User talk:Priyanath: Difference between revisions
Line 413: | Line 413: | ||
::As I responded to Priyanath on the Ramakrishna talk page, there are other mainstream reference works, including ''Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion'' which feature the work of Kripal and Sil prominently. This fact undercuts his point. — [[User:Goethean|goethean]] [[User_talk:Goethean|ॐ]] 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
::As I responded to Priyanath on the Ramakrishna talk page, there are other mainstream reference works, including ''Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion'' which feature the work of Kripal and Sil prominently. This fact undercuts his point. — [[User:Goethean|goethean]] [[User_talk:Goethean|ॐ]] 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Additionally, Vineeth's edits have removed |
::Additionally, Vineeth's edits have removed mmuch material which is cited to more recent and more notable sources than those favored by Vineeth and Priyanath. — [[User:Goethean|goethean]] [[User_talk:Goethean|ॐ]] 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:35, 19 September 2008
Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 |
---|
Award of a Barnstar
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service.
Awarded by Addhoc 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Samadhi (poem), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Good work!
At the Paramahansa Yogananda article... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Western Chalukya architecture
Thanks for the support.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the encouragement.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK
--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You deserve one
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Hi Priyanath, I humbly award you this barnstar. I feel it was long overdue. Wikipedia survives and thrives because of people like you - people who think it is worth their time to uphold honesty and fairplay. Sarvagnya 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
RfA
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Lahirimahasaya.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lahirimahasaya.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 21:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
links
You have removed links to my site The God light, you have stated that I have been spamming. i had a link on the Gandhi article that you removed. the link was to external sites. Now i have a web page that had audio of Gandhi talking, which I thought people would listen to. My site does not make money it is only interested in talking about spiritual people like Gandhi. Looking at other links other people have done similar. i could understand if I was selling hundreds of books about Gandhi, but i am not, I was merley adding some more information, in the part of wikipedia that I thought i could ammend. If I had no extra information on my site on anyone I would not put a link. If you can understand me, I felt i was just adding to wikipedia, not spamming. So I would be glad if you looked at what you have done again as all I was trying to show on any links were video or audio clips that was not shown on wikipedia. God Bless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonjbrm (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's a conflict of interest to add links to your own website to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest explains what you should do instead: go to the talk page of the article and ask someone to add the link for you. If it's really relevant to the article, someone will add it. I don't think you're going to have much luck with having other editors add links to your website on Wikipedia, though, and editors will remove any links that you yourself add to articles. ~ priyanath talk 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Kuru family tree
Thanks very much for your comments. Imc (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Request
Could you take a look at this? Thanks. Relata refero (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
PLease participate in the discussion at Talk:Historical development of Ganesha about the question should the article Historical development of Ganesha be retained or deleted. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Bodhgaya Image
Hey,
I was just wondering if anything could be done about User:Adam.J.W.C.. He has put the image on Uncyclopedia under the caption "India's famous super hero "Spiderman" selling his ass for butt sex, 50c a go" [1] Nikkul (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Congratulation
The Barnstar of National Merit | ||
I, Dwaipayan award Priyanath the Barnstar of National Merit for improving Salt Satyagraha to a Good Article Dwaipayan (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to Priyanath by Dwaipayan (talk) on 11:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC) |
And now, please try to lift the article to featured status :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, sometime I would like to do just that, but will need some help :) ~ priyanath talk 16:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
DYK
--Royalbroil 13:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
The Special Barnstar | ||
I really appreciate the work you are doing on Ramakrishna. Thank you very much. Mankar Camorantalk 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
Ramakrishna
- I have now significantly shortened the section on the positive reception of Kali's Child. Please let me know if you still feel that the article gives undue weight to this topic. — goethean ॐ 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice. I'll give other editors a chance before I get back into it in a couple of days. I've found that strictly one-on-one edit disputes often aren't very productive (for the article itself, and for my own time). I have some other things I need to do in the meantime (other articles, and sit in the sun in my garden!). ~ priyanath talk 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Crowley/Krishna debate
- Glad to see that we (by which I mean all of the editors involved) 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)
- Yes, it's good to see an outbreak of goodwill and compromise! ~ priyanath talk 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Prayerflags.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Prayerflags.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
DYK
--Wizardman 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow.
