User talk:Amanhanda

Welcome

Hello, Amanhanda! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Akerans (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, Amanhanda. You have new messages at Portal talk:Hindu Mythology#Mythology.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- John of Reading (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu theology

Could you please explain this edit? [1] --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop inserting POV terms to articles as you did here and here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology means something which is believed but not true krishna being one of the most important avatar of Vishnu for vanish nabs to call it mythology would be blasphemous it's like calling Jesus or Muhammad mythological characters Christians and Muslims would be up in arms against it ,theology men's pertaining to god which is an appropriate term for krishna.

I see your point. The problem is that the term 'theology' is currently used almost universally to refer to the study of the God of the Abrahamic religions. You will have to provide reliable sources that document widespread use of the term 'theology' in Krishna Studies and Hindu Religious Studies. "Krishna theology" is a very rare term; one usually encounters the term "Krishnaism" instead. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the abramics used the terms mythological for the dharmic religions as according to their theological beliefs these were just mythological stories A lot of people use these terms even in the east as English is not there language so they don't really understand the meaning they just use it as it has been done .from a point of view of a vaishnav ( hindu ) it is very offensive if u were to see the words they use for describing krishna in there own language they don't call it mythology instead it would be considered blasphemous if I can somehow help u change the term tell me what would u like me to come up with so we refer to krishna in therms of theology not mythology . As of not the article right now would be as per the POV of right wing abrhamic groups

Many respectable academic authors (authors that may or may not adhere to Abrahamic faiths) make the distinction between Hinduism and Hindu theology/philosophy, so this is not exactly a case of religious bias. In cases such as this one [2], one can simply replace the term Hindu mythology with the less controversial term Hinduism. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for taking mythology out of the ramjanambhoomi article , hinduism sounds fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.236.79 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC) though u choose to use hinduism but rama is at the core of hindu vaishnava theology as the 7 th avatar of vishnu and seen as purshottam i.e the perfect man ( avatar )[reply]

August 2013

Your recent editing history at Gautama Buddha 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sudo Ghost 03:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i fail to understand this why would you use the word purported for the place which most people view as the birth place of buddha , i do not see the words at the birthplace of jesus , because most buddhist are not people of english language they do not understand the implication of the word if u were to use that word for the birthplace of jesus people would up in arms but u guys persisting with the use of the word PURPORTED is discriminatory and offensive

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. - Sudo Ghost 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Gautama Buddha. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text

{{unblock|reason= 
i fail to understand this why would you use the word purported for the place which most people view as the birth place of buddha , i do not see the words at the birthplace of jesus , because most buddhist are not people of english language they do not understand the implication of the word if u were to use that word for the birthplace of jesus people would up in arms but u guys persisting with the use of the word PURPORTED is discriminatory and offensive

     ~~~~}}

below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 08:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devi

Could you please explain this edit? [3]. English-language scholarly sources refer to Hindu gods as "gods." You are clearly coining new terms for Hinduism-related articles. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demi gods are known as known as dev or Devi depending on gender in hinduism they are akin to abrhamic guardian angel , what is referred to as god in person is known as ishvar which can only be Vishnu , shiv or brahma or it's avatar in English dev,d and Devi,s are also called in the evangelical effort to shoe hinduism in poor light with multiple gods . A lot of Hindus also refer to dev or Devi as god as a vestige of colonialism so dev or Devi or their plural is correct rather than gods or dev and ishvar( god )

Well, you have made some claims that need to be backed up. Who says that "Demi gods are known as known as dev or Devi depending on gender in hinduism they are akin to abrhamic guardian angel"? Who says that "A lot of Hindus also refer to dev or Devi as god as a vestige of colonialism"? There are certain standard terminological conventions in Hindu Studies. Unless you have sources to back up your claims, I will have to assert that you are engaging in original research, and I will have to report you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i am not engaging in original research if u guys take pains to corroborate ur articles to hindu writings it would do justice to the philosophy , civilization and the religion i would gladly be referred to where ever u want me to if that helps in improving the quality of the article and the article not being written from a western mindset but from an indian mindset as it refers to them . hopefully the article is improved by acedemics and not people on the streets with very little knowledge

Please stop promoting your fringe terminology as you did here and take note that ranting about Wikipedia censorship while still not justifying your actions is not helpful. Your disruption will be reported to ANI. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i dont understand why dont u use the terminology used in actual Hinduism instead of trying to use english words which are far from meaning of sanskrit words , why don't u improve the quality of articles on hinduism by corresponding with theologians instead of just writing things taken from english texts not written by theologians ,can u tell me what is ur agenda of denigrating jain religious figures as mythical why dont u write that for jesus or mohammed why are u picking on eastern faiths because we dont hit back . indra in all texts is known as dev if u have no clue about what u are editing that ur problem not mine indra dev read the rig veda . anything that u dont understand becomes fringe how can wikipedia take action against me when i am writing the wright thing why not u since u are not writing the wright thing

The terminological conventions that are employed in a Wikipedia article should generally be the ones most common in the English language, as you would find them in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources). Coining and employing your own terminology is against basic Wikipedia policy. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is not my terminology this is the terminology used by all hindu theologians u would find them if u would care to research , the terminology used in a lot of english literature on hinduism is of colonial relic with a slant view of evangelical bend of mind hence my appeal to improve the quality of the article to accurately represent hinduism

The burden is on you to provide reliable sources in the English-language that verify your claims. You have been pursuing your agenda since September 2010 (btw, I have just reverted this edit because it was in violation of MOS:QUOTE). You have never explained your activity with reference to Wikipedia policies and you have never a provided a single source that verifies your claims. As I wrote above there is a clear distinction between Hinduism and Hindu theology/philosophy. Your blind substitution of the word "mythology" with the word "theology" is against common practice. Please adhere to what is common practice in the relevant English language literature. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Please stop making blind substitutions. [4] See Wikipedia:RGW#Righting Great Wrongs. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please stop violating MOS:QUOTE as you did here and here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Zionism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Richard BB 21:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chauhan.

You've been warned and blocked before for this. The cited source specifically says that the claim of origin is a myth. I'm not even sure that you would find any source that says it is a part of Hindu theology but, for sure, this one doesn't. Sitush (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the same at Paramara. You 'have to stop doing this otherwise you'll likely be blocked indefinitely. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology and theology

I've been looking at your edits and I don't think you understand what either mythology or theology means - your sentence "Rajput bardic accounts, which are based on hindu theology" made no sense. You need to read those articles. And to note that we have articles on Jewish mythology, Christian mythology and Islamic mythology. No one is singling out Hinduism. Alan Dundes defined myth as a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form, "a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society".

I'd also appreciate it if you used WP:Edit summaries in the future. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2014 (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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theology vs mythology

This has already been discussed on your talk page, so I'll keep it short: mythology and theology are not exactly same. Please don't make these unnecessary, disruptive changes. It wastes everyone's time. utcursch | talk 04:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Amanhanda. 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]