Jump to content

User talk:MRRaja001/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Regarding Arun Shridhar Vaidya page

Dear Raja, Please be careful of low quality sources - especially non maharashtrian sources that have an agenda against brahmins (such as the sikh agenda sources or muslim agenda sources) . It is well known that General Vaidya is ckp. Many outsiders confused these communities (ckp and brahmin) due to similarities in education and rituals and same last names. see this source also if you understand marathi it is written by a marathi brahmin. He writes Ram Ganesh Gadkaris statue was attacked because he was mistaken to be a brahmin. https://www.loksatta.com/blogs-news/whos-ckp-community-1788003/ Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DifferentialCalculus (talk • contribs) 09:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Go-ahead you can add it to Arun Shridhar Vaidya page, keep up the good work.- MRRaja001 (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Satyanatha Tirtha review request

Hello MRRaja001, I'm looking at the article this afternoon to see if I can access the pages listed in the books, if I can, I'd be happy to help. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Amitchell125:, You can refer to [History of Dvaita Vedanta] book for reference. type "Satyanatha Yati" or just "Satyanatha" in the search box, You'll find most of the information about him there, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Satyanatha Tirtha

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Satyanatha Tirtha you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello MRRaja001, I have started working on the review and will be posting comments shortly. If you would't mind working on my comments when you see them, we can work together as the review proceeds. I will cross them out as completed once they are addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Glad to hear that! - MRRaja001 (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi MRRaja001, in the review, could you put your replies and comments next to mine? I've copied your replies so that when I reply to you it makes sense to me! I'm enjoying doing the review, by the way, thanks for all you've done so far. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Amitchell125:, You're welcome and sure i'll do that. - MRRaja001 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi MRRaja001, in my sandbox I have placed a suggestion for the article, where the three main works described in the 'Works' section are moved to the table in the 'List of notable works' section. As a suggestion, what do you think? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Amitchell125:, We can do that. That's not a problem. - MRRaja001 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Amitchell125: I have a suggestion. Let's move the wikitable to Works sections and change the name of List of notable works to Notable works and add these three here. Because these three are his classical works. What do you say? - MRRaja001 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Good idea, go ahead and see if you're happy with the result. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Amitchell125: sorry for that i did not see your sandbox link. It's looking good in that way. But please arrange Abhinava Chandrika, Abhinava Gada and Abhinava Tarka Tandava on top list in the Wikitable. - MRRaja001 (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I think what you have done looks better than my original suggestion, happy to keep the change you have made. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Satyanatha Tirtha

The article Satyanatha Tirtha you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Satyanatha Tirtha for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Satyanatha Tirtha

The article Satyanatha Tirtha you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Satyanatha Tirtha for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Great work on the article! Prabhanjan Mutalik (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Prabhanjan Mutalik - MRRaja001 (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Kindly reconsider the authenticity of your edits.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Hii, a friend of mine was recently anonymously editing the "Tandava" and "Rudra" Page and it seems like things heated up between you and him.

First let me ask this, are you a VAISHNAVA??? Because your edits seems to be biased towards VAISHNAVISM. As your user page shows you are an Indian and so I think that you must be having knowledge about Sanatana Dharma.

Sanatana Dharma is a broad religion, you cannot conclude on the basis of a single text. Also, you should not consider anything other than authentic texts. Especially not from the books of mythology writers like DevDutt Pattnaik, because your facts seems like they have been picked up from books of writers like him. Kindly understand brother, WRITERS are not SCHOLARS. So, you cannot use their work to write articles on Wikipedia , which is a Global platform.

Regarding, that TANDAVA page, your facts seems to be biased towards VAISHNAVISM sect of Sanatana Dharma which is not right. Also, why did you remove images and 5 fuctions of Shiva's Tandava from the "Shiva's Tandava and Shaivism" sub-section of that page  ????? .This clearly shows, you are a biased VAISHNAVA who is trying to degrade Shiva's image and glory of Shaivism sect of Sanatana Dharma.

You should always give unbiased information. And this was the reason my friend was reverting your edits.

Krishna's Dance is never reffered to be a Tandava. The word Tandava is used to describe Shiva's dance and not Krishna's dance. Because Tandava is a type of ferocious and angry dance of destruction, which Shiva performs at the end of a KALPA. Kindly reconsider them and revert them back to original if possible. This type of behavior from your side will be taken as an assault towards the Sanatana Dharma and these type of assualts on religious topics are quite sensitive. Please reconsider your edits.