Wow. Just wow. Please educate yourself. — goethean ॐ 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- So, steamy fiction is 'Contemporary Scholarship' in your POV—that explains a great deal. So does this analogy that is sometimes attributed to Sri Ramakrishna (Warning: Introspection Ahead):
- "When a pickpocket sees a saint, all he sees are the saint's pockets." ~ priyanath talk 19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The same could just as easily be said of religious conservatives who paint 19th century tantrics in their own image. — goethean ॐ 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Psychoanalysis, which is still considered pseudoscience by many, has nothing to do with tantra. Seeing er, 'pockets' everywhere you look is a form of spiritual and cultural reductionism that is itself conservative. ~ priyanath talk 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Deconstruction and New Criticism, for example, also have nothing to do with tantra, and are also not science. This has no bearing on the validity of their use in interpreting texts. — goethean ॐ 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Psychoanalysis, which is still considered pseudoscience by many, has nothing to do with tantra. Seeing er, 'pockets' everywhere you look is a form of spiritual and cultural reductionism that is itself conservative. ~ priyanath talk 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- The same could just as easily be said of religious conservatives who paint 19th century tantrics in their own image. — goethean ॐ 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
SRK biblio
Please feel free to contribute to this page: User:Goethean/SRKbiblio — goethean ॐ 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sri Yukteswar Giri
Hi -- do you know if he actually mentions precession when he talks about the dual, or is this just the Binary Institute trying to get publicity in this article and Holy Science?Doug Weller (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You vote is needed
Priyananthji, You were recently contributing to articles that are in the scope of the new project 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)
Scope, update and voting
|
Gandhi
Hey,
There's a discussion going on about the name on the Gandhi page. Please weigh in here. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject India Newsletter June 2008
|
| |||||||||||
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Keshub Chunder Sen
Thanks for the new photo. The anon IPs, and several single purpose accounts, are all the same person(s). They are strangely obsessed with the photo. They claim that the photo is fake, does not represent the subject etc. etc. Of course, you can see from your photo the resemblance between that and the disputed photo.
Next, they claim that the photo is (amazingly!!) under copyright!! It is quite clear that the photo is pre 1882, and possibly much earlier. By any standards, it is in public domain. (here is a double standard by the anons ... they claim in this point that this is a studio portrait of the subject).
Anyway, I don't understand their point of obsession with the photo, and don't care much. They do however put forward a lot of crap about Banglapedia being pro-Bangladeshi pov etc. etc. (which is even more surprising ... I don't see any link between this delusion and their hatred of the photo :) ).
So, that's the status quo. Please keep an eye on the article if you can. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Priyanath. Thanks for the new image. with the uploading of this image I surmise the controversy shall be resolved. It was Ragib's insistence on using the other dubious and/or forged image which had raised passions. 69.197.132.98 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but both photos are equally acceptable and both add to the article. The first is obviously Keshub Chunder Sen, based on comparison to the photo I uploaded and other photos I've seen of him. If you believe it is not him, then you need to find a WP:RS (Reliable Source) proving your strong WP:POV Point Of View that it's a forgery. If you believe it's a copyright problem, then you should take it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, though I believe you already did that and the photo was accepted. ~ priyanath talk 15:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Priyanath, This is a serious issue, but unfortunately a gang of editors is trivialising it. The image uploaded by Ragib is a "calendar art" portrait based on a painting hanging in a well known museum in India. The fact that this dubious portrait is "calendar art" is admitted by Ragib in previous discussion. In the authentic portrait Mr.Sen is very "brown". However, Ragib's version has blancoed (whitened) Mr.Sen - and is hence not reliable or a "fair depiction" (well actually it is a "fair" depiction, but in an un-RS way). All the Historical literature describes Mr.Sen as "swarthy", "nut brown" etc. The acceptable WP:RS Postage Stamp of Mr.Sen (based on the museum portrait) issued by India Government faithfully depicts Sen as "brown". I believe similar disputes regularly occur in Christian wiki articles over whether Jesus Christ was a white or brown or black etc. I did not discuss this previously and neither was the "photo" accepted (please see the archived discussion). Am CC'ing this to the Talk of concerned article also, since edit warring is in progress.69.197.132.98 (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your message. This user is actually stalking me, as I can see from my website logs. He is using various proxies once again to mask his trails. I am keeping an eye on him for my safety. In the mean time, please keep the article on your watchlist. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK 07:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Pronounciation of Yoga
Hi Priyanath, I tried updating the page to include a section on how to pronounce Yoga. Almost everybody pronounces it incorrectly and I think there should be something to alert the reader on this Yoga page. Please correct or guide on how best to include this information.
