Talk:Shree Muktananda Ashram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 22 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Did you mean to have the article read, 'owned and operated by the Siddha Yoga'? If so, I think it's inaccurate because the owner of Shree Muktananda Ashram is actually the SYDA Foundation. Also, 'Siddha Yoga' is a proper noun, so it wouldn't take an article (the).

MahaDave 03:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooooppsss...my bad. I'll fix it. BTW, MOS means manual of style. Basically, we link only the first time a term is used. I meant to reverse the order of terms in the SYDA foundation link.TheRingess (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 'Muktananda' wikilink

I moved this link to the second paragraph because it made more sense to link the concept of Swami Muktananda to the 'Swami Muktananda' page than to link part of the compound noun 'Shree Muktananda Ashram' to a page defining a different concept (Swami Muktananda). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MahaDave (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Deletions

I know I whinge a bit, but a few days ago I put more details of the various towns and facilities around Fallsburg, to make life easier for anyone planning to go there. Now it's all disappeared, except for the location of the ashram. I know it's not the end of the world, but the info was accurate and practical. Was there really any need to remove it? This is pathetic. I'd like to suggest that we use this page to propose the deletions we have in mind and let the gang comment on whether the deletion is worthwhile or not. Then we won't have to have arguments. Neilrobertpaton 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Me again. I just remembered that my additions to the text included the postal address and phone number of the ashram. Is it not worthwhile having this info on a page about the ashram? Why, pray tell, was it deleted? Is it okay if I put it back on? Neilrobertpaton 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Postal address==

I have typed in the postal address and email address. I trust no-one will object. Neilrobertpaton 10:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that my shot of the Shiva statue at Fallsburg seems to have gone missing. Does anyone know where it went? Very odd indeed.

Sardaka 12:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

When viewing an article you can click on the history tab to see a list of all changes to an article. The edit summaries show up in the history also and you can compare different versions. This should show you when/who/why the picture was removed.TheRingess (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

this article seems to have shrunk lately. Who's been chopping it up? It used to include details about the three hotel complexes that the ashram was based on, but this has now been deleted. these deletions were completely unjustified. Sardaka 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of immediately running to the TheRingess to blame her for the deletions, just check the edit history of the article. You'll notice it was IPSOS and TheRingess who removed information that went unsourced for 3 or 4 months. They were both quite clear in their edit summaries, and quite right to do so. Since you never bothered to source those additions yourself, you hardly have the right to complain. You're welcome to re-add that information with the necessary sources. Really, this thing you have against TheRingess is getting old, get over it.--Atlan (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

I didn't run to TR to blame her; I was just trying to confirm who did what, because unnecessary deletions are one of my complaints against her in the mediation process. The deletions were still uncalled for and have reduced the effectiveness of the article. They were unsourced? If you go through Wiki you'll find plenty of unsourced statements, and it doesn't mean they have to be deleted.

And by the by, the statements about the various hotel buildings used at Fallsburg were sourced to the Sullivan County website.

And by the by, this "thing" I have about TR isn't too old and is being tested through the normal channels, so I suggest you mind your own business.

Sardaka 12:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were tagged as unsourced from what I can tell. Like I said, if you have a source, just re-add the info and use the source. The fact that lots of things on Wikipedia are unsourced is no excuse. All those things have to be sourced, not the other way around.
As for your dispute resolution with TheRingess, I'm aware of the mediation. The point is that many people have already told you that she's not doing anything wrong, to no avail. Frankly, I think you're grasping at straws in this case, but I'll leave it between you and TheRingess like you want.--Atlan (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

If some statements were unsourced, it is still not necessary to delete them. The simple alternative is to insert "Citation needed". This is done in many places on Wiki. If this is done in this article, someone may fix it some day, so it's not necessary to delete them. By deleting unnecessarily, the editors have only succeeded in gutting the article, which is now only half of its former self.

Just in case some people have the wrong impression, this article was not written by me, so I'm not complaining about my own work being cut. I'm complaining because I see unnecessary deletions, which are detrimental to the article, and it's certainly not for the first time.

Sardaka 08:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, that the statements were tagged with "citation needed" for 3 or 4 months already, without anyone actually adding sources. That's just too long. Remember, tagging with "citation needed" is not a substitution for an actual source. You can't keep it tagged like that forever. It's not having sources that's detrimental to the article, not removing unsourced information.--Atlan (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, but is it really necessary to put a time limit on it? If you left it a bit longer, you never know what might happen.

Sardaka 09:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten

Anyway, I've rewritten the article with, I hope, enough references to keep everyone happy.

Sardaka (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)