Thank you. Anjali00020010 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anjali00020010:Krishna's dance is considered as Tandava according to many philosophers, saints and scholars. If you don't agree i cannot do anything. I'm not biased towards anything. I am just here to correct the fact. Hope I answered your, Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: this is entirely inappropriate. I am not defending this editor's edits, but of course Devdutt Pattanaik can be used. What should not be used to make arguments is original sacred texts, see WP:PRIMARY, we need sources meeting WP:RS that discuss those texts. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: and @Doug Weller: The person who continuously vandalised on the articles Tandava and Rudra seems to have created this account. In fact i never added content from books written by Devdutt Pattanaik, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: If you have already assumed that you are completely right, then there is no meaning of this discussion, It will be an argument nothing else. Because You and I aren't on the same page. But I would like to say one thing, you want to prove that Krishna's dance is also called "Tandava", Fine!! But please note that no one gives you the right to mess up and edit the Shiva's Tandava portion as per your wish. Can you please give appropriate reasons why you removed those 2 things -- 1) Five functions of Shiva's Tandava . This is a completely valid point and is present in various Scriptures like Siva Purana, Shiva Rahasya, Agama Tantra Shastras, etc.. 2) An image of a girl performing Tandava. Now, you yourself say... Isn't this Vandalism??? You removed those things because it didn't seemed right to you... Let me make this clear brother, you are not such a great scholar that if you reject things then they will be false. Facts are facts, for you, for me and for everybody else. If you can't digest them,then it doesn't means that you will remove them. These things clearly prove that your edits were completely biased and you did them in purpose and not for correcting any facts. Applause Wikipedia 👏👏👏Such great people are working for you. Anjali00020010 (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: I removed them since there are no references to them on the page. If you have any references you can add back content with proper citations, Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Oh!Ok Thanks for clarifying. Anjali00020010 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Rudra" Page

