User talk:Apollo1203/Archive 1

October 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Criticism of Swaminarayan sect, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.  Harshil want to talk? 03:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. In the process of writing on the talk page. Please allow me to post on the talk page then revert.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Criticism of Swaminarayan sect, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.  Harshil want to talk? 03:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I gave a lengthy explanation with cited sources which contradict the claims being posted. In order to keep NPOV I removed and am not engaging in 'disruptive editing'. Thank you. harshil169

Warning regarding Edit war
Your recent editing history at Criticism of Swaminarayan sect shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Harshil want to talk? 03:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
 Harshil want to talk? 02:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Harshil169, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Harshil want to talk? 04:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Criticism of Swaminarayan sect.The discussion is about the topic Criticism of Swaminarayan sect. Thank you. Moksha88 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Amir Khusrau ngram for title change.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amir Khusrau ngram for title change.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Acharya Discussion
With your reference I think I agree that Bhadresdas swami should be considered as an Acharya. However reference for Adi Shankracharya, Madhavacharya, Ramanujaacharya, Madhavacharya is not sufficient; reference don't talk about how those 4 received title of Acharya. There is no strong evident that explains if Adi Shankracharya, Madhavacharya, Ramanujacharya was honored by someone or somebody for doing the work. Here, we're ignoring the fact that Bhadresdas Swami was honored where as others in the list where not honored by anyone. I hope you look at this based on evidence. Thank you --16:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Sanatandharmaway (talk)

Amir Khusrow
Please note that there are correct procedures for moving an article. The whole article needed to be moved together with the edit history so that attribution can be preserved. Do not cut and paste content when you move. If you cannot do it yourself, then let other people do it if there is no objection to the move proposal after the discussion closed. Hzh (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you are messing up the move procedure, doing things that you should not do - you should not have close it yourself, and you have not have closed it so soon. Please read the link given in the talk page on the closing procedure. It is meant to be done by others. Hzh (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the article talk page. Thank you for assisting in this process! Apollo1203 (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP policy
Please read and understand wp:BLPSPS. We do not use partisan sources to justify statements about those parties, no matter if those parties say they speak with the voice of authority. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I've added sources from scholarly publications and will continue to refine the resources from independent reliable sources. Thank you! Apollo1203 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Morari Bapu
I appreciate you willing to set aside your differences at the moment to help us achieve neutrality. WP:BLPPUBLIC made things clear to me about why we should include these remarks. Let me know what you think after reading it. Moksha88 (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Hello, I'm Dl2000. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jiva, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I will find appropriate sources and re-edit the paragraph. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please have a look at NPOVN#Morari Bapu. -Nizil (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert
You reverted me saying "unsourced edits". What part of that edit did you think was a change of substance that needed new refs? I thought it was just copyediting. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct it wasn't a substance change, however, I don't think it helped improve the article therefore I reverted your edits. I believe there wasn't anything incorrect with the grammar or English the way it was written. Apollo1203 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In future, please try not to use misleading edit comments. It undermines good faith editing. Now, item by item:

