Dāsānudāsa

"Sridhar Maharaj" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sridhar Maharaj. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Sridhar Maharaj until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Help

Sir i want to move this page Ganges to Ganga. but i am not able to do it, will you please help me for doing this!Zindahtohpyalabharde (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The common name in English is Ganges, and this is the English Wikipedia, so no, I won't. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

but sir, this river's real name in english and hindi both is Ganga not ganges. because of this "ganges" word many foreigners/non-indians who read this article, misunderstood its name as ganges. and sir, we could put "ganges" as its secondary name in the first line of article, so that "ganges" will also be there, but ganges should be the secondary name and primary should be "ganga".so this article's name would be ganga and first would be like, "Ganga (/ˈɡʌŋɡə/ GUNG-gə, Hindustani: [ˈɡəŋɡaː]) or The Ganges (/ˈɡændʒiːz/ GAN-jeez) " Please consider my request, Hare krishna Zindahtohpyalabharde (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

and sir according to this common name in English, most common name should be used, so sir, whether it is hindi or english, "ganga" is more often used as compared to "ganges". because population india has most number of english speaking people, even in southern india where hindi is not commonly used, this river is called "ganga" not ganges sir. please consider my request, hare krishna Zindahtohpyalabharde (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no “misunderst[anding] its name as Ganges” – its name is Ganges for the vast majority of English speakers outside India. I take your point that India has hundreds of millions of English speakers, but in terms of native English speakers (ie as a first language) its dwarfed by the US, UK, etc.

Anyway, this isn't the right place for this discussion. If you open a discussion on Talk:Ganges, or a move request, that's the way to go about making your case for a move. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

please join the discussion on Talk:Ganges, i am a new user i dont know the procedure, i have put a section in the Talk:Ganges, but no one has come for discussion, can you please help me, how can i proceed with my requestZindahtohpyalabharde (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Pongal (Festivel)

Please look at this page Pongal (festival). Persistent edit war. The article belongs to Hinduism project. It is against the wikipidea policies. Just moderate the page.

Statue of Unity revert

I take this revert by you as a mistake, as I assume you might not be aware that you were reverting the consensus version. You are free to join the talk page and address the issues raised on Talk:Statue of Unity#POV pushing and copyvio. The content you restored is nothing more than mere politically motivated reactions (see WP:SOAP). AnM2002 (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In what way is it the consensus version? Looking at the page history, it seems like you're trying to revert a version of 5 August while the expanded version, with more reactions, dates to May and stood for three months before you decided you didn't like it. Or am I reading it wrong? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

After the revert, the talk page discussion took place where problems with this edit were highlighted and multiple editors agreed with the problems. Before the resumption of the recent edit war which was started by the same person who added the content in the first place, the version (without his content) existed for nearly 2 months. That is how the "consensus version" is the one without the new content. AnM2002 (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

help

Please moderate Pongal festivel article. There are so many edits removing the word 'Hindu' from there. Please include Hinduism template and check the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.167.11 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hemu

Hemu was born in Rewari,Haryana. On the official website of haryana govt. Hemu was a brahmin for more information go on www.panipatgov.in 2409:4051:20D:64EC:FBC2:66D5:557C:583B (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Please outline, using the manual of style, how and why that is a relevant fact to including in the lead sentence of his article? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no identity of king Hemu on the lead sentence. Next sentences mention invaders Mughals, Afghans etc. but you object to mentioning Hemu a Hindu native king. Why you want to hide truthful history? The way you want first sentence, a reader may think that Hemu may have been a Mughal or Afghan king as well. You don't want to mention his caste, his father's name, place of his birth, date of his birth etc, which were once mentioned on the page with references. Today all information is gone. Why don't you remove the page instead of creating confusion in readers minds. 59.91.110.21 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you write "Indian", which is what the MoS says it should include (nationality, not ethnicity, religion, caste, etc.). Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ram Mandir

Do you think those sources are good for the "top image view" in the Ram Mandir article?
(ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC))

The model in the shopping mall? It's not ideal but it's better than no image or infobox at all. Can we try and find something better? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

need announcement ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Section Ram Temple

The section should be particularly understandable. Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Ram Temple formally known as Ram Mandir in Ayodhya region.

ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

DRV

Please explain why you skipped Step 5 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gour Govinda Swami? Venkat TL (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Because it's the first time I've done it and I messed it up. Apparently I should have approached the closer before I even requested a review, and now it's stuck in some weird limbo where no one knows what to do with it. Pretty sure it's just going to stay deleted now. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, so it's been restored to draft space. Are you opposed to that? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No, not opposed to it. Only opposed to it in mainspace without asserting any notability. --Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

For the revert on my page. Appreciate it. --Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Pathetic, wasn't it? Some people have no business being on this website. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sivarama Swami

Hi there Dāsānudāsa, I just closed the AfD on Sivarama Swami. Just stopping by to offer that if you'd ever like the material from the former article moved into userspace (or draftspace) so you can continue to work on it, just let me know and I'll happily oblige. I suppose I'll include a note of caution that I rarely see these post-AfD draftifications lead to an article that returns to mainspace -- and so they can be a bit of a timesink for those involved. But I sense you know the article's topic much better than I, so you may have a better sense of what sources can be found. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Suhotra Swami

Suhotra Swami wiki article says he was twice suspended. I could not find out why. Do you by any chance know? Its ok if you dont know, I was just curious as the article skipped such an important detail. Venkat TL (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If it's the guy I'm thinking of, he broke his vows of celibacy and went back to being plain old Suhotra Das. Not an easy thing, being a sannyasi... Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

ok. Venkat TL (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Answer to your question here

Rampant sock puppetry, that's what's going on. Thanks for reverting. Bishonen | tålk 12:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC).

Advaita

Similarly added https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita# Acharya drohi parampara synonym used by opponents as per your wiki standards 117.246.111.165 (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Kadamba Kanana Swami

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not a religion name. It is a community of Hinduism. know more about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudiya_Vaishnavism

So Please Give the name of religion in place of religion, do not give the name of any community. BadhonCR (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, most people would agree, but KK Swami's param-guru, Prabhupada, was adamant they aren't Hindus, so it seems more appropriate to leave the specific sect here. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit change request on the article- Hindu mythological wars

There are no sources which support the claim Of Arjuna being a Atimaharathi. He never displayed enough skills to be considered as a Atimaharathi As the page suggests 1 Atimaharathi= 12 maharathis. But arjun has never fought 12 maharathis at the same time In fact There were barely 6 maharathis on the kaurava side according to this article. So I don't understand why He is being portrayed as an Atimaharathi. In most sources he is considered equal to Karna and by that logic should be considered a Maharathi. He is martially adept and equal to Arjuna as a warrior, a gifted speaker who embeds provocative insults for his opponents in front of an audience. Edit:-2- Arjuna only possesed brahmashirshaastra and pasupatastra. The vaishnavastra and brahmandastra claim must be supported by sources, or else it's all bogus. Can someone provide accurate sources or at least remove these unwanted claims. I'm leaving this page here because there was no response on the article s talk page henct I edited it here, please kindly look into my edit suggestions. Thank you for your consideration !

Not my area of expertise, really – I had to read the article to see what Atimaharathi means, but you're right in that I can't find any sources describing him as such. I'll reply further on the article talk page Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mahavatar Babaji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babaji.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

About the article about dyaus.

Hey there.I recently deleted a part of the article where it was mentioned that dyaus raped his own daughter. I researched about the source you mentioned and in that book,a shloka was mentioned.When i searched about it,it was written that. "When (the worshipper) offers an oblation to his great and illustrious protector, the grasping (rākṣas), recognizing you, Agni, retires; but Agni, the archer, sends after him a blazing arrow from his dreadful bow, and the god bestows light upon his own daughter (the dawn).”

Now could you please throw some light on the last line and tell how it says that he raped his own daughter?(This translation is from the same author whose source you are mentioning) Your source says that it's mentioned vaguely that dyaus did that.So what's the need of including this in the article Also could you please give other sources for rigveda 1.71.5 ?Because i can't find it on the internet except in the source you've given Thank you Anonymous699610 (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, it's on p50 of the source cited (The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India, Volume 1, by Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton). It is "obliquely but vividly referred to a few times in the Rgveda (I.71.5, 8; X.61.5–7) and told more clearly in Vedic prose (though with Prajāpati substituting for Heaven)–namely the rape of his own daughter."

