I'm not an admin. DaGizza is an admin as is Bhadani, Ragib and Blnguyen.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee. Your edits in the final paragraph of the puja section (about menstruation, death, etc) contained some good ideas. If you wish to put that part back into the article, it's fine. It could use some rewording and citations, but I can help you with that if you like. But please don't put it back in along with all the accompanying low-quality edits to other sections. When you mix many bad edits with one good edit, it is very hard for other editors to fix the problems without reverting the good stuff as well. HeBhagawan 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I re-worded it and added citations for some statements. Take a look and tell me what you think. HeBhagawan 17:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee/Archive 1,

A new

--NRS | ^T/_M\^B 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Diwali! Celebrate good triumph over evil! Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a mis understanding here....I am not trying to remove any of the external or content....External links / references only add value to the article..Some sock puppets, vandals and users like you are deleting information [3]I don't know you if you are also a supporter of Didi...

I can't understand as to why you are deleting content related to Vinu Sancharia and Pankaj Trivedi.. The content that I had added had reference and notes... I think this issue needs to be reported to admins....

The above comments are un-signed.

This is wikipedia. The article has to be neutral and not a platform for venting venom against anyone or wrongfully glorifying any person or organisation. Certainly this forum is not for supporters of Didi or of anti-Didi people. Someone while adding contents remove external links being documentary evidence of wrongs of Swadhyay.

I feel the article should be allowed to remain with caution like controversy and Pankaj Trivedi incident. There may be thousands of things wrong in recent times, if someone try to incorporate every wrong, the article will be ugly and create bad impression of editors and dis-interest viewers.

You may check all my edits and you will come to know that Pankaj Trivedi as well controversy has been incorporated by me. Pl. consider to be contended with some amount of caution. Further adding of wrongs will make the article one sided and defamatory. Such thing will lead to further editors fight and people will remove all cautionary links and glorify Dada, Didi or Swadhyay Parivar.

I have been able to convince the other editors of wrongs of Swadhyay Parivar and so the page is reverted back to my edit the moment someone remove "controversy" and "Pankaj Trivedi" incident.

If someone make the article defamatory and one sided, all the cautionary notes might be removed.

Swadhyayee 03:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets bury the hatchet. I am in no way interested in the activities of Swadhyay Parviar, even if they are good or bad. Incidentally I started to take interest in this article after I added information related to Pankaj Trivedi..(This was somewhere in June 06).Later I took a break and came back to only this month to realize that section blanking is happening…and I too started started to add the “controversial” section again and again…

I have clearly lost interest in this article.. and will not be touching henceforth…By the way thank you for clearing my mis-understanding… Your username made me believe that you don’t want any negative information against swadhyay parviar.. I apologize.. Bye..take care..--IndianCow 13:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Could you please tell me whether "Samor" means opposite or near? I was believing and using Samor for opposite while speaking Marathi, only yesterday someone not Maharashtrian told me that Samor means near and not opposite.
  • Can be either near and visible(specialy while refering to a person/object/a factual thing), or opposite(Specialy when you reffer an address direction)

Mahitgar 06:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to let me know if I can be of any help to you. IndianCow ^Talk 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, Considering the many past controversies over your edits, would you please be so kind as to discuss them here before incorporating them into the article? As of yesterday, the Hinduism article was of high quality. In my opinion, any changes we make at this point should be carefully considered and discussed with the community so that we don't ruin the good work that many editors have done. I would not say this regarding an article that was in shambles already, but an article of this quality deserves extra care. Thank you. HeBhagawan 12:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, I actually like your explanation of sutak as resulting from an inability to concentrate. Logically speaking, that is a better explanation than the conventional explanation of ritual impurity. The only problem is that all the published sources I have looked at explain it as ritual impurity. Can you give a citation for you view? If so, I will support it. As for the satsang section, please leave the wording as edited by Priyanath. His wording was clear and effective. Again, please discuss changes on the discussion page. Thanks!HeBhagawan 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, Your eagerness to add to Wikipedia is much appreciated, along with some fresh ideas that you add, but I have a difficult time understanding much of what you write. Perhaps the Hindi language Wikipedia would be better suited for you? It is at: http://hi.wikipedia.org. Right now, there's an effort to bring the

I am sorry if you can't understand me but that could be my inability as well inability of reader to understand a particular thing when the reader has exposure to a particular set of reading. Little efforts to understand and I don't think it would be difficult. You can also write to me about clarification of a particular thing. It's said in Hinduism that a Bahushrut is better than well read means well listened is better than well read. I have listened to discourses upon Srimad Bhagwad Geeta and Upanishads for more than 2 decades and also read substantial commentaries in my mother tongue. I don't think, my writing is ever vague and difficult to understand. Thanks for insulting by suggesting me to write in Hindi but Hindi is not my mother tongue. The problem in Hinduism is imposition of wrong connotations which fail to create the due reverence for Hinduism. The references lead to a book-source page and not actual source. I think Hinduism will be a catalog of books than an easily understandable article. I fail to understand the connection between editors using incivility to promote poor beliefs of Hinduism.Swadhyayee 02:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies - my comment about writing in Hindi was not intended as an insult. I think there are many good editors here, with much good advice, for those with ears to hear. Cheers. ॐ Priyanath 02:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. My concern is about projection of right connotations and save it from un-open minded single edits.Swadhyayee 02:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What is this, I find it irrelevant.Swadhyayee 02:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee,

Nobody here is out to get you! Let's all be friends.HeBhagawan 15:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend,

Your recent personal attacks on the Hinduism discussion page were unhelpful, as when you said

You need to apply your mind for 10 minutes. Should I hope you will ever be open and exhibit aptitude for learning?

Please review wikipedia's policies on personal attacks here: [[4]].