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

In your recent edits, you mentioned that -- "Vayu is also Rudra ". Don't you think these things will create confusions... Just asking.... Because Rudra is always associated with Shiva. Now associating him with Vayu can create a lot of confusions. Also there are a lot of unsourced information on the " Narayana" Page . It would be helpful if you could do something about that page too. Thanks Anjali00020010 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anjali00020010: Rudra means Shiva, Rudra means Vayu and Rudra also means Vishnu. What confusion do you have in it. Jagadguru Madhvacharya clearly explained in his Rigbhashya in which context it refers to whome. Hope i answered you question. Rudra doesn't only refers to Shiva as you thought in all contexts. Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001:I don't know why but I am having a subtle feeling that you are a staunch Vaishnava. As you follow Dvaita, and Madhavacarya so you are deliberately bringing up only those things which degrade Shiva and Shaivism. Why aren't you editing pages such as "Narayana". They too have a lot of unsourced information. Why are you deliberately editing pages again and again related to Shaivism. Anjali00020010 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: I might be Vaishnava, but it doesn't mean that i won't pray Shiva and degrade him. I pray to Shiva daily, but not in the way Shaivas do. According to Madhvacharya, There is a certain celestial arrangement in the universe and he explained the difference between God and demi gods. We pray according to this called Taratamyabheda. According to Madhva, Shiva is not Supreme being. From Vishnu, Brahma was born and from Brahma, Shiva was born. According to him Shaivism is very far from real fact. All Vedas, Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita clearly refers to one Supreme being and it's Lord Vishnu according to Madhva. - MRRaja001 (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: You might consider Madhavacharya as a "Jagadguru" but not everyone does so. As I said to you in my first message that Sanatan Dharma is a broad religion which has followers of different mindsets and beliefs,so you cannot conclude everything just on the basis of Rigbhasya of your Jagadguru Madhavacharya.It is kinda obvious, he was a Vaishnava so he would definitely prove Vishnu to be supreme. But not everyone (even some scholars oppose him and his Dvaita Philosophy) agrees with your Madhavacharya.Not everyone who reads articles on Wikipedia is a Vaishnava, so it's kinda obvious that people will be offended if you will force your ideologies on an article just because you are a follower of Madhavacharya and believe his words to be completely true but that does not mean, everyone thinks the same as you do.Your words show that you are deliberately targeting articles related to Shaivism and you are knowingly ignoring articles related to Vaishnavism even though they contain the same amount of unsourced information (or even more) than pages related to Shaivism. Anjali00020010 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: And please kindly come out of this delusion that everyone thinks of Vishnu to be supreme. Vedas and Upanishads praise "Brahman" who is formless.And your Madhavacharya twisted the meaning of verses just to show Vishnu as supreme,nothing else. I knew it from the starting that you are a biased Vaishnava, nothing else and these administrators of Wikipedia thought you are person who corrects facts in an unbiased manner . What a joke!!! And who gave you the right to decide is Shiva is supreme or not. Are you god yourself??? Anjali00020010 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: I never did that and generally I never touch Shaivism articles. I just told what I follow that's it. If I want to add I'm free to add anyone's view with proper citations. - MRRaja001 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Also as you mentioned Vedas, Brahma Sutras, Upanishads and Bhagvad Gita, if you read commentaries if Adi-Shankaracharya (he is in reality considered to be a Jagadguru unlike your Madhavacharya of whom only his followers think as a Jagadguru) on these texts, you will be convinced that Dvaita is a myth and Advaita is real. Don't pretend that you know everything just because you have read commentary of a biased aacharya such as Madhavacharya. You must read other philosophies also then conclude about anything and if not, then please keep your biased thoughts till you and don't spread your propaganda of preaching Vaishnavism of Wikipedia. Anjali00020010 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I know what Adi Shankara told and he picked only few Vakhyas, said them as Maha Vakhyas and proved them in Upanishads. But Madhvacharya didnot do that he explained every Vakya in Upanishads clearly how they refer to Supreme Being Vishnu. Anyways leave all these what do you want to prove finally. Do you know who is Jagadguru a philosopher who writes commentaries on Prasthanatrayi. Know the meaning first. - MRRaja001 (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Respected Sir, you said that you never touched Shaivism articles but I assume you must be knowing that Rudra is pre-dominantly considered to be Shiva himself. But you manipulated that article just to prove superiority of Vishnu. You linked Rudra page with Vayu and in that same page of Vayu , Vayu is said to be son of Vishnu. So indirectly you tried to show Rudra(Shiva) as a son of Vishnu just to prove Vishnu's superiority. You played smart didn't you!! Anjali00020010 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: In Rigveda the word Rudra have many meanings. I just wrote the meaning with proper citations that's it. - MRRaja001 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Your biased views show what kind of an great person you are. Thank you Sir for your valuable time. But let me state this to you, the word "Narayana" too has other meanings and it does not always refers to Vishnu. In "KasiKhanda" (A scripture from Bengal) Param Shiva is said to be Narayana and not Vishnu . So you see, you need read different texts to come to a conclusion but biased people like you won't understand these things. And Adi-Shankaracharya was far more intelligent that your Madhavacharya. Whole world knows that. So it would be nice if you do not say baseless things about Jagadguru Adi-Shankaracharya. Also all the great people like Swami Vivekananda, Gaudapadacharaya, Ramakrishna Paramahansa, Swami ChinmayaNanda, Adi-Shankaracharya,Ramana Maharishi, followed Advaita and rejected the Dvaita philosophy of your so called Jagadguru Madhavacharya. Also I would like to congratulate Wikipedia and it's members because by having people who are completely biased and partial like you working for them, Wikipedia will surely touch great heights. Anjali00020010 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: I never degraded or told baseless things about Adi Shankara. I am just presenting the facts. Please do not make personal attacks on me. This is not the way to approach solutions. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Also as you are continuously stating that as per your and your Madhavacharya's views, Vishnu is proven to be supreme. So do you want to say that people who worshipped Shiva their entire life, they wasted their life just because they didn't worship your Supreme God Vishnu. You think only Madhavacharya was an intellectual because he worshipped Vishnu and rest other wasted their lives right?? As per your ideology the 63 Nayanars (Great Devotees of Shiva) wasted their life because they didn't worship your supreme Lord Vishnu right  ?? Now please don't say that "I never said that"... Your replies and points very clearly depict what you want to say. You can befool others but you cannot me brother. Let me make this clear to you. Our Dharma is called Sanatana Dharma and generally " Hinduism".Please note that, the entire "Hiduism" isn't "Vaishnavism". Hinduism includes Vaishnavism under it along with Shaivism and Shaktism. So please come out of this delusion that the entire Sanatana Dharma is " Vaishnavism ". Vaishnavism is a part of Hinduism and not complete Hinduism. Anjali00020010 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Sir, this is what you do?? When you don't have anything to say, then you are blaming me that I am attempting personal attacks on you.. just great!!! I must say Sir, you got some great acting skills. Now when you don't have anything to say, you are playing your victim card here....just great!!! Anjali00020010 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: You're right but i never said that Vaishnavism means Hinduism. And not only these three, but there are also many sub schools under Hinduism. I don't know why you're waging war on me like this. It's better if you stop here. Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: I will stop here. But again I would like to make a final statement. If you do not follow Shaivism, then don't but atleast don't degrade its articles by adding points just from the point of view of a Vaishnava. If you are editing such articles please consider the points of Shaivas and Shaktas and then make any conclusions. Hinduism is a broad religion, please don't narrow it down to Vaishnavism as per your wish. If you can, then kindly remove your points from the Rudra page in which you have linked Vayu with Rudra. I am saying this because your that point is completely based upon Vaishnava philosophy and it does not considers Shaiva and Shakta Philosophy and thus your point of linking Rudra to Vayu is a biased edit. And I don't think, Wikipedia would promote a biased and partial content. Thanks Anjali00020010 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: Sorry, i cannot remove it that was not written on the basis of Vaishnava or Shaiva. The reference which I cited is a commentary on Rigveda which was written by Dayananda Saraswati. Hope i resolved your issue, Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: I just forgot to reply your one point so I am writing this last message. You said --"I don't know why you are waging a war on me".Please don't play it cool!! You are again using your Victim card here. Sir, you very well know I am opposing you because you are wrong and you are mis-using your rights on Wikipedia to fulfill your propaganda. I must say people got some great acting skills nowadays. When they lose and do not have anything to say, then they pretend like they didn't do anything wrong and start playing their victim card there. Just Great!!! Anjali00020010 (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Hypocrisy at its peak!!! Dayanand Sarswati in his book "Satyarth Prakash" completely disregarded Puranas and Tantra Shastras. Why don't you accept those things too. Dayananda Saraswati never said that Vishnu is supreme. He always praised the formless Brahman mentioned in the Vedas. But you didn't took that into consideration. You are just twisting facts to prove yourself and your fake as well biased ideologies right, nothing else. Anjali00020010 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: That's what I'm telling. It's not based on Vaishnavism or Shaivism. - MRRaja001 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Bhai Bhagwan se toh Daro, you are just twisting facts in the best possible way so that you can to improve the image of Vaishnavism on Wikipedia. Very well played !! You can befool readers who are not from INDIA by interpolating articles but you cannot befool Indians who very well know about their religion. Best of luck for your future conspiracies !!! Anjali00020010 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: I think you didn't get my point on Dayananda Saraswati. I just said, if you believe him so blindly, then why do you worship Vishnu and follow Dvaita philosophy. You should follow Advaita Philosophy if you have such high regards for Dayananda Saraswati.. Anjali00020010 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Commentary of Dayananda Saraswati is not based on any sect of Hinduism but you used his commentaries in a very clever way to prove superiority of Vaishnavism. I have already elaborated in the previous messages how you did this. Thanks Anjali00020010 (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: I don't understand why is Vaishnavism coming here. I just wrote Vayu. Does Vayu mean Vaishnavism to you. I don't understand your mindset. It's better if you stop here. - MRRaja001 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Vayu does not means Vaishnavism but what you tried to show through Vayu by linking it to Rudra, definitely means Vaishnavism. Fine ! I will stop here...I am too fed up with baseless argument because you think you are completely right,that is the problem here.You very well know what I am saying but you are ignoring it and pretending like you didn't get what I said. Fine ! But because of people like you, image of Wikipedia is getting maligned day by day when it comes to articles based on religion.Because of biased editors like you people don't trust wikipedia articles which are based on religion these days very much . Because you misuse your capabilities and on top of all that, these so called administrators support you in everything you do even before thinking whether they are supporting the right person or not.Thanks. Anjali00020010 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: See again you're personally attacking me here. What's wrong with you. Can you stop attacking on me. Can't you discuss without arguing and personally attacking. - MRRaja001 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: And now the straightforward answer to your question. You said- "You just mentioned Vayu".But let me bring this to your notice, the word Vayu in Dayanada's commentary refers to Vayu (air) and not "Vayu Deva". "Vayu" there means simple air and not the god Vayu. Anjali00020010 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Hope I answered your question which was the basis of all this argument. I hope you are satisfied now. As I previously said, you twisted the facts to prove yourself right. You interchanged "Vayu"(Air) with the god Vayu and then linked Vayu Deva to Rudra (which was wrong). You played smart, didn't you !!!! Anjali00020010 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: When they are linking "Wind or Storm" to List of wind deities why not Vayu to Vayu. - MRRaja001 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: You said that you are not biased towards anything right ??? Then why don't you correct their mistake (as you said that they are linking wind or strom to various dieties). A unbiased person,in these circumstances would correct all the previous mistakes also. Anjali00020010 (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: You should correct the previous mistakes of that article too if you found one (Various dieties linked with Wind and Storm as you told) .You should not add 1 more (Linking Vayu(Air) to Vayu God). Anjali00020010 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anjali00020010: See Rudra is about Rigvedic deity not air or agni. When they are saying Vayu or air it means that they are referring to god associated with it. Hope i have answered you. Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ekkirala Bharadwaja, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Madhwas citing

