User talk:Mishriam-musiris

Welcome!

Hello, Mishriam-musiris, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in articles

Dear Mishriam - Please be sure to read Wikipedia's policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The scandal & controversy section is included within the ISKCON article not because one person has something against the organisation but through concensus of the numerous editors involved in editing the article over the past few years. As ISKCON has been invovled in some controversies it seems appropriate to mention that in the article on a factual basis alongside it's teachings and philosophy etc... See for example this section in the Christianity article along similar lines. Best Wishes & Hare Krishna, ys, Gouranga(UK) 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my response to Chopper Dave was not a personal attack, but merely a demonstrative one to prove a point. Even so, I offer my apologies.

As regards the Neutral Point of View clause, I think its being seriously misunderstood. NPOV is not a licence to slander, put out the dirty linen. Rather, NPOV should serve to keep out such trivalries. NPOV would immediately discern such titbits as thinly veiled attack and immediately disallow it.

I do not find the Encyclopaedia Britannica or the other established knowledge banks so forthcoming with bold titles that scream ‘Scandals and Controversies.’ Indeed, such title smacks of naivety and immaturity. It along the lines of, “Hey, what to hear some juicy trivially?” What’s that title doing in an encyclopaedia, you wonder, and steer clear off.

Yes, wikipedia has quantity, but in an encyclopaedia, it has always been the other word that matters. Quality. And in its shadows stands the other key operative word: Restraint. Together they make the golden standard for an encyclopaedia. Sadly the Wekipedia lacks both.

And, that seems to have finally gotten through to the Wekipedia boss. For in today’s newspaper, I read him saying that he is planning to change the model. It’s no longer going to be freely editable. Your changes will be peer-reviewed, and only if it passes, will it be published. Personally, I think its popularity is because it provides a forum for a lot of unsung scholars out there to make their lives a little less drab. Mishriam-musiris 18:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Swordq2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Swordq2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Swordq3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Swordq3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]