Thank you for understanding.HeBhagawan 13:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is the founding religion of the

Hi, thanks for your comments. I'm afraid I don't have the knowledge about Hinduism to provide a useful reply. Good luck. Tony 10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Swadhayee, My comments is that Mr. HeBhagwan wants to generalize Hinduism, instead of focusing on the many theological differences Hindus have. I accepted his assertion that karma is merely a law of cause and effect even though the Vedanta school rejects it.

Brahma Sutra 2.1.34: "No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration."

   Sankara's commentary explains that God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (Karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (Karma) done by that individual in a past life. 

Raj2004 10:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave you the notice becasue you violated the rule. HeBhagawan 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

swadhayee, hebhagan has been civil with me. It may not be true in your case.

Raj2004 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, thank you for your kind words. I adore the Gita and treasure it in my heart, this book has changed my life. I consider myself a Hindu even if others won't. I have always belived that What defines a man is his actions (or inactions for that matter) not what he says his religion is. If I considered myself a Hindu and did not follow the Dharma that has been established for me I do not see how I could be considered a Hindu. Instead I would be a person who says but does not do. So yes I am technicly in the minds of many not a Hindu due to my birth, but however if I follow the Gita I can be establised as a follower of The Lord. But I must maintain Lord Krishna's teachings if I should be considered such. I hope this makes sense to you and does not seem foolish. May the Lord Bless you.-_

I would love to change my name to Arjuna, This is probalby my favorite name there is. I don't know how and I Don't want to start over. The commentator for my Geeta is

adog

02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Always will read the Gita. Take Care--

adog

03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please accept this olive branch as a token of peace.

There is no need for fighting. Let us both work together amicably to maintain a friendly atmosphere on Wikipedia. Let us both try to engage in constructive discussions, maintain Wikipedia quality standards, assume good faith, and just generally relax and have fun. If we can work together in this manner, perhaps we can raise some of the articles in the Hinduism Project to featured article status, like other editors did for the Adi Shankara article. It is said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. So we must work together cooperatively, or the Hinduism Project itself will suffer.

As Hindus, whenever we begin to feel hurt or upset, we should try to remember three important words that are repeated throughout the holy Vedas:

1. shāntiḥ ("peace")
2. shāntiḥ ("peace")
3. shāntiḥ ("peace")

Thank you! HeBhagawan 16:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend and fellow Wikipedian,
I see that you and HeBhagawan have had some bad run-in's in the past. My feeling for this is that it is something that you and HeBhagawan must work out on your own. There is nothing that I can do in this situation. You must reanounce your arguments in the past and start over with a new light called friendship. This is the only way Wikipedia can work. In my opinion You and HeBhagawan are extremly good editors but have many disagreements with each other. What you must do before making a big change is to talk it over with him, otherwise he will revert it and I don't want you to feel sad. And about your userpage, You have a nice userpage, If you see a wikipedian with a nice userpage please remember that he/she probably copied (such as myself).

I'm sorry you feel this way, I wan't you to understand that there is nothing wrong with your userpage. I can't see the difference between your's and HeBhagawans. And I doubt that he would target someone for a lacking userpage. I have seen way worse trust me your userpage is actully nice. I see that you commented on his instability towards you. There could be many reasons for this not just that you are Indian. I doubt that he would resort to such lowness as this. Please understand that the only way of disscussing problems is to talk them out. Please talk to him about this, let him know exactly how you feel about his actions. Tell him the exact same thing as you told him. I hope you don't think of me in a bad maner, I am trying me honest best I can. I really hope that you two can get this probablem worked out. If you need to ask me something please feel free on my talk page. Oh and by the way what discussion was getting out of hand.--

adog

01:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Arjun

Apparently this is not going to work out between you two. If I may make a suggestion, why not stay away from the Hinduism article. Try to instead edit other various Hindu articles such as Krishna, The Vedas, and others. The Hinduism article has only created problems for you and I am sorry that there are problems. Thank you for being kind to me and not getting upset at my actions, you appear to be a good person. But I have one question is

User:RaraTheAppleJuggler

your sockpuppet. Don't be offended it's just that the userpage has only been edited by you. And I understand your feelings, I am glad that you understand the philosophy, Do what you do with a happy truthfull heart, or don't even do it at all. Sinceraly yours

Arjun

Thanks for letting me know.--Arjun

If your userpage bothers you I can change the color of your userpage to any color you want and even add a border. Please let me know.--Arjun

Swadhyayee, I like your talk page, especially the Gita Sloka. It is a beautiful mantra, and very practical for spiritual life. I fixed the Sanskrit at your invitation. HeBhagawan 06:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, Thanks for trying to work with me, and for saying that love can win over hate. That is quite true. Thank you for the textual olive branch.

Please don't mind that I reverted the recent edits you made. They reintroduced several mistakes that I went so some effort to fix. I'm sure it was not intentional on your part. HeBhagawan 06:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

One other note: This should really go without saying, but of course I don't want to give bad impressions of Hinduism. I am a Hindu myself, and my religion is the most important thing in the world to me. So I think we have the same goals for the most part. You need not fear that I will try to discredit Hinduism or anything.

Note 2: I agree with Priya that the Hinduism page does not really need much work at this point. However, many other pages in the Hinduism project do. Why don't we start afresh and work on one of the other pages in the project together? Some of them are in desperate need of clean-up. HeBhagawan 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "special area?" I am trying to use as few words as possible while still conveying the proper meaning. I'm not sure that "special" is needed, since it seems obvious that if the area is used for a deity it is special--but if it would make you happy, we can say "special area." All things being equal, fewer words is better. I will respond to your comments about monasticism later. Thank you for your feedback on that. HeBhagawan 07:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments on monasticism. What is the more reverential word for "beg?" I would use it if there was one, but I don't think English (or Hindi, for that matter) has one. HeBhagawan 07:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You may be right Priyanath that HeBhagawan & Apandey may not be sockpuppets but my allegations are not baseless. I have checked the pattern. Pl. don't think of me to go so low to accuse baseless. Yes, it could turn out to be mere co-incindence. See the volatile outbursts of Apandey. Without any contribution of Apandey, why should he be boiling?

