User talk:Kbhatt22
Welcome!
|
Sources
Hi kbhatt22. I've gathered a short overview of sources which are available at the web at User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources#Swaminarayan. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Joshua Jonathan. Thank you for taking the time to do this. This is extremely helpful. Appreciate all the effort and hard work you have put in to make the articles better. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Lekh
I saw that you participated in the this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_193. You are the only user on that list of users that takes a neutral side. The other topics say closed for all of the topics but this remains open. It is obvious that consensus wise the Lekh won't be included as there are too many users on pushing for branch. Do you mind escalating the issue to another administrator or leaving a message for the current one why consensus beats neutrality for this topic? The lekh is a scripture stated by a dozen books. It's not for other sects because it would contradict their guru but they can't ignore it because it was signed by their god so they can downplay it or state that it was only for administrative purposes even though every single other scripture of that time makes reverences to the aacharays.Kevpopz (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Kevpopz. I was actually the one who created that DRN request. I am not sure why this is open. I think that might have been an error because it should be closed. I was saddened by that resolution but respected and appreciated that moderator\admins time invested in trying to resolve it. Ultimately majority was the deciding factor despite the merit of the content and the properly sourced proposal. An RFC for that content prior brought a user, Skubydoo, who claimed to be third party but it wasn't weeks after the DRN closed that I found out that user had edited Swaminarayan content years prior and just happened to stumble across the NPOV noticeboard (eyeroll). A lot of users have come through the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page in question and had sentiments of inherit bias and POV pushing. I understand it can be frustrating but just stick to and stay within the wiki guidelines and policies and you can never be in the wrong is how I look at it. That DRN probably just got archived before being closed is all. Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Kbhatt22 Oh okay. I see what you are saying. I don't think it will hurt to try. Do you mind if I leave a message on the Moderators page? His name is Robert. At one point he says he will not intervene but one point that wasn't made is that BAPS and other sub sects still acknowledge the scripture but dismiss it as much as they can as it doesn't fit their guru's narrative. That in itself is a cause to include it. Also I was thinking, most sources state that the Shikshapatri, Vachnamrut, Satsangi Jeevan and Lehk are the four core scriptures that are important and made during Swaminarayans time. Why is the Satsangi Jeevan more important then the other books listed in the article? I can't seem to find a source that explains why it became the choice sacred biography over the dozens of other books and group with the Shikshapatri and Vachnamrut. Kevpopz (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Kevpopz. I can tag Robert McClenon here if that helps. I know he is extremely busy with admin functionality but incase that item needs to be closed for tracking purposes. Ultimately his role in the DRN request is simply to moderate a discussion in an organized fashion. DRN rules are sticking to the content and not the users. Maybe some day an admin will try to make a sourced change and go through that editing experience on that page but in terms of this specific edit, its been disputed and majority decided resolution so its best to move on. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Kbhatt22 I feel if it is just left, then it shows that a group of users can team up even though there are clear, very clear sect pushing going on with explicit biases. It's not a goal I am trying to achieve, It is a simple that the Lehk is a scripture attributed Swaminarayan about his family being the leaders and of course a group founded in 1907 who disagree with that would feel weird about it cause it means they are contradicting their own god but its in every single scripture so that confuses me even more. If the goal by the BAPS team is to hide within the body and places it may get overlooked, then that is even more tedious. I mean guess its in the intro so whatever...Let's see what he says. Kevpopz (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Kbhatt22, User:Kevpopz - It appears that that dispute was archived by the bot before it was closed. However, there seemed to be agreement that the Lekh was not one of the scriptures of the denomination. At least that was what I understood, and I don't know anything about the organization, worship, or theology of the denomination, except that it is a religious denomination. It was my understanding that the Lekh was a testamentary document, but that was only what I thought. I declined to express an opinion. I know little about Hinduism. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Kbhatt22 I feel if it is just left, then it shows that a group of users can team up even though there are clear, very clear sect pushing going on with explicit biases. It's not a goal I am trying to achieve, It is a simple that the Lehk is a scripture attributed Swaminarayan about his family being the leaders and of course a group founded in 1907 who disagree with that would feel weird about it cause it means they are contradicting their own god but its in every single scripture so that confuses me even more. If the goal by the BAPS team is to hide within the body and places it may get overlooked, then that is even more tedious. I mean guess its in the intro so whatever...Let's see what he says. Kevpopz (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Kevpopz. I can tag Robert McClenon here if that helps. I know he is extremely busy with admin functionality but incase that item needs to be closed for tracking purposes. Ultimately his role in the DRN request is simply to moderate a discussion in an organized fashion. DRN rules are sticking to the content and not the users. Maybe some day an admin will try to make a sourced change and go through that editing experience on that page but in terms of this specific edit, its been disputed and majority decided resolution so its best to move on. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Kbhatt22 Oh okay. I see what you are saying. I don't think it will hurt to try. Do you mind if I leave a message on the Moderators page? His name is Robert. At one point he says he will not intervene but one point that wasn't made is that BAPS and other sub sects still acknowledge the scripture but dismiss it as much as they can as it doesn't fit their guru's narrative. That in itself is a cause to include it. Also I was thinking, most sources state that the Shikshapatri, Vachnamrut, Satsangi Jeevan and Lehk are the four core scriptures that are important and made during Swaminarayans time. Why is the Satsangi Jeevan more important then the other books listed in the article? I can't seem to find a source that explains why it became the choice sacred biography over the dozens of other books and group with the Shikshapatri and Vachnamrut. Kevpopz (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Kevpopz. I was actually the one who created that DRN request. I am not sure why this is open. I think that might have been an error because it should be closed. I was saddened by that resolution but respected and appreciated that moderator\admins time invested in trying to resolve it. Ultimately majority was the deciding factor despite the merit of the content and the properly sourced proposal. An RFC for that content prior brought a user, Skubydoo, who claimed to be third party but it wasn't weeks after the DRN closed that I found out that user had edited Swaminarayan content years prior and just happened to stumble across the NPOV noticeboard (eyeroll). A lot of users have come through the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page in question and had sentiments of inherit bias and POV pushing. I understand it can be frustrating but just stick to and stay within the wiki guidelines and policies and you can never be in the wrong is how I look at it. That DRN probably just got archived before being closed is all. Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon thank you for your expeditious response. I have multiple sources that explicitly call it a scripture and this was made by Swaminarayan himself when he was alive in 1826. The other groups were founded almost a 100 years later and they have to call it an administrative document as Swaminarayan explicitly made a hereditary successorship by adopting his nephews. The other groups that were founded 100 years later based their interpretation on 1-3 verses of single book or two and its based off of spiritual succession so obviously they would like to minimize this scripture. It even says that in the articles we quote. Like I said, I have no affiliation or involvement but I do see BAPS (1907 group) users sort of teaming up to ensure this particular scripture is not as visible as it contradicts their justification of existence. Just because they have a great online presence, doesn't mean they can distort Wikipedia for their narrative... Kevpopz (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Robert McClenon. Appreciate the response. Yeah that was the misleading narrative push I was trying to get reviewed. The agreement was questionable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya#Devotees_ownership. The faith consists of multiple branches. Initially 2 main ones created by its founder and then all other branches trace through the main two and separated over time. Various levels of acceptance of the document/scripture. Scripture for the original 2 and document or scripture for some of the separation groups. Regardless, I appreciated your time then and do so now. I think that proposal has run its course. I've moved on. Thanks Mr. Robert!! Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"In media" edit
Because the Corvette C8 had appeared in many video games 2005emsaguindan (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Being new edit the "In media" section
2005emsaguindan (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)