Thank you Brinda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoga editor (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Every English dictionary I've seen has the pronunciation as yō'gə or yoh-guh. Wikipedia depends on Reliable Sources (see WP:RS), not what some website says, or what we hear somewhere. It may well be that some people in India pronounce it 'correctly' (by your definition of 'correct') - I've heard only one particularly pompous ponderous pundit use that pronunciation. But since this is the English Wikipedia, you'll need a Reliable Source, like one of the top English language dictionaries, that proves everyone else wrong. ~ priyanath talk 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
RE:Image
Hey Priyanath, I will try to explain the best I can :) First off, you can read WP:COMMONS#Embedding Commons' media in Wikipedia articles. Basically Commons' images can be used on any Wikimedia project, just by adding the image name like you would for an image being hosted on the local wiki. If there is two images that have the same name, one being on Commons and the other being on a local Wiki, then the local Wiki image will be shown. But if there is no image on the local Wiki, then any image on Commons will be embedded in the page. So if you navigate on the English Wikipedia to an image that is on Commons, then the image and description will be transcluded onto the local Wiki page of the same name. Did that make any sense? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Commons is the central project for free media. This allows any Wiki that is run by the Wikimedia Foundation to use these media files, so any of the 200-some different language Wikipedias, and many of the other Wikis (Wikinews, Wikisource, etc) can use the photos too. If the image is only hosted on the English Wikipedia, it can only be used here. Technically any free-image should be hosted on Commons. While the English Wikipedia goal is to create an encyclopedia, Wikimedia Commons goal is to bring together a collection of free-images that anyone can use. There are some other small benefits to Commons, but those are the main ones. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been using mine a little bit more too. It's good to lend a hand to all the other Wiki's too! If you haven't already, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
enwikibooks usurp
The other account is moved out of the way - the next time you visit the wiki logged in your account there will be automatically created. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
New sockpuppet
I have reverted this talk page edit[2] by a new sock of Ronosen. Can someone block him directly or do we have to go through the entire sock nomination process? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've asked the admin who did the checkuser/blocking for advice.[3] I'm about to get busy in real life, but I think it's going to take an admin to start watching the threatened pages. And I'm not even the one who 'labeled' Ronosen a 'puppetmaster', that was yet another admin who put that tag on his userpage. I'm just a measly editor with no personal interest in Brahmo issues. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 14:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. And thank you for getting involved - I think it will take a few more editors before this is done. ~ priyanath talk 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mention not! Its about time that serious editors on Wikipedia stood up for the Wikipedia spirit. I had read Ragib's message on the India project discussion. I kept a watch even though Im not into religious articles; but was busy with other things. We have given trolls and POV pushers too much space in the name of AGF, and its time we took that space back. Your'e right abotu the need for more editors to get involved. A show of numbers will be enough to put off the most determined socpuppeteers. And there's no such thing as a measly editor! --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- User:SonOfRonoSen has now been blocked by User:Sam Korn after I put a note on his talk page. So that's one way to avoid going through the RCU process in future. And yes, more editors are going to be needed if Ronosen keeps playing his little game.... cheers, ~ priyanath talk 04:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Let me know if there is any way I can help. Tiptoety talk 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you - I think it will help other editors to know that there are admins they can go to who know the history, and can move quickly if there's a need. Because of what Ronosen has done to other editors (revealing an admin's personal info, and harassing a long-time Indian editor into retiring), he apparently doesn't believe in Dharma, so anything is possible with him. ~ priyanath talk 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Let me know if there is any way I can help. Tiptoety talk 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- User:SonOfRonoSen has now been blocked by User:Sam Korn after I put a note on his talk page. So that's one way to avoid going through the RCU process in future. And yes, more editors are going to be needed if Ronosen keeps playing his little game.... cheers, ~ priyanath talk 04:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mention not! Its about time that serious editors on Wikipedia stood up for the Wikipedia spirit. I had read Ragib's message on the India project discussion. I kept a watch even though Im not into religious articles; but was busy with other things. We have given trolls and POV pushers too much space in the name of AGF, and its time we took that space back. Your'e right abotu the need for more editors to get involved. A show of numbers will be enough to put off the most determined socpuppeteers. And there's no such thing as a measly editor! --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a good feeling about this:Special:Contributions/Project brahmo. Why do I get the feeling that it may be Ronosen pretending to be a nice mediator? --12:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Opinion
Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual bullies, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_metaphysical_sciences but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)
Demes Vandalizing All Kriya Yoga Related Articles...