See the comment of RamRamji, his time of registration [[5]] and his reverting of my edits and providing citations [[6]] and vanishing for ever.

Isn't it sock-puppetry? If sock-puppetry is used in a discussion, why would it not be used for voting? Why such un-ethical means against a new editor like me? Isn't it trying to monopolise the article against the policy of Wikipedia and a free software?

In Wikipedia, we will go and next generations will come. Articles will keep on changing and adding up. No one can bring an end to the change in the article any day nor so is intention of Wikipedia Foundation. If, you give credit to HeBhagawan, there may be number of other editors who would have worked on this article earlier. I am seeing origination as back as 2003 or 2004. I have no idea what was the shape of this article but the disagreements and debates have been feature of this article. While you are doing justice to HeBhagawan for bringing the article to present stage, you might be doing injustice to new editors by preventing further edits. Who knows if not me, any other editor may contribute far more better. If, I am putting the energy of making or improving of an article, I am doing it for my job satisfaction. I should be grateful to this free software and accept the rights of others to edit my work. I do have regards for HeBhagawan but we have to bit put weight on our emotions to safeguard the principles of free software.

I am sorry, at this moment, I am not possessing your politeness nor I think that the language of article give excellent connotations of Hinduism and there is no scope of improvement. The day I share your feelings, I shall have the politeness you have today.

I assure you, I have no intention to spoil the article and it shall not happen so but the present contributors have be open to see some better things in other's edits.

My mind is in three things 1) Improving connotations 2) Safeguarding principles of free software and 3) Making editors to be free from possessiveness.

Hope you will appreciate my truthful and frank views.

Swadhyayee 11:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made your quotes and your mantra in the color Blue. I hope you like the color, If I did anything wrong or missed a quote, or you would prefer a different color.--

I have made 1 gray and the rest teal. If you have any questions or would like it different please let me know, Sorry for any problems that I have created--

Arjun

14:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I think you are learning very fast. Trust me I copied off of everybody to be able to do what I do with userpages. I can't even remember the codes! Have a nice day Swadhyayee.--

Arjun

14:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.I've been really busy that's all.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Swadhyee, I don't know what you are talking about. what web site are you referring to?

Raj2004 15:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Which popup are you asking about?

There is no vandal trying to remove a book. Rigmaroll was cleaning up some footnotes, but he made a couple of honest mistakes, which I fixed. Then you inadvertantly reintroduced them, so I fixed them again. No harm done. HeBhagawan 17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I see which book you are talking about. He removed a book. I don't know if it was vandalism or not. It was not clear what his reason was, so maybe it was vandalism. HeBhagawan 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are any software faults. I think you simply made a mistake. Don't worry about it; it is corrected now. And let's please focus on making a good article.

As for whether Hindu users or non-Hindu users deserve to have their ideas considered, Wikipedia has this to say:

|

Please take these comments in the spirit of cooperation and helpfulness I intend. Thanks, HeBhagawan 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So it would not be appropriate to screen out editors based on their personal backgrounds. Suggested edits must be based on the merits of the edits themselves; not on the identity of the editor.

Your user page says "Some worst enemies of yours are destined to be your best friends so fight with them till they be your friends." Are you sure that is the most effective way to make friends? I've had pretty good luck with the approach of just being nice. HeBhagawan 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, In Hindi also "bhīkh māngnā" is used both for sadhus and ordinary beggars. So I don't think it really has a negative connotation--that's just the way people say it. I'm not sure what you were trying to say about fake sadhus--I never suggested talking about them in the article. But in order to compromise, what do you think about this:

"It is considered a highly meritorious act for a lay devotee to provide sadhus with food or other necessaries." That would avoid the word begging, although I don't see anything shameful about it.

HeBhagawan 19:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello I am going to request a name change as soon as I have a good name to change it to. I want to keep it along the lines of Arjun but Arjun has already been taken and so has Arjuna. Do you have any ideas dear friend.--

Swadhyee, citations just refer to the book name. I don't think the link means anything.

Raj2004 21:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Idea, but I think I can have my name changed to just plain Arjun beacause the account that was created Arjun was never used. Thanks for the ideas however. Have a nice day/night--

Yes Thank you I am a Krishna Bhakti. And yes the message recever came up.---

Arjun

01:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I hope you are not offended it was just a way of saying thank you. You can just flat out delete it or copy/paste somewhere else.--

Arjun

01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, that is fine. I will remember this from now on.--

Arjun

01:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Where I come from here it is Good Night.--

Arjun

01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a misunderstanding. None of your arguments have to do with

Hello Swadhyayee. Checkuser can be done only in serious cases, as a last resort. That is the reason why Dmcdevit declined your request in the HeBhagawan issue. Like Dmcdevit said, when there is a dispute between editors, it is better to follow the procedure listed at

WP:DR.--thunderboltz^(Deepu)

07:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the dispute needs third party mediation, then go to

WP:RfC. I am quite caught up in real life currently, and hence am afraid I couldnt look deep into the convo on Talk:Hinduism. Hope this helps. Cheers!--thunderboltz^(Deepu)

12:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

Please do not remove

talk

) 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you mistakenly created it in the wrong

namespace. Do you want it moved to a sub page under your user page?--thunderboltz^(Deepu)

11:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Pl. - Thanks - Swadhyayee 11:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. The article is now at

User:Swadhyayee/Lipsum. I've deleted the original article, as redirects from the article space to user pages are not allowed. Cheers!--thunderboltz^(Deepu)

12:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is accessible to everyone through the link:

here for help on moving pages.--thunderboltz^(Deepu)

12:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

An admin can't really "hide" their edits from other normal editors, but they can delete selected edits. I don't think an admin could remove an "intralink" without having some trail left behind. Nishkid64 18:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, Real life has me busy right now. I'll be checking in on the Hinduism article as I can. Regarding the confusion with your edits - I assumed there was a problem also - perhaps you were editing from an older version, or something. I don't use pop-ups, so I can't speak to that. I appreciate seeing your willingness to cooperate. Cooperation almost always means sacrificing something that is important to us, but it also means that we can accomplish good, and sometimes great things. ॐ Priyanath 18:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

