| Revision as of 04:34, 7 March 2006 editWeniWidiWiki (talk | contribs)2,824 edits →[]: No problemo← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:18, 8 March 2006 edit undoNoToFrauds (talk | contribs)131 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on ], for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes). | P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on ], for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes). | ||
| == Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath== | |||
| What you did was a breath of fresh air. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath seems to be a fake Nath Yogi, he does not have any valid sampradaya so he claims to be a direct disciple of ]. Did you see what he did to the ] and ] pages? Shameless plugs replete with outlandish claims. Help me watch those pages please to make sure that he never lay his hands on them again. | |||
| ] | |||
| My IP is 82.15.17.152 | |||
| == Shri Gurudev Mahendranath == | == Shri Gurudev Mahendranath == | ||
Revision as of 01:18, 8 March 2006
Response in User_talk:Somecallmetim...
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
]
P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath
What you did was a breath of fresh air. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath seems to be a fake Nath Yogi, he does not have any valid sampradaya so he claims to be a direct disciple of Mahavatar Babaji. Did you see what he did to the Kriya Yoga and Mahavatar Babaji pages? Shameless plugs replete with outlandish claims. Help me watch those pages please to make sure that he never lay his hands on them again.
My IP is 82.15.17.152
Shri Gurudev Mahendranath
Greetings, I just read through your user page and found the information on Shri Gurudev Mahendranath very interesting. Having grown up in London myself and also having experienced many visionary experiences since early childhood, I felt I could relate to his journey, very interesting. Thanks for putting the information up, I am aware of AMOOKOS but I had not come across Shri Gurudev Mahendranath until today. Best wishes, Solar 16:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Nath
I believe that the Nath Sampradaya is very vast and something which is not completely documented till date. I believe you might be aware that Nath Sampradaya is still active in India. Many sadhu akhadas still do follow the rigid traditions and in any Kumbh Mela you would be able to find Kanpath Yogis. I had the opportunity of visiting Shri Gorakhnath Bekh Barah Avaduth Sampradaya's Math (Kal Bhairav Temple near Mumbadevi) here in Mumbai which is a sub-sect of Gorakhnath Math located at Gorakhpur.
I dont have a source, i belive the Raj Guru of Nepal Royal Family is also from the Nath Sampradaya...Just because many of these sects dont have online present doesnt mean that they dont exist. I think the article needs to be looked from all veiw points.
--Aravind Parvatikar 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Good Faith?
Nice to meet you as well. I have read the Manual of Style. Perhaps you should specifically state what you are referring to in the manual. I usually use the standard as put forth in WP:CITE. I would also like you to point out which Direct References I removed. You'll note that the standard is to have inline citations or footnotes to clarify the references, because at the moment only the person who placed that content knows what uncited references (presumably you) are referring to. Which style are you adhering to here? Also, the reasons the URL Last Accessed dates were placed there, is because many of the links were non-functional when I came upon the entry.
I was not aware you owned the entry. If you are going to be so fanatically protective of this entry you are apparently stewarding, you need to at least review what I did before you bite my head off. I did nothing in bad faith, and there are several styles which are currently acceptable on wikipedia. Since nothing was inline or footnoted, I obviously assumed that the content was not sourced. Please footnote your Direct References between <ref> and </ref>, and I'll promise to never touch your entry again. WeniWidiWiki 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Obviously, the lack of a standard reference criteria has put us at cross-purposes. I still feel that it would be much more effective to use footnotes, but it is your call. I did not intentionally remove any references - again: footnotes would have clarified this. For example the blind link to Confessions, has no identifying information ISBN, etc., and no explanation as to what it is even linking to. (I had to go up the hierarchy to even discover what it was, because there isn't a title on the linked page.) Therefore, I (incorrectly) assumed the link to Confessions under references was incomplete or vague (hence hunting down a proper ISBN number). In many of the namespaces I have edited, the subject matter and other editors have required a higher burden of verifiability than what the OTO entry currently has. Ditto, with the dead links. You may want to proactively clean up the referencing before other problems arise as a result, but again, that is your call. WeniWidiWiki 04:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Speed
Noted. Regretfully Celcius 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)