What is the cite in this edit meant to support? The statement is In coastal Maharashtra and Goa there is a sect. among Daivadnya Brahmins who follow Madhvacharya's Dvaita philosophy. but according to the quote given in your edit the source just says daivadnya brahman sub-caste originally from coastal Maharashtra, Karnataka and Goa. We do not need to overcite stuff and that quote seems to be unnecessary. As an aside, neither your source nor the one that was already there actually support the statement because, at least according to the quotes, neither mention the sect! - Sitush (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: Hi, Actually the first citation says that there are followers of Madhvacharya among Daivadnya Brahmins and the second citation says the place where Daivadnyas are present. Isn't this clear. I have added more quote for clearer idea. - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. As I have just said on the article talk page, the entire section needs to be rewritten. I actually think the entire article needs a rewrite but I don't have the time to delve into it. There are far too many very poor Brahmin-related articles, especially bearing in mind that they're allegedly the educated people and, as with other caste groups, undoubtedly edit their own articles. - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sitush: Yes, you're right i agree with you. - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Deshastha Brahmin

Hi, first how'z life. Coming to the point, is DRB a popular acronym for Deshastha Rigvedi Brahmins (like CKP) as you edited here. If not then we should not write it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes, It's also present in many references. - MRRaja001 (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
OK then. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: These are some references "Man in India, Volumes 63-64 page 414", "Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society, Volumes 37-38", "Newsletter, Volume 2, Issues 7-12, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies" - MRRaja001 (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Well thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

  • New partnerships
    • Al Manhal
    • Ancestry
    • RILM
  • #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
  • AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MRRaja001 which concerns you. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I think you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was obvious that this Dhina person was a sockpuppet but I wrongly assumed, because of a focus on the same issue, that you were involved. It's a case of getting the right result – see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratan375/Archive – but not necessarily in the right way. Don't let this put you off editing because the important thing is that a ring of these sockpuppets has been caught. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: It's Okay - MRRaja001 (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sapta Puri

Hi, just a question about the Sanskrit text you added to the Sapta Puri article with this edit. I'm curious about where this is taken from (and I can't read the foreign-language source you've added). I've found a similar verse here – chapter 16, verse 114, of an abridged version of the Garuda Purana. Is this the original source? DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@DanFromAnotherPlace: Yes you're right. It is from Garuda Purana. - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll add that link to the article. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see you already edited it. Thanks. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@DanFromAnotherPlace: You're welcome. - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Diwali!

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
@Fylindfotberserk: Thank you and wish you the same Mate! - MRRaja001 (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Subh Diwali

.🪔HappyDeepawali🪔May this festival bring peace and blessings to you and your family • .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 10:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@245CMR: Thank you and Wish you and your family Happy Deepawali. - MRRaja001 (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Diwali 2020

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy Diwali and Coming Year.
Jonathansammy (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you and wish you the same @Jonathansammy: - MRRaja001 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
LukeEmily (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you and wish you also a Happy Diwali @LukeEmily: - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not remove my comments

Hi there MRRaja001. I noticed this edit which you made on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Please do not blank other editors' comments in discussions; if you disagree, add a comment of your own stating that you disagree. Thank you. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

  • New partnership: Taxmann
  • WikiCite
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Vishnupad Mandir

I'd be interested to hear in what way you think this edit constitutes "disruptive editing". For the most part, I simply removed unnecessary piping, as well as making the article title match the first sentence, as per the MOS.

In reverting my edits, I can see you've reintroduced a number of errors, including restoring "Vishnupada Mandir" (which isn't the article name) in bold at the beginning of the article (I added the IAST, Visnupada, as an alternative form), as well as an incorrect reference to the "Brahma myth Brahmins" – a Google search for which turns up this page only.