India

Please put the article in your watchlist for this sati thing.Hkelkar 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my gaffe.I corrected it.Hkelkar 03:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually active now in the project. ITs a project to improve everything Hinduism related on wikipedia. I created a bunch of categories for Hindus, and worked on Hinduism in Indonesia related pages. I work on Hinduism quite often now, but I'm most active in Bengal related pages.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your encouragement. I will start working on Hinduism very soon. Although I have absolutely no idea what you were talking about Chinmaya Mission or whatever. I have no contacts with any Chinmaya or another mission or some guru's denominations. And I am in Illinois, so Virginia is not my neighbor. Cygnus_hansa 14:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You were asked not to spam talk pages in September, but I see you doing it this morning. That is absolutely unacceptable. Please stop or you will be blocked from editing to prevent disruption. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 15 minutes for spamming other user's talk pages. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do it again, I will block you indefinetly until such a time that you promise not to spam again. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 15:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to Chairboy, Nearly Headless Nick & Deskana.

Could you tell me what will be your reactions, if, I falsely level much derogatory remark about your religion or your country? I think, no human being can tolerate this and go violent and mad. What did I do to deserve 15 minutes ban? What action did you take against terryJ-HO for grossly irresponsible insults he hurled against our country and my religion? Does he have any study of my country's social system or my religion? What I did was spreading the un-becoming conduct of terryJ-HO to Indian editors. Did I make any in-civil comments? I exhibited extreme restraint in answering gross irresponsible comments against my religion or country. Wars take birth when you pass irresponsible comments against anyone's religion. What did I do? I simply put a message using copy paste mode to Indian editors to answer terryJ-HO. May I ask whether you used judicious mind to revert all messages from talk pages of Indian editors or you simply used your buttons without application of mind? Swadhyayee 16:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

go violent and mad. I suggest you take a break from Wikipedia if it affects you like that. Spamming talk pages is not a good thing to do, there are better ways to deal with it. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what that person said, talk page spamming is unacceptable. If that person made a derogatory remark, report it on

WP:ANI or something. If someone insulted the English/Irish I wouldn't talk page spam like crazy. It accomplishes nothing. Complaining about the users in question can get them blocked/banned. I just hope you learn from this. :-) --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!)

16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for again spamming talk pages even though you have been asked not to do the same many times. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your block has been stepped up to 1 week. Should you promise not to spam talk pages, I will unblock you. Otherwise, you will serve the whole thing. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Friend, I hope you are doing well. Even though you broke some of the protocols here, I thought the one-week block was a bit severe. I pray for your return, and hope you can come back and continue to work in cooperation with others, as you have been doing. ॐ Priyanath 02:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I support above statement.Potentially valuable editors like you need to stick around.Please contact me with any help regarding wikipedia related topics. If you need academic references then I can help you with that.Hkelkar 02:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I got your message, I realize you were not meaning any harm. You simply wanted other users to know how you felt. The remark that the user made against sati very much pushing it. I could see why you got upset. I think that you would of had a better chance of not getting blocked if you would have signed your message. This would have made it seem less like spam. Please dear friend come back we all will miss your prescnse here at Wikipedia. I think you can still edit your talk page if you are blocked so I will probably check back here everynow and then to see if you have any questions.--

Arjun

02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Arjun,

For letting me know that I can edit this page. I am blocked by deskana for a week. This is definitely un-deserving and harsh use of buttons without application of mind. I have requested him through e-mail and informed that I will not spam. I am certainly not going to beg for lifting my block. There is no positive response till now from deskana. I tried to place the matter for arbitration but I am not able to use the function as I am blocked. There is no e-mail facility. I tried to contact dmc.. as I believe he is arbitrator but I could not locate any e-mail mode. I think, all the admins are not having e-mail facility. I have faith in dmc... on whose talk page terryJ-HO put non-sense against my religion and country. I shall appeal to all sensitive Wikipedians to bring it to the notice of all in chair of Wikipedia about the over use of buttons by deskana and reverting my message on talk pages of all. Dmc.. objected and his message was restored or he himself retrieved the message and allowed to continue on his talkpage which was again shamelessly replied by terryJ-HO. Though my message could have not been signed but did bear my sign in my original message to dmc... I sent messages to only Indian editors for which a 15 min. block was imposed by someone. Deskana issued warning for indefinite block. While the block was lifted, what I did was to send a short message of deskana having reverted my message to few prominent Indian editors or admins. These messages were signed. Thanks for the concern and pl. request Dmc... to check this message on my talk page and consider to help in lifting block immediately. swadhyayee 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, to say that someone 'deserves to be sued' is also violating a Wikipedia policy. See

No_legal_threats. While that wasn't quite a threat, your behavior will be watched closely. If you want to edit here again, you'll probably have to change your style. I'm saying this only as a friend, to help you be aware of how your words are perceived by admins here. ॐ Priyanath

03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much Priyanath. I have removed. swadhyayee 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, the block did seem in my opinion too harsh. You could do the old fashioned way by typing {{unblock|(Here is where you would type why you should be unblocked)}}. Hope this works out for you. As I and others have said during your block, Wikipedia is not the same without you and we all hope you come back as soon as possible. I will check back in a day or two to see what is going on. Untill then please stay calm if you want to be unblocked. May Krishna bless you--

Arjun

04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, I look forward to working with you again after you are unblocked. I was very happy that we were able to work in a more cooperative and friendly way for the past few days. I only have one suggestion: when you are dealing with people like Terry, don't get so upset. There are a lot of people on wikipedia with POV opinions. If you become angry every time such a person shows up, then, well, you will probably be angry all the time. There is no need to turn every disagreement into the battle of Kurukshetra. Just be calm and reasonable, and follow Wikipedia policies, which are really very good policies. If you are reasonable and another person is unreasonable, the community will support you. Shri Ram Jay Ram Jay Jay RamHeBhagawan 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Swadhyayee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