Hello! Kindly take a look at the activities of username Demes and IP number 91.64.74.212. Loads of unsourced info and possible copyvio. - Shannon Rose (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Above user - Shannon Rose has been ceaselessly vandalising my work of the last days. I added references, sources, etc. without end, but she always reverts my articles, stating it be 'promotional nonsense' etc. - Especially the article on Paramahamsa Hariharananda has been hard hit by her stubborn erasing and false allegations. Is there any help against this? It can easily be proven, by looking at the revision history, that Shannon Rose is constantly erasing all information pertaining to Paramahamsa Hariharananda and even trying to distribute false allegations against Paramahamsa Hariharananda and my editings. Can anyone please help? Please... thank you!!! Demes (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Demes.
- Unfortunately he is correct, in that you are using Wikipedia to introduce your own opinion and creative writing about someone who is arguably not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. There is only one third party source, from a local newspaper, in his bio. It would likely not survive WP:AFD because there is no assertion of notability. If you are going to continue to edit his bio, and other articles on Wikipedia, use reliable third party sources to back up each of your statements, or they can be removed. Read WP:RS closely to learn what a reliable source is, and what a third party source is, as opposed to self-published sources. You might also want to spend time editing articles about which you have no strong personal Point of View (see WP:POV), as a way of learning about Wikipedia. WP:POV also explains how you are violating Wikipedia policy with nearly all of your edits. ~ priyanath talk 20:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Moved
Priyanath, Namaste
I moved the discussion from Hinduism talk page here. It had hardly anything to do with that page, and category fits to the new place. Wikidās ॐ 15:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Platypusbeak
Sorry I didn't reply to your post earlier.
So Ronosen is back again. I was surprised to know that Raunak Roy (aka Element R ) is also involved in this mess. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this post at a Yahoo group also seems to tie them together.[4] ~ priyanath talk 05:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Great work on the Aundh Experiment!! Congratulations. There is a Checuser case against Raunakroy aka ElementR aka Dualhelix. That there is a sockpuppetry case is no questioned,but going by your investigation it is clear that RR was preparing for along drawn battle as a meatpuppet of Ronosen. i will be adding this to the CU case. Please add anything more if you like. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Here's the link:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RRaunak --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks. Unfortunately I wasn't intending to create a category that would be so difficult to reach a consensus on :( --Shruti14 t c s 15:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thanks
Thank you for your very kind words. My neutrality comes from complete ignorance. :-) The PBS article is interesting. The right decision certainly was made here. Maybe PBS was watching us! Regards,John Z (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Aundh Experiment DYK
--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you! Your kind words while voicing your opinion against the block on me is greatly appreciated. Though we haven't worked closely before, I look forward to any opportunity in the future. Best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks from me too. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Category:People considered avatars by their followers
Hello Priyanath. I have made some changes to Category:People considered avatars by their followers. Please review, I have attempted to address your concerns and mine concerning the categories being beyond Hindu leaders. I am open to any changes. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)
- I think this may work - the reason I'm not sure is that there is so much room for POV and vagueness. ~ priyanath talk 22:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Who are you?
Who the hell are you? Are you moderator? Who are you to discredit article writen by Swami regarding Advaita Vedanta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dattaji (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Who am I? Who am I. Who...am...I... I could probably write a 42kb answer, but I won't be publishing it on Wikipedia because that would be Original Research (WP:OR), which is why the essay you keep adding keeps being removed. ~ priyanath talk 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of material
I understand that you are advocating for the deletion of material on the Ramakrishna article, as you have done here. I would advise you that deletion of well-sourced material such as scholarly sources on the subject can be assessed as vandalism. You may want to consider self-reverting your deletion and pursue instead dispute resolution via WP:3O or WP:RFC. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that Goethean's 'edit' deleted a total of 39 well-sourced referenced additions made by Vineeth and SriniG over the previous month. My revert of that edit added 39 well-sourced references. If you are going to be mediating on this article, I suggest you spend some time reading it, comparing the diffs, and reading up on neutral, third-party books and articles about Ramakrishna. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the Britannica article, written in 2008, has not a single mention of Goethean's POV. I mention Britannica because it is a neutral third-party mainstream reference work, which gives a reality check to people who don't have the time to research these issues thoroughly. I believe there is room for Goethean's POV in the article, but it certainly doesn't deserve the undue weight he would like to give it. ~ priyanath talk 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- As I responded to Priyanath on the Ramakrishna talk page, there are other mainstream reference works, including Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion which feature the work of Kripal and Sil prominently. This fact undercuts his point. — goethean ॐ 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, Vineeth's edits have removed mmuch material which is cited to more recent and more notable sources than those favored by Vineeth and Priyanath. — goethean ॐ 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)