User talk:Sannuki

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sannuki, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Juthani1 ^tcs 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women in BAPS

The tone is not of like a religous pamphlet. The article describes the organization as a formal organization. The article clearly states that Also, there isn't discrimination. All Swaminarayan temples including non-BAPS ones do this. It is the Swaminarayan view. It isn't only BAPS, so it isn't included in the article and doesn't have to be. Plus isn't a main aspect of the topic either. It is irrelevant. Also women do address assemblies in Women gatherings, but for the most part, BAPS temples have saints that practice celibacy so they can't see or talk to women. Saints deserve to speak because they are religous leaders. Saying that women are disciminated is POV which isn't encyclopedic. Please have more experience on wikipedia before claiming that something isn't encyclopedic. List the examples of how the article is a religous pamphlet below. Juthani1 ^tcs 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your edits because they were irrelevent to the topic itslef and appeared to be vandalism. Sorry about that, I will be sure no to do so again Juthani1 ^tcs 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the topic is related to BAPS, so please talk on that talkpage instead or feel free to respond here on my talkpage Juthani1 ^tcs 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I am glad you have taken interest in doing so. Just remember one thing. Little details in articles don't matter. It is the main ideas that count. Let me know if you are in need of any assistence. Also wehn talking on a talkpage do the following,

add == Title (whatever you want to call the section) ==
Add new comments at the bottom of the talkpage so that others can find it, it keeps things organized. As you will see on my talkpage, I have moved your comments to the bottom. If you want to start a new discussion create a new section as described under the 1st bullet point

Again welcome to wikipedia and I will help if you need any help. I can also help you learn how to use wikipedia, but it is best to read under the links on the welcome banner I have posted above Juthani1 ^tcs 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left more comments on the Shastriji Maharaj talkpage Juthani1 ^tcs 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather tan sticking to one arguement (over 3/4ths of you contributions are to this talkpage) why not edit articles and search them for other corrections rather than trying to get your own opinion out Juthani1 ^tcs 20:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you do the same? And how the F. do you know that i havent edited any?

You havent answererd any point. You have raised 1 bogus issue after the other. From Pakistani soccer balls to celibacy. The most amusing was not talking bad thing about religion one. Simply put, I am not a swami narayan attendent and would like some one to put the details And I have been graceful to do not in front page but on discussion page. And hey go read all the swami narayan articles again, they all read like a religious pamphlet. I will continue to write against such articles which dont reflect truth. And It was su-chey amusing to see sadhus suddenly changing from vedic to swaminarayan sadhus only.... And still not addressing if sadhus come in contact with women or not. Sannu Ki (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, you want to put irrelavent details. Vedic Sadhus did not change to Swaminarayan Sadhus. Swaminarayan Follow the rules of traditional vedic sadhus. I clearly adressed that sadhus can't come in contact with women multiple time, false accusations similar to the one sentence you want to add to the article which I disproved through a non biased POV. By the way, you edited my userpage, not my talkpage, please place comments on my talkpage.

Here is how I know you really haven't edited any articles- Special:Contributions/Sannuki Juthani1 ^tcs 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to put a relevant detail in ALL BAPS related article. Which is separation of sexes as well as allowed speakers. That is not Fing irrelevant. Jhuthani: You have claimed sadhus were mentioned in vedic tradition. I asked for a proof for that. As far as i know only 1 person has made the claim. And as far as i know sadhus are not mentioned in any of the 4 vedas. That point aside. You can see that there have been additions of main and discussions on more than 1 topic on that page. Besides as I have said i will respond on discussions or main page with you. Sannu Ki (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, where does it say that Vedic Sadhus changed to Swaminarayan Sadhus. You are making claims that don not exist. Swaminarayan initaited new sadhus. And I stree that you work on minor edits to gain more experience before making broader claims. Cheers World (talk • contributions) 12:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]