(I have not done anything that deserves 1 week block. What I did was putting up messages on 7 to 8 Indian Wikipedians that my one message on their page was treated as spam and reverted by Deksana. It was an appeal to all Indian and Human minded Wikipedians to give a strong worded message to terryJ-HO on talk page of Dmcdevit where he had deliberately tried to create a false image of my country and religion. What is necessary is to block terryJ-HO for ever for using Wikipedia for grossly false purpose. I should be un-blocked immediately looking to the reasons of my messages)

Decline reason:

Refusal to stop behavior that lead to block. -- Shell ^babelfish 09:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry I couldn't understand what is infobox and what to paste where. The link gives me an intimation of block but I can't copy and paste either on either of the one. Someone pl. help in doing so for me.

swadhyayee 09:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HeBhagawan for the sympathies.swadhyayee 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean you agree that you will no longer spam talk pages? Above, one of the administrator's noted that you would only be unblocked early if that is the case. There's many other ways to deal with issues that come up and I would be happy to be available to discuss those with you at any time. Shell ^babelfish 06:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not spammed. I am the one, who believe in discipline and upholding the policy of platform which I am using. I appeal that everyone view the deliberate scandalous comments of terryJ-HO on talk page of Dmcdevit followed by a shameless reply. To me, Wikipedia is important, so important is pride of my country, religion, country-men and our women folks who preferred death over surrenderig to Muslim invaders for their (Muslim males) sexual gratifications. It was matter of remaining faithful to one's husband and shame of Muslim invaders for moral-less treatment of Indian women. Contrary to the practice of Muslim invaders, our Great Shivaji Maharaj declared a Muslim beautiful woman broght to him by his subordinates to be his (Shivaji's) sister and sent her back with full respect and honour. I am proud of Indian and Hindu blood gushing through our arteries. I shall invite death, forget about ban for a week but I am sure that the action of Deksana is sheer abuse of administrative powers. If, my block is not removed earlier, I will feel it a matter of shame of administrative community that one of them is able to abuse administrative powers.

I am the last man to do something knowingly against the policy of Wikipedia but I shall not beg for mercy of Deksana who I consider to be lacking of fine judgement necessary for an administrator.

I have just put message of one line to 7 to 8 Indian Wikipedians about Deksana having removed my message on their talk page. My ban is for this reason. What is spam? Putting one line message on talk page of 7 to 8 Indian Wikipedians? What is the basis of 1 week ban? If it could be few hours or a day, I could understand the reasonability.

I appeal to anyone with sense of justice to assess the ability of Deksana to impose 1 week ban for placing message on known 7 to 8 Indian Wikipedians. I further appeal to the Indian Wikipedians to put a message on my talk page that they do not mind receiving messages from me.

I request to provide me feedback about earlier wrong judgements of Deksana.

I have the intention to make appeal to people above administrators to rule the propriety of administrator Deksana's decision of 1 week ban.

swadhyayee 09:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Unfortunately, you've been blocked for the same reason as your first block and you were politely asked to stop before you were blocked. The block was extended because you specifically stated that you saw nothing wrong in your actions and planned to continue the behavior. The Wikipedia community has come to the consensus that talk page spamming isn't acceptable - see

WP:SPAM. There are procedures set up to help resolve disputes - you are welcome to use those. Again, if you will agree not to spam talk pages and to use other avenues for your concerns, you will be unblocked. Shell ^babelfish

09:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

swadhyayee 09:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much Bakasuprman for writing to the Ahmedabad based admin whose name un-fortunately I forget before I come to editing this page. swadhyayee 10:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the applicable guideline on

dispute resolution

to help you resolve the problem.

Since you mentioned that you didn't mean to imply that you would continue spamming, I'm going to go ahead and unblock you. If there's anything I can do to help you understand the spamming policy or your options to resolve the dispute, just let me know. Shell ^babelfish 10:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Most obliged. Will remember your kindness for ever. Help me do the justice with terryJ-HO who deserves to be blocked permanently for his comments. Thanks once again. swadhyayee 10:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I am back for the kindness of Shell Kinney.

swadhyayee 11:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You can moan about how it's an abuse of administrative powers all you like, I have heard it all before. If you had bothered to read what I had typed above, you will see from the outset that the intention of the one week block was to stop you from editing until such a time that you agreed to stop spamming, at which point I would lift the block. Unfortunately you sent the e-mail to me at a time when I was unavailable and as such could not unblock you. I am fine with the fact that you have been unblocked since you agreed not to spam. You appeared to have learned from this and moved on. That's good. It's all in the past now. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 11:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your warm message. I felt your imposing ban for a week was harsh and un-needed. I wished that simultaneously you should have taken in account the provocation and my civil messages. With great deal of restraint, I sent civil messages to terryJ-HO and others.

I had no intention to spam or send annonymous messages. I don't think there could be any policy which could permit Wikipedia to be used for scandalous purpose. Let's each one of us be enough sensitive to safeguard the honour of any country and religion to spread peace and harmony amonst us through out the world. Our object should be broader. If you would have banned me for a month and simultaneously taken action against terryJ-HO for his scandalous comments on talk page of Dmcdevit, I would have seen you to be most just. Do you not have the powers to block a person like terryJ-HO who deliberately posts utterly false and derogatory comments?

TerryJ-Ho's comments were deliberate and followed by further similar comments.

Pl. bear with me for my frank views. Pl. put yourself on otherside of fence and imagine what would I have felt when your action amounted to support terryJ-HO. Your block for 2 hrs. should have been sufficient. Max block recommended is 24 hours. Particularly, when you were not likely to be available, why did you block me for a week? Wished that you would have taken in account my day of registration.

