User talk:Vritti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello...

I see i am inaugurating your talk page! Welcome to Wikipedia!

Congrats also on putting in a lot of effort on the Y.A. article...

As for my contribs, the G.Math page existed as G.Temple, and the HYV page is just a stub...

Even important politicians and others from India (e.g. Y.A) do not have adequate materials on Wikipedia compared to those from the English speaking west, so we need to do what we can!!

These pages will all need updates after these elections ... and so on and on...

Thanks! mukerjee (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for all of your recent input on the SY articles. I for one, appreciated your input. I removed Chid and Nit from the See also list as it seems that the general style is not to list articles in the See also section that are already linked in the body of the article. I could see a value in listing them there if the article were longer, but I think its too short as is.

TheRingess (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and explanation. I was unaware of this style guideline, but it makes perfect sense. Kindly continue to look over my edits as there are likely many Wikipedia ways which I am still unaware of at this stage. I would like to learn more and your comments help this process. -Vritti 01:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Great work on the SY article, btw.TheRingess (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Would you be interested in joining a team effort to bring the Tantra article to featured article status.

If so, please see Talk:Tantra#Team Tantra

TheRingess (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for joining "Team Tantra". Maybe we can have cool mugs and tshirts made. If you know of anyone who might want to join please extend an invitation to them to do so.

Our first milestone is to bring the article to "B" status (for a good description of what this means, please see the Hinduism Project's quality page, a link is provided on the project's template).

If you have any thoughts on what the article needs for B status, please add them on the talk page, or create an action item in the to do list.

Thanks again.

TheRingess (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grok

Thank you very much for the gift of "Grok" it has been a VERY long time since I have come across a word that I have never seen cited. I embrace and practice Vaishnava traditions which have led me to various forms of Tantra and Vajrayana. I now perceive that Tantra is inherent in balanced spiritual practice, whether or not it is specifically defined as Tantra.

Blessings
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bhagawan Nityananda

Hey there again. I saw your comment on the talk page for Nityananda's article. I say go ahead and add that link. I'm not in favor of removing the other links as that might violate WP:NPOV. Whaddya think? TheRingess (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings TheRingess and thanks for the note. It's bedtime here, so I will add the link soon. I agree, that removing the other links, may rankle NPOV, though there is no documentation that Nityananda was a Parampara Guru. All evidence suggests he was made one posthumously by the claims of others. Good enough to comment on the matter on the related talk page. Fine regards... -Vritti 06:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree regarding the claims, that's why I rewrote the intro to try to make it clear that the various groups were making the claims. Please review the intro and improve it as you deem necessary. Thanks again very much for all your hard work on the Siddha Yoga article. It's my opinion that it's now in the best shape it's ever been in (though it still has a long way to go) thanks in part to your efforts.TheRingess (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger of Siddhayoga and Siddha Yoga

Greetings. I saw you comment on the Swami Shankar Purushottam Tirtha AfD, and it appears that you are familiar with this subject. I have proposed a merger of Siddhayoga and Siddha Yoga. They appear to be about the same religious movement. I thought you may want to comment on the proposal. Thanks. Ciao. --Evb-wiki 23:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Evb-wiki, I appreciate the note. I agree with the other editor who feels the two are distinctly different. They are in fact. They have alot in common, but that's it. Thanks for the friendly note. -Vritti 05:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Swami Shankar Purushottam Tirtha

Thanks for the feedback; I've done some major rewrites; any other advice will be appreciated.

Re merger, it would make sense if you add all lineages, such as South Indian, which has a huge tradition in its own right. It would also give a place for many siddhayoga groups to become known and show a truer scope of siddhayoga. But to be clear, these are two very different sects/lineages, so if that is the criterion, then no, it is best they remain separate --Babaji108 01:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Babaji108, Thanks for the note. It pleases me that it appears that the Swami Shankar Purushottam Tirtha article is going to make it. You and the other editors are doing a great job. I don't have much time to edit here, but if I have something worthwhile to add to the article I will. I too agree that Siddhayoga is a separate article. There remains the problem of the other lines fitting into Siddha Yoga. The precise problem relates to the exact naming conventions. For the South India there is the Siddhar, I don't know if this is correct Tamil or not. Probably best to develop the separate articles under their explicit names. Glad you popped up to take this on. -Vritti 05:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nath

Hi Vritti. I saw your comment at Talk:Adinath Sampradaya about Mahendranath. Could you keep an eye on Nath? An IP address from the Netherlands seems to be intent on excising cited content... Sivanath (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sivanath (talk). Thank you for the message. I will keep an eye on the Nath article. The cited material the anon was eager to remove is quite valid. Can't say I understand the conspiracy theory or motivation for removing the cited material. It is probably some kind of misunderstanding. -Vritti (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is User:Ekajati back with us?

There are some difficulties at the Michael Roach article, very much like the past. Would you be so kind as to cast an eye over the article and talk page, particularly the newer edits. Thanks. -Vritti (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, checkusered and blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Do please continue to notify me of any suspects. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For your continuing good work on the Michael Roach article... Johnfos (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)