1. I downcased a ref title from "A New Face of Hinduism: The Swaminarayan Religion" to "A new face of Hinduism: The Swaminarayan religion" as is the normal practice. I trust that was not objectionable. 2. I corrected an anachronism from "Pramukh Swami Maharaj" to "Patel", as he had not yet taken that name. 3. I removed the recent addition of the ambiguous "Yogiji Maharaj" used to indicate Shastriji Maharaj. 4. I corrected the redundant use of "Pramukh Swami Maharaj" for the second time in a single para. 5. I used more succinct phrasing, avoiding repetition of the article title, and corrected tense. 6. I corrected the misattribution of effort by BAPS as a whole to its leader. 7. I used more succinct phrasing, avoiding repetition of the article title. 8. I downcased another ref title. Which of these do you consider not to be an improvement in the copy? LeadSongDog come howl!  20:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I've reviewed the edits further:
 * 1. I edited the references as you had in my edits
 * 2. He is introduced as Pramukh Swami Maharaj throughout, so keeping 'Pramukh Swami Maharaj received...' is fine regarding initiation
 * 3. Yogiji Maharaj became guru in 1951 when Shastriji Maharaj passed away. Yogiji Maharaj is credited as declaring Pramukh Swami Maharaj as his successor upon his passing in 1971.
 * 4. I replaced the use of Pramukh Swami Maharaj with 'he' in the instance of 'As president of BAPS...' Apollo1203 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Re 2: Perhaps you have not yet had occasion to become familiar with MOS:BIO, particularly the section MOS:SURNAME. We avoid repetition of full names through the body of articles, just as we avoid repeating the title of the article. In the special case of biographies, both reasons apply. For venerated individuals, it is common that devotees want to slather on lots of honorifics, but this is not done in the voice of the encyclopedia. We don't say "His name was Pramukh Swami Maharaj", though we might say "He took the name Pramukh Swami Maharaj" or "His guru renamed him to Pramukh Swami Maharaj". In this way we make it clear that the honorific or title is being used by others, not by the encyclopedia.
 * Re 3: The problem is that "Yogiji Maharaj" is essentially two honorifics strung together without any personal name. It could be read as being any of several people, particularly by someone new to the subject matter. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Re 4: You don't actually seem to have done that. You reinserted "Pramukh Swami Maharaj is succeeded..." which is both redundant and in the wrong tense.LeadSongDog come howl!  22:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Be Careful
I saw your revert on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page and was wondering why you left a lot of unsourced material hanging around when your edit summary mentioned removing unsourced material. I felt your efforts on the Vachanamrut article were noteworthy and just caution you to be more mindful of future reverts. No worries though as I rewrote it all using reliable sources. Moksha88 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Gunatit Samaj (Swaminarayan Sampraday)
Hi,

I see that you have undone my edits on the Gunatit Samaj for not being "constructive", however the edits you have made/undone are extremely biased and does not consider "facts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GunatitSamaj1966 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it has been written in a concise and clear way utilizing reliable sources. However, if you feel that it needs to edited, I suggest you utilize your sandbox and engage users on the talk page to review and comment. Apollo1203 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I do not think the sources are reliable, it may be written in such a format but it does not consider and capture the holistic viewpoint, thus the validity of the sources you have used I have placed under scrutiny.

I also suggest removing Gunatit Samaj from the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page
 * I would recommend discussing on the talk page why you think it should be deleted, otherwise other users will assume it is vandalism and revert it, as someone has already done. Apollo1203 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

About Akshardham (Delhi)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Akshardham (Delhi) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Swaminarayan Akshardham (Delhi). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. Jai49 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampradaya Article
Hi, Not sure how to properly use talk section so please advise. You are doing great work on hinduism pages. You moved the details of the pending Vadtal Acharya case from main page to Gadi page. I think that paragraph of vadtal acharya case helps explain confusion. There is a pending case. As of right now Supreme court recognizes Ajendraprasad as Acharya and has restricted him from acting until final verdict. The supreme court has recognized his successor as Nugendraprasad Pande. I am trying to cite reference to the case where needed to be clearer using independent third party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbhatt22 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are doing the correct thing by looking for secondary sources. I have reverted the addition you made on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article as the reference cited is not a reliable source based on findings from this site: https://indiabookofrecords.in/fraudrecordbooks/. I suggest finding a secondary reliable source for the edits you had made and then it can be added. Apollo1203 (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for bringing up this point. The source you are referencing is an opinion article from a smaller competitor record company. The Golden Book of Records is a registered publisher in India. They are recognized by another Indian entity http://www.worldrecordholdersclub.com/ http://www.worldrecordholdersclub.com/?p=339

This is another registered publisher recognizing their work. The Indian Book of Records(your citation) is another private record book holder only in existence since 2006 that in the article you listed is simply trying to downplay other record holder companies within India. Here is another article legitimizing Golden Book of World Records: https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/international-yoga-day-2018-yoga-guru-baba-ramdev-world-records-rajasthan-kota-vasundhara-raje-acharya-balkrishna-rac-ground-guinness-golden-book/243582 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/2-501-blood-tests-in-6-hours-madhya-pradesh-ngo-sets-new-world-record-1813105

Both Times Now and NDTV are legitimate news networks who cover world records tracked by Golden Book of World Records. I think there is no reason to question their source material. I will wait for you to review before redoing the changes. Thank you Apollo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbhatt22 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding another national level news company's (Times of India) coverage of tracking done by Golden Book of World Records: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/roadies-11-contestant-navjyot-gurudutta-registered-among-the-list-of-worlds-top-100-influencing-sikh/articleshow/75434744.cms

Many big Indian media networks work with and cite Golden Book of World