I'm not familiar with the primary source (that part of the Rigveda itself) but secondary and tertiary sources are to be preferred, per WP:OR. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

hello again.Yes, as you've said about p50 of the book,i have read that,i am not challenging you for misquoting the text in the book,i am challenging the source itself.I couldn't find any shloka in rigveda that mentions about the rape by dyaus.But indeed i have seen other sources Like of international journal of sanskrit research. There's an article by Milorad Ivankovic about that."The vedic stellar saga of 3059 BCE",Pg no.1 mentions that he was enomared by his daughter,that doesn't mean he raped her.You said that secondary and tertiary sources are to be preferred.Well,we have contradicting secondary and tertiary sources.What about that?Also please give some credible source for those shlokas in rigveda because I'm still not able to find it

Thank you Anonymous699610 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to changing it to something like "According to Jamison and Brereton (2014), Dyauṣ is also known for the rape of his own daughter..." if it's not a majority view. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I would be pleased if you do that as these are the opinions that are made by them according to their translation.There are many alternate translation where i didn't find the 'rape' word.

So it would be nice if you do that

Thanks Anonymous699610 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Note about 3RR

Note that for WP:3RR purposes, reverts are counted over a 24-hour period and not per "calendar day" (which, in any case would depend on the time-zone). So the IP was at 6-reverts rather than 3, when you posted this comment. Pointing this technicality out mainly so that you take care not to fall afoul of 3RR yourself when dealing with such users. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for that. 6! Don't know how I missed three more. Cheers, Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Inviting your review of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami has just been expanded and updated with new reliable sources, images, and media. As one of its most involved editors, your contribution would be very much appreciated. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Dashavatara

Please see last topic for images 2001:4490:48F:C275:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. You need to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your changes. If you have been reverted, you need to abide by WP:BRD and stop edit warring. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu being mentioned in Bhavishya Purana

@Dāsānudāsa I had provided reference from the Bhavishya Purana directly with exact Sanskrit Slokas and translations with page numbers regarding Chaitanya Mahaprabhu being mentioned with name of his parents and also place of birth. Still my content was removed without proper reasoning. Blaming me of being sectarian. If Krishna is mentioned in Vishnu Purana we agree he is incarnation of Vishnu as per the Vishnu Purana. And similarly Chaitanya is clearly mentioned as incarnation of Vishnu as per the Bhavishya Purana, I mentioned the same. What is being secterian in that? If Chaitanya is Vishnu according to the Bhavishya Purana then what's wrong in accepting the facts?

Bhavishya Purana, Pratisargaparvan, Part 4, Chapter 10. This entire chapter is on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

You will be surprised that not once but countless times Chaitanya is mentioned in this purana as avatar of Vishnu.

Exact Sanskrit Slokas: https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/bhavishya-purana-sanskrit/d/doc1271320.html

Read any Bhavishya Purana by any authentic publisher, the chapter number I have given.

For example: Publisher: Gita Press

Bhavishya Purana, Book Page: 352 onwards. (Archive Link Page: 362 onwards) Link: https://archive.org/details/bhavishya-puran-gita-press-gorakhpur/page/n362/mode/1up

What can I do more to convience you than share the exact Sanskrit slokas directly from the Purana itself. Request you to pls guide me on this. Siddheshmane900 (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, please read WP:PSTS. The Bhavishya Purana is a primary source, whereas Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on reliable secondary sources, such as the cited encyclopaedia. Also, the parts of the Bhavishya Purana that mention Sri Chaitanya were clearly (re)written after his advent; ditto the parts that reference Mohammed and Christianity. Historians and linguists consider these parts to date from the 18th or even 19th century AD. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa Thankyou for a much convincing reply. I respect your reply which sounds much better than others. There is no doubt a high possibility that these parts of the Purana may have been written after his advent, however this is not the point. Him being mentioned was the point. What you say would also apply to other incarnations of Vishnu which Puranas mention. Most incarnations of Vishnu mentioned in Puranas like Buddha or even Rama and Krishna were written after their advents. Thankyou once again. Siddheshmane900 (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. But from a Wikipedia perspective, what really matters are secondary (and tertiary sources), which the Gita Press BVS isn't. Cheers, Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

IAST

May I ask as to why you hate ((IAST3)) template? You have reverted at least five of my edits where I have used the template. Rau6590 (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Because you don't need it if you already have the {{lang-sa}} template, which already includes a field for the romanisation and romanisation standard (IAST). Why do you keep adding it? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)