Please explain your revert. I also think you should apologise for calling me a "disruptive" editor, which obviously isn't the case. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa: Basically Bhumihars are not "Brahma myth Brahmins' or not even Brahmins, they just claim that they are Brahmins. That's why i reverted your edits on that page. The origin of Brahmins ( irrespective of subdivisions among them ) is associated with Lord Brahma. So you should not add Bhumihar there without providing proper citations. If you think you're right please consider providing proper references for your claims, Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001:OK. You should put that in your edit summary (instead of "Reverting back disruptive editing"), then, or only partially revert that change rather than the whole edit.
If these "Brahma myth Brahmins" aren't the Bhumihars, who are they? Because, as I said, if you Google "Brahma myth Brahmins", the only result is for this article, so that's clearly not correct either. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, there are multiple websites saying the Bhumihars are the traditional priests at the temple. If they're not, who are? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Dāsānudāsa: Websites cannot be accepted as citations, please provide citations from good sources such as News, Books, Journals etc. Please go through WP:CS, WP:RS and WP:V once, Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand the rules, thanks. I've been editing Wikipedia for over a decade. Where is your RS for whatever "Brahma myth Brahmins" are, which - as I've now pointed out twice - is a Googlewhack with precisely zero results outside this very article? If we don't know who these traditional guardians are, we should take out the sentence altogether. - Dāsānudāsa (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I didn't add that "Brahma myth Brahmins" sentence, but I changed and corrected the sentence with citation, Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Have you added me for a discussion or nominated me for blocking / sock puppet investigation. Regards, .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 13:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@245CMR: No, i didn't - MRRaja001 (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@MRRaja001: Hi! I wanted to know whether goddess Durga is considered Vishnu's sister or not? .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 02:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@245CMR: Yes, Goddess Durga is considered as Sister of Lord Vishnu, but is form of Lakshmi and is a Brahmacharini (a celebate goddess). In Mahabharata Lord Krishna himself said it to Yudhishtira to pray Durga as his "Bhagini" but the Durga who Krishna is referring to is not Parvati Durga, it is Lakshmi Durga, who is form of Lakshmi. Lakshmi Durga only came as the sister of Krishna in Dwapara Yuga. She is always considered as Brahmacharini. - MRRaja001 (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Should we add this in the infobox as she is considered Vishnu's sister in almost all traditions? .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 09:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@245CMR: Yes, you can add. - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Ok - .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 11:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@245CMR: I have a suggestion. Since you added consort as Shiva it's better if you can add "Shiva (Shaivism & Shaktism)" in this way. What do you say? - MRRaja001 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@MRRaja001: I think that will look odd and the note is enough. .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 15:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@245CMR: Who sees the note tell me, even the Google search also won't see it. It'll be clear if we add like that. - MRRaja001 (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001:It will pop up on pc. On Google, it will be unaffected whether there is extra lines or not as it generally considered the links. .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 15:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@245CMR:Do simple Google search as Consort of Durga, because of this it'll show as Shiva. - MRRaja001 (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001:It will be unaffected, tried many articles like this. .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 15:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001:And it is not even considering from infobox .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 15:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001:But from some lines of the article .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 15:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@245CMR: Okay fine, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Welcome - .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 15:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Durga being an avatar of Lakshmi in Vaishnavism is already mentioned in the lead. That's why removed additional info. .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 15:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@245CMR: Again you're doing the same mistake. Add back the note and leave it. - MRRaja001 (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Pls come to my talk page .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 16:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay - MRRaja001 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your work in ethnic/caste articles. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: Thanks for the appreciation. - MRRaja001 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Seasonal wishes

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello MRRaja001, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

••••🎄Merry Christmas🎄••••

"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."

Happy editing,
User:245CMR

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021 to you too!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello MRRaja001, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Happy 2021

Merry Christmas

Dear User:MRRaja001

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Wish you all a Happy and Healthy 2021.


Jonathansammy (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vaishno Devi Temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sloka.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Purandara Dasa at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted (1 month for now)

Hi MRRaja001. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi MRRaja001, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations sir

Hello MRRaja001, Congratulations for your new permissions i.e. promotion as wikipedia editor. Glad to hear. Looking forward to more contributions for you. LukeEmily (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@LukeEmily:Thanks for the encouragement . - MRRaja001 (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2 States (upcoming film)

Notice

The article 2 States (upcoming film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Project was shelved, non-notable production, per WP:NFF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 22:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: Okay, go-ahead! - MRRaja001 (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi MRRaja001. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hope for 2021

take courage

Thank you for improving article quality in December, and good wishes for a time of transition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you very much, it means a lot to me . -
Have a good new year 2021! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Gerda Arendt, wish you the same!! - MRRaja001 (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious

philosophy, religion and education in India

Thank you for quality articles about philosophy, religion and education in India such as Satyanatha Tirtha, B. N. Krishnamurti Sharma and Narayanacharya, for welcoming new users, for gnomish work correcting, updating, adding references and images, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2499 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt. Being recognized feels good. You made my day . - MRRaja001 (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I tried to give 2021 a good start by updating the QAI project topics. Please check and correct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Okay. - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, MRRaja001. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for that! - MRRaja001 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
So, MRRaja001, the first thing you do is to move Tripura Sundari without opening a requested moves discussion or otherwise finding out whether there was a consensus to move the page? @TonyBallioni:, I think this privilege should be taken right away again. Skyerise (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@Skyerise: How is it in any way related to Page Mover rights. We can move pages even without page move rights. Lalita Tripura Sundari is the actual name of the goddess and present in most of the popular references, you can check them here. Just go through this search. - MRRaja001 (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The fact that it was almost immediately reverted shows that it is a controversial move. So the "used in controversial ways without consensus" above would apply. Proper process would have been to open a requested move discussion, wait until it is closed, then implement the consensus. It's an old and established article, and this likely has already been discussed in the talk page archives. Did you check? Skyerise (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@Skyerise: There are no controversies in that. I will fix it don't worry. I already started a discussion on the talk page. Its just a matter of day, Thank you. - MRRaja001 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's actually controversial. If you won't open a formal requested moves discussion, then I will. Skyerise (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@Skyerise: Adding different name is controversial. Adding a full name of a deity is not controversial. But we have already discussed it on the talk page. They told the reason for maintaining the name Tripura Sundari. They said that popular authors such as S. Shankaranarayan, Kinsley, Frawley mentioned only Tripura Sundari in their books. So, we have decided to not move to the new name. The problem is solved, Thank You. - MRRaja001 (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@Skyerise: there's nothing wrong with making a BOLD move that's reverted so long as it isn't a habit and the person thought it wouldn't be controversial. Moves are subject to WP:BRD as well. The move has been reverted, now if MRRaja001 wants to do so, they will need to start an RM. I don't see the need to remove page mover, especially as it was requested for NPP/AfC things.
MRRaja001, I will say this, however, basically anything involving religion or ethnicity in India/South Asia is going to be controversial, including moves. Save yourself and everyone the user talk discussion and start an WP:RM first next time. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Sure! - MRRaja001 (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

July corner

On DYK today, two songs, a morning song that a cousin gave to me, about the many meanings of rising, and the other praying for the courage to take the necessary steps. The morning song is a GA, - I should write more given my initials, but I also want to care for articles of those who recently died (now Esther Béjarano). - Thank you for improving articles in July, - I come a few days earlier than normally because the bloom is fading already ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks mate! - MRRaja001 (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep up the Good work!

Great work overall. Please keep it up ! LukeEmily (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, LukeEmily. - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

December thanks

December songs

Thank you for improving article quality in December. If you like Advent music, check this out. If you like Christmas music and wishes, watch my user talk until 27 December ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. - MRRaja001 (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Lakshmi