Hope it was a lesson for both of us. swadhyayee 11:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably, I need to sleep. It's something I really wish I could avoid but I can't. So I was asleep when you sent your e-mail, I think. I check Wikipedia regularly. The intent was to stop you editing until you promised to stop spamming. The spamming was unacceptable. If you feel you have a problem with another editor defaming your race, religion, or somesuch, please take it to the

administrator noticeboard- incidents page. I simply do not have the time to look into the matter for you as I am doing depressing, tedious and unchallenging university work at the minute. I know you are sensible enough to appreciate that. With regards to not taking action against any other editors, the situation was that I saw you talk page spamming and I responded to your actions immidiately against it. I was not ignoring what you said, I simply did not have the time to investigate thouroughly. Anyway, I am afraid I probably will not be able to respond further to this, tedious work calls. Best of luck to you. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!)

11:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your difficulties and constraints. swadhyayee 11:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. I hope you will not continue to spam again. In the future if anything troubles you report at the

Raj2004 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me.--

Your quote,

"It's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice"

You recently compiled and listed a case at

I believe caste is akin to the

For a couple of days I have a lot of homework and research work, so might not be able to participate in the discussion till then. Cygnus_hansa 07:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Swadhyee, can you tell me your point of view so I can respond? I was not sure after looking at all the discussions.

Thanks.

Raj2004 10:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, I still don't understand exactly what you want the section on caste to look like. You have made some general suggestions, but it's not clear how exactly you would like to implement them. It is not enough to say you don't like something; you need to propose an alternative wording.

So far, Priyanath, Arjun, and myself have indicated that we would like the section on caste to include both views. As far as I understand, you do not want to get rid of the section altogether, but you wish to present only one of the views. ShaivaSuj and Bhaskar would like to include only a brief mention of caste, and move the rest to another article. But it is not clear what they would like such a brief mention to look like. Therefore I asked people make specific suggestions. Please remember that I'm not trying to work against you. We have the same goal. We want a good article. Part of the process is discussing ideas and alternatives. Please continue to work as a team in a friendly manner. Please don't approach it in a fighting manner, let's just have a mature adult discussion so we can understand everybody's views. I will try to be friendly and civil myself as well. Thanks. HeBhagawan 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swadhyayee, I just want to tell you that I am doing my best to work with everybody on the Hinduism discussion in good faith. I feel like many of your comments are angry in tone. I hope you will understand that everybody is doing their best, and that you will try to treat them accordingly. I may disagree with you on some editing decisions, and you may disagree with me, but we just have to try our best to work cooperatively. Peace is good. Anger and insults are bad. Take the good. Leave the bad. This is the meaning of viveka. Thank you. HeBhagawan 23:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your message on the Hinduism discussion page: Since you addressed your message especially to me, I will reply here. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I understand that you are not happy with the voting, but I'm not sure what your alternative proposal is, or even if you are trying to make one. Also, I'm sorry if you are feeling angry. Like I said above, I'm making a good faith effort to be kind to everybody, including you. I'm sure I have room for improvement, but I'm trying. All I ask is that you do the same. Thanks. If you would like to restate your message from the Hinduism discussion page more clearly, I will try to understand what you are saying. HeBhagawan 04:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

With respect the revert of 203.115.120.3 is fair but you should not have labelled it as vandalism "sorry this is treated as vandal", as this user looks like they were trying to help. If this is new user then it will put them off contributing again - go softly. E.g. you could have said "reverted (explain what rv is too for new user) edit, inappropriate information already covered removed".

With respect Lethaniol 12:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

True most vandalism is by IP addresses, but you should also know that the majority of editing of Wikipedia is done by IP addresses. In this instance it was not blatant obvious vandalism - it was actually adding something that is relevant to Hinduism if not exactly right/in the right place. I am just suggesting you go easy on the IPs. Obviously you can be a bit harsher on IPs that add only "F$%^ You" style of remarks, but even then we should try and encourage them to contribute helpfully.

With respect Lethaniol 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which case are you talking about? Geo. 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

how long do you need? Geo. 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand, you have never dis-pleasured me or made me upset. In fact just the opposite. All I ask of you is when editing think of the world and think if what you do will help teach the religion of Hinduism in the correct and truthful way. Also I did not earn the name Arjun01 probably because I have too many edits 2000+ to be exact. If you need any help please feel free to contact me. I am however going to start replying on my talk page, due to the fact that the load of comments and questions are getting bigger. So from now on I suggest you monitor my talk page until you get response. Thank you for you time.--

Well, I don't know, how much I can teach but I want to prevent some mis-conceptions generating in minds of foregners or deepening in the minds of Hindus. It's well accepted that Geeta is authentic. It is also said that what is not in Geeta is useless. In any study or discussion, the two or more views would be presented, discussed and clarification is provided at the end. The study of which takes one's life and yet it could not be over. For a particular study, you have to attain a standard. Which does not exist in everyone but very few. To me, important is rational of Hinduism over different views which could be just for discussion. I have no academic study but I think I know lot many things beyond a layman would know. Further it does not take me a second or minute to understand any logic placed forward against my belief. Like GaurangUK opined for "beyond gender" and "genderless". I may not totally agree with him but I can appreciate his reasons. It took me just one second to say "Ok". swadhyayee 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your funny message! Thanks. Look like whats going on. Even worse than the Islam articles! Might have to go over to Balkan conflicts to relax. Whos the boss Bakaman or HeBhagwan?Opiner 03:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Yeah Baka just help me by saying something reasonable on discussing.Opiner 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, On the Hinduism talk page you asked:

I am just interested to know whether there is any tool in Wikipedia to find out who read a particular article and for what time duration? swadhyayee 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any such tool. But why would you want this anyway? It sounds like a tool for stalkers! Wouldn't your time on Wikipedia be better spent making contributions to articles and discussions?HeBhagawan 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the objection? swadhyayee 16:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are asking what objection I have to stalking? HeBhagawan 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily it has to be stalking. It could be other purpose also. Anyway, if there is a tool and I want to check, it becomes my personal thing if it fits in Wikipedia policy. swadhyayee 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such tool. Nor should there be. It's against the privacy policy. Such information is only revealed with the permission of the person in question or to combat vandalism or place other such blocks. Aside from that, there's no tool anyway. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You posted a message on my talk page that said, in part, that I had commented on the Hinduism article in it's talk page. In fact, I have not posted a comment on Hinduism's talk page, though I was invited to do so. I don't know how you would even get my user name. That disturbs me a little.

I didn't make a comment on the current controversy about the Caste section because I simply don't know enough about Hinduism. However, I would like to point out that most Westerners (or at least Americans) know little or nothing about Hinduism EXCEPT for caste. The article on Hindiusm as it stands now is extremely informative. It also shows Hinduism in an extremely good light compared to the common Western view of the religion. The two paragraphs that you are trying to delete actually go a long way towards explaining the difference between caste as it relates towards Hinduism versus caste in Indian society. If you leave them out, it will only perpetuate the belief that Hinduism oppresses people through caste. Please reconsider your desire to leave them out.

Sincerely, NinzEliza 05:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be your advocate for the dispute regarding article Hinduism and its talk page.

I've skimmed through the talk page, and also this talk page. It has become lengthy and I can't get a grasp of what you need assistance with. I'd appreciate if you sent me a message or emailed me.

In general though I could advice you that well sourced statements are usually accepted in articles, so strive for that.

Fred-Chess 13:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swadhyayee, Thanks for helping to monitor vandalism on the Hinduism article. Good work! HeBhagawan 13:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's no bother at all, Swadhyayee! Anyone is welcome to join Esperanza, just take a look at the

Take a look at

Collaboration of the Month, those are two new programs that are taking off to a great start. -- Natalya

19:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Swadhyayee, to

Charter

, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the

calendar

of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at

Esperanza/Proposals

.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our

IRC tutorial

. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 17:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that must mean you're an Indian too! Consider joining

WP:INWNB. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91

18:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I feel pretty safe since I'm in a medium sized college town here so I have a fair amount of anonymity. Arrow740 12:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If I want to read on wikipedia about the number of Hindus killed by Muslims during the invasions, and the rapes and so on, where could I read that on wikipedia? Arrow740 12:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Muslim invasions of India. If you don't care about what happened then that's your business. What do you think about the article on Kashmir? It's seems to have a clear anti-India bias. Arrow740 06:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!)

13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you posted that clarification on my page. Rest assured I read the entire debate about caste. The version I voted for was the most NPOV, balanced and encylopedic version available to vote for. Also, from reading this debate it seems that your main concern is to remove any connection between caste and Hinduism in all of its historical manifestions, which as far as I understand it is a rather idealist and revisionist position. Why is it that there are always editors with specific religious affiliations, like Christians, Hindus, Mulsims, etc. who are willing to compromise history in order to make their religion look as good as possible? Your whole argument seems based upon a specific reading of essential religious texts, as if religion is defined through some "pure" exegesis of such texts. Academically that is very obviously a POV, not to mention as applied to a specific case, original research. And if it isn't original research, then it should be referenced as representing one POV, which, needs to be balanced by others. Again, the version I voted for presented such balance better than any other I could see. Look, just because the development of the caste system and the historical development of Hinduism may be related, doesn't make Hinduism any worse than the world's other major religions. No religion is perfect. Lets strive for factual accuracy, as well as a balance of POV, and not favorable versions history. Maybe the basis for caste in Hindu scripture is a problematic, but that doesn't mean that caste isn't signifcant in the development of Hinduism. The various facets of this significance need to be dealt with in the article.PelleSmith 03:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's official policies define the following as unacceptable behavior on your talk page:

1. Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:

1. Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.
2. Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through looks like this and ends up like this.

An apologetic exception: If you wish to retract a negative comment in the interests of harmony, insert a placeholder in the text such as, "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]", so your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"

I hope this is helpful. HeBhagawan 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that some might consider your continous removal of messages from this page a violation of

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule --ArmadilloFromHell

00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will not be upset by the directness of my responses to your recent message. We should both make efforts to get along. Hari Om, Shantih Shantih Shantih. HeBhagawan 03:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HeBhagawan.

I don't agree with this, "It is quite natural that your English would not be perfect, and there is no need to feel bad about it. My English is pretty good." See how many times you have to change your sentences.

I completed my school education in 1966 when I learnt British Grammar. I don't know, where are you from. My feeling is you are from Reston, Virginnia. I don't know where you took your education, rural India or U.S. I think, American English is not perfect. You could know the difference only after you read English Grammar. Just refer Wren & Martin.

One does experience difficulty in framing good or impressive sentences on a subject which one is not in daily touch. Students studying literature or philosophy are in daily touch of terminology and may be able to frame good sentences. I feel the words, salvation and re-incarnation are not appropriate. Salvation does not give right connotation of Moksha. Re-birth itself is sufficient to explain "Punarjanma". I have always heard re-incarnation with reference to God taking human form. Given a choice, I would always prefer to use re-birth for "Punarjanma" and reserve "Re-Incarnation" for "Avtars".

You say, you are native speaker. I have never heard English being mother tounge of Hindus. You may have been staying in states and used to English language as you claim yourself to be native speaker. Our English could be different and I may not be taking care as you take while framing a sentence nor I copy-print sentences from books.

There are ways to point out mistakes of others. If the pointings are modest, they are never hurtful. I do take your comments as personal attack so pl. be careful while you make comment.

Age etc: In general, I don’t wish to get into age /background on wikipedia, and I especially don’t think those things should enter into debates about the content of articles. As I’ve said many times, it’s best to evaluate edits based on the edits themselves, not based on who makes them. You could be 15 or 51—I’ll treat you the same regardless. I hope others will do the same for me.'

I do not mean the way you interpret.

"How will I mediate other disputes? Don’t worry about it. Somehow I’ll manage." !!!, You have to do justice to the cause you take on your hand.

8) I agree, you kindly see what is applicable to you and leave me alone to see what is applicable to me.

9) I am not guessing, I am telling what impression it could create in other's mind. Even, you may not be able to visualise your set of mind.

10) You may be able to give but it's like young giving pat to old and is usually laughable. It's a matter of decency.

11) It's always better one know the policy on one's own and regrett for his mistake.

"I am a native speaker and I am highly educated". Education, intellect and wisdom are three different things. For living life, you need wisdom more. Where hostility is generating, avoiding advice is a matter of wisdom. Another thing, why should you feel that you are the only person responsible for quality of Hinduism? What you may see as a loss of quality, may not be so seen by others.

Do you know about, "half filled pot" and "Bhindis of Bhadra"?

swadhyayee 04:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee, If you violate Wikipedia policies, somebody is going to tell you about it. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. It's the same as if you violate the law where you live: somebody is going to say something, and you should be appreciative if somebody gives you a friendly warning before the police find out about it. If I don't tell you, somebody else will--perhaps somebody who will discipline you, as has happened a couple of times now. I suggest you try to learn about the policies and follow them. HeBhagawan 12:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S., Where did you get the notion that I was from Reston, Virginia? HeBhagawan 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On another note, you may be interested to know that in the USA there are many Hindus whose mother tongue is English. Most of these are of Indian heritage, but were born in the USA, or arrived at a very young age. Among such Hindus, some continue to speak an Indian language at home, while others speak only English. Many speak English better than they speak the language of their parents, and many are illiterate in Indian languages even if they can speak them. Others are completely bi-lingual, with native-level proficiency in both languages. They have to make a special effort if they want to be able to read and write well in Indian languages, because those languages are not widely used in the USA. Courses are available in Universities, however. Of course, there are also a small number of Hindus of non-Indian ancestry in the USA who do not speak any Indian languages at all. A few of these have subsequently learned Indian languages through study, but most of them know only English. So there are many different categories of Hindus who are native speakers of English. If you don't believe that I am one, that is fine, but I thought you might be interested to learn that such peole do exist. HeBhagawan 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating the

Where was the notice? and what about my comments on talk page of ArmadilloFromHell? swadhyayee 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What notice do you mean?

As for your comments, the merits of a revert are irrelevant; if you persistently make the same revert again and again and again, you will be blocked. If posts on your talk page are without merit, editors will realise that, you don't have to edit war. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to discourage irritating policy citing by HeBhagawan. He has been using Wikipedia policy to his advantage. He used sock-puppetry / meta-puppetry to pass incivil comments and there exist some friction on article editing. I believe he should dis-engage from advising me which he feels as my wrong. My wrong may be his individual perception.

I have seen many editors removing contents from one's talk page, I cited an example of RaraTheAppleJuggler which I remembered. When RaraTheAppleJuggler is permitted to remove his talk page contents, why the same thing is seen as wrong when I do?

What I meant by notice that I was not issued 3RR notice nor I was told why different treatment to me and RaraTheAppleJuggler? swadhyayee 04:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you were, I warned you above - and you kept on reverting. Maybe I was too polite. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And I would suggest you stop making accusations of Sock Puppetry, you filed a report regarding the same, and were unable to provide evidence. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not so, I have sought help of an advocate and we are working out. It's delayed, that's it. swadhyayee 04:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

why different treatment to me and RaraTheAppleJuggler? swadhyayee 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)swadhyayee 04:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|I just wanted to discourage irritating policy being daily cited by HeBhagawan.  He has been using Wikipedia policy to his advantage.  He used sock-puppetry / meta-puppetry to pass incivil comments and there exist some friction on article editing.  I believe he should dis-engage from advising me which he feels as my wrong.  My wrong may be his individual perception.

I have seen many editors removing contents from one's talk page, I cited an example of RaraTheAppleJuggler which I remembered.  When RaraTheAppleJuggler is permitted to remove his talk page contents, why the same thing is seen as wrong when I do?

What I meant by notice that I was not issued 3RR notice nor I was told why different treatment to me and RaraTheAppleJuggler?  Is someone holding grudge against me for my outburst against terryJ-HO and last block? (unblocked)}}. swadhyayee 05:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As with many users, you attempt to avoid the validty of a 3RR block by blaming other users for causing you to get blocked. I will make this amazingly simple for you: If you revert more than three times on one page for 24 hours you will likely get blocked. This does not mean reverting less than that will not get you blocked. Other users breaking policy is not an excuse. I suggest you read 3RR, and stop accusing administrators of holding grudges- you break the rules, you get blocked. It is not difficult to understand. I highly doubt you will get unblocked early. Learn from this... it's something you don't seem to be doing. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't want to send you another email, for this short advice. Do not mark all your edits as "minor", see Help:Minor edit. / Fred-Chess 20:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it is formatted automatically as I selected "minor" edit when edit summary not provided. This selection prevents edits going without edit summary when necessary. In continuous discussion or reply, I do not change the edit summary. That's the reason, m reflect with my edits. I will see what I can do. swadhyayee 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pranamas, Swadhyayji,

I am sorry, but this is the first time that I've heard the term Naivedhya, though I often wondered if there was a name for prasad before it has been returned to you, blessed. If I can help you in any other way, please let me know, but I am not knowledgable enough to help you in the way you asked, though I would have liked to. Good luck!

Namaskar. I am not sure whether the 3rd character is representing "gh" or "dh". You may type both and hope you can find out whether it represents "gh" or "dh". "dh" top left curve comes out and above where as "gh" the curve is inside. Thanks. swadhyayee 19:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, nor will I ever be unless I start over on en wiki. Ask

I was out of station and it is 1.21am now. I will see it tomorrow and certainly contribute to the best of my ability. swadhyayee 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Morning to you swadhyayee, I noticed you did a fix on the Hinduism article. Good Job!__

^♪

01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good evening to you Arjun. I just logged on, haven't read Shakti as yet. swadhyayee 01:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)