edit wars.

I too am quite busy atm, but let me know if I can be of assistance. Sfacets 11:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Sfacets 11:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Colon

No problem. Figured you might be from somewhere else. I've gotten used to cleaning up the Indian :- as well. (not to be confused with :-) A Ramachandran 06:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Semi-protecting the Shikshapatri & Vachanamrut article

You could make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection specifying that you would like semi-protection put in place and for what reasons... Sfacets 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jinabhai Vasanji

Hi, pages can be moved/renamed using the tab at the top of the article (near History). In this case it is important to also mention his formaer identity as part of a complete encyclopedic entry, however it seems like a good move to rename it to a more used name. Sfacets 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See also section

The see also section is for related or similar articles, and not for listing links already found in the article - see guide to layout. The Swaminarayan Sampraday is a related article. Sfacets 02:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your answer on my talk page: Yes, it definitely should - doesn't it already? Or has it been removed? Sfacets 06:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Dispute

Yes, it's not what talk pages are for. They are for discussing how to improve the article. —Hanuman Das 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delhi Akshardham

Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. The article should not contain a link to the same site in each section. If the website meets the guidelines for inclusion, include a single link in the "External links" section. — ERcheck (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)th

Re:Eligibilty

It depends on the nature of the vandalism, the nature of the other edits, the amount of other edits, the time span... More information can be found at Wikipedia:Protection policy. Cbrown1023 talk 15:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jinabhai Vasanji

Please stop adding material without explanation or source. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

The page move should have been discussed at the Talk page; it's not a simple matter of saying that the title was wrong, as you know. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 00:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moksha88 - I dont know how to 'move' the Jinabhai article to 'sadhu Gnanjivandas' - could you let me know how (will be glad to do it), or move it, as its been agreed now by you/Mel Etitis ? Thanks. wildT 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Akshar-Purushottam Upasana

Jai Swaminarayan,

Just thought i would let you know that i have replied back to your questions which you posed on my talk page. I look forward to your reply.

Haribhagat 13:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that a fellow devotee has already asked some questions. My questions is the same as on the bhagwan swaminarayan discussion page -

For this reason, the essence of Akshar Purushottam Upasana can be described as follows: "to become Aksharup and then offer worship to Purushottam."

Thank you for your reply moksha88, but my question is not answered on the page. I have pasted a section from the article. If the essence was to become aksharup or brahmroop and then offer worship to purushottam then it should be termed differently as akshar purushottam upaasna means the worship of akshar and purushottam. I have been told this is the baps philosophy but would like to confirm it. I am asking on here as there is no baps forum online. Also an article on the baps website by professor ramesh dave on the swaminarayan mantra states the same that by chanting swaminarayan, the devotee is worshipping both akshar and purushottam as Swami is interpreted as Gunatit swami and Narayan is shreeji maharaj. please could a baps devotee confirm if this is true?

Also well done Haribhagat for your reply, i totally agree. What is you reply to haribhagats answers or are you still out of town? I look forward to your answers.

Hello, I hope Moksha88 doesn't mind me replying here. If so, feel free to delete this. In response to your question, I would suggest that perhaps you didn't read the article thoroughly? Take a look at the article again, specifically at the paragraph that starts "To achieve this status..." There are two references to Vachanamruts in which Bhagwan Swaminarayan sanctioned the worship of the Sant along with God. The same article also provides an explanation of why BAPS devotees hold that 'Sant' to be the same as 'Akshar'. It is the next paragraph, in fact. I hope this helps. Also, please register for an account and sign your posts instead of remaining anonymous. It will give you some credibility. If you insist on posting on wikipedia anonymously, people will quickly start to ignore you. Kind regards, Dylanpatel 09:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

London Mandir

What word would you suggest instead? Denomination, perhaps? Group?

3RR

Thanks for the link, i wasnt ware of that. I will adhere to it from now on.

Haribhagat 11:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

philosophy...

In the article "swaminaranayan" I deleted in the following statement "...practiced what he considered a correct understanding of Vedanta, Samkhya, Yoga, and Pancaratra -- the four primary schools of Hinduism" the following words "the four primary schools of Hinduism" However, You put the same words in again. Are You a vandal? What kinda Hinduism is this pls you are talking about? lol For sure not the Hinduism which is practised in India and described in the Wikipedia article "Hinduism"... Pundito 04:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Jai Swaminarayan. I happened to be looking around and I noticed you're a bit of a frequent editor on Wikipedia (particularly in the past), and furthermore you did work on the B.A.P.S. articles... I'm currently just creating a network for satsangi editors, so I just wanted to say hi for now, see what's good. Are you keen to continue improving B.A.P.S. articles? -- Harish - 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavism wikiproject

• Hello Moksha88. I see that you have contributed to Vaishnava related articles. FYI, there is now a Vaishnava wikiproject located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism, a project for edifying Vaishnava related articles. Also, there is now a talk page for Vaishnava related discussions located at, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New mail

--Gazal world (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gazal world: Thank you for sharing, I will read. Can you please help verify the accuracy of the sentences cited by Harshil169 from Kirin Narayan's book, page 143, on the Criticism of Swaminarayan sect? Moksha88 (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Moksha. You can see the page no. 143 here on Google books preview. If, in case, the link does not work for you, I have sent you a full chapter through mail. Feel free to ask me if you need further help. Cheers. --Gazal world (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gazal world: Thank you again. I will clarify my edits again on the talk page but would also like your opinion as an observer. Should someone else need to reference this material, can I share the link you emailed me? Moksha88 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Sure, You can share. But please be careful in doing so. As I have accessed it, There is my email ID printed in the PDF sent in last mail. --Gazal world (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gazal world: Good point. No, I will not share it then. Moksha88 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Read these essays to know what Original research is

You can read this and this essays to know what is original research. WP:STICKTOSOURCES doesn't mean we have to write each and everything from the book, adding chronological details is not Original research. Make yourself familiar about the policy. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. Please see my response on the article page. Moksha88 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Read this essay

Read WP:Criticism essay to know how criticism section and article about religion and philosophy are created. It’s about criticisms not about praise. What you’ve stated about justification of Sahajananda deserves place in articles related to him and his spiritual traditions, not in article related to criticism of his sect. I’ll no longer reply to your objection that how justification has not been covered there, take some time and make yourself familiar about Wikipedia’s writing style. Also, the comment of Mahatma is not my opinion about Sahajananda, it’s his opinion and I included under WP:NOTOPINION. I’m closing my side of that topic too. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: Thank you for sharing as always. Please see the talk page for other points awaiting to be addressed. Moksha88 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)