Hello, regarding the recent edit dispute on the page, I've few points to discuss - As per article, the statement is - " Whenever Vishnu descended on the earth as an avatar, Lakshmi accompanied him as consort, for example as Sita and Radha or Rukmini as consorts of Vishnu's avatars Rama and Krishna respectively." There are three important information in the statement - 1) Statement mentioned the prominent avatars of Lakshmi. 2) Statement mentioned the consort of Lakshmi and her avatars. 3) The chronological order in which her avatars appeared as per the timelines mentioned in various scriptures. Now, directly coming to point, Rukmini is not mentioned before Radha because of the timeline of avatars. Radha is mentioned with Krishna in Vrindavan leelas which happened way before than the Dwarka leelas where Rukmini is mentioned. Similarly like when we mention avatars of Vishnu, its Rama whose name come first than Krishna based on their timelines or the name of Parshuram comes way before than the name of Rama even though they shared the same time period for sometime. Now, the second point regarding the consort of Krishna - I think it was once discussed on the Krishna's page also where u deleted name of Radha from consort list in Infobox. But, never mind, there are multiple research papers and books which mentioned Radha as Krishna's consort for which please check wikipedia of Radha where almost all sources are arranged and organised properly. Regarding the married consort theory, first the disputed statement do not specifically talk about the married consort. So, considering it for writing the sequence of avatars is not a good idea. Statement simply stated "consort" to present the neutral point of view. Because, in many section Radha is worshiped as lover consort while in many others she is worshiped as wife of Krishna including Swaminarayan and Radha-vallabh section. Just to avoid this POV conflict and maintain neutral POV, word "consort" is used. I hope somewhat I am able to clarify the reason behind my edit on the disputed statement. Still, in case of any further discussion required, feel free to ping me. Thanks.Kridha (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kridha: First of all, Sita is avatar of Sri form of Lakshmi and Rukmini is also avatar of Sri form of Lakshmi. This is mentioned in all scriptures including Lakshmi Tantra. Since, after Sita, Rukmini is the form of Sri i mentioned it continuously. I didn't remove Radha. I don't know what problem you have with this. - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
But Radha is also the form of Sri Lakshmi. Multiple scriptures including - Bhramvaivarta Purana, Garga Samhita, Gopal tapani upanishad, Narad Purana, Padma Purana, Narad panchratra etc mentioned her as avatar of Sri Lakshmi. She is as equal and as significant as Sita or Rukmini. Then what's the reason behind skipping her name between Sita and Rukmini. Her timeline lies just in middle of these two avatars. I just wanted to know your reason behind change of sequence? Kridha (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kridha: See I don't have any problem with Radharani. But it is known fact that Krishna married Rukmini and Rukmini is the primary concert among all his wives. Anyways I don't have any problem. Thanks for the discussion. - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Rukmini is the primary queen consort of Krishna in Dwarka. No doubt about it. My objection was never about that. Confusion arises when we talk about the consorts of Krishna in general or avatars of Lakshmi because different scriptures present different informations. Combining all the informations to give a holistic and neutral POV is a challenge in itself. Anyway, thanks for understanding. It was nice having discussion with you. Kridha (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kridha: All consorts are not Lakshmi incarnations. Only Rukmini and Satyabhama are incarnations of Sri and Bhu forms of Lakshmi and the remaining all are apsaras and have small amsha of Lakshmi devi. This is the reason why only Rukhmini and Satyabhama are worshipped along with Krishna throughout South India, Maharashtra and Gujarat. - MRRaja001 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
What you stated can be categorized as a regional POV. In South, it might be Rukmini Devi who is worshiped as the avatar of Shri Lakshmi but in North and East, it's Devi Radha who is worshiped as Shri Lakshmi along with Krishna. In Barsana and pushtimarg tradition Devi Radha is addressed as Shriji. Coming to Gujarat, presently the scenario is completely changed after the foundation of Swaminarayan Sampradaya and Pushtimarg. Pushtimarg focuses mainly on Vrindavan leelas. In Pushtimarg temple, it's Devi Radha and Yamuna Devi who are mainly worshiped as the main goddesses with Krishna. They preach about Yamuna Devi as she is the guru of that tradition and worship Radha and Krishna in form of Swamini ji (Shriji) and Thakur ji(Shrinath ji) as the eternal divine pair. Even in Dwarkadhish temple in Gujarat, there is a separate alter of Radha Krishna just in front of central alter of Dwarkadhish. The idol of Devi Radha is also present with the idols of goddess Jambavati, Satyabhama, Kalindi in the seperate consort room of the temple. Rukmini devi's idol is not present anywhere inside the main Dwarkadhish temple. Her temple is situated two kms away from Dwarkadhish temple because of the curse legend. Apart from Pushtimarg, it's Swaminarayan section who is practically everywhere in the Gujarat. They are the dominating Vaishnava tradition in the entire Gujarat and they preach and worship Krishna with Radha as Radha Krishna Dev. The third Vaishnavism section emerging in Gujarat these days is Gaudiya Vaishnavism in form of Iskcon temples. Presently, almost all major and minor cities of Gujarat is having Iskcon temple. Being from this state, I have presented the exact scenario of Vaishnavism in Gujarat. You can cross verify from wherever u wish to. Rest in North India and Eastern India including Rajasthan, UP, MP, Delhi, Haryana, West Bengal and Manipur, it's Radha who is worshiped with Krishna as his consort. So see there is a crystal clear contrast on the question of Krishna's consorts and Lakshmi's avatar. People in different regions have different ideas and conception regarding the avatars of Lakshmi and consorts of Krishna. That's why we try that whenever we present information on Wikipedia it should be holistic, not selective. Thanks. - Kridha (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Out of many Vaishnava traditions active in North, East and West (Gujarat) , I included name of only these traditions because according to my understanding they are the most active, prominent, influential and have quite wide reach among common masses compared to other regional traditions active in Northen and Eastern part. They have set up hundreds of temples not only in India but also on international level and have a large community of their own. Many important and ancient temples in Gujarat, North and Eastern India are administered by them. So their ideologies, worshipping practices have wide reach which shape the present scenario of Vaishnavism in Northen, Eastern parts and Gujarat. Kridha (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kridha: See I didn't deny anything or I haven't even removed anything. This much explanation is not required. - MRRaja001 (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda Arendt. - MRRaja001 (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)archi
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MRRaja001/Archive_3&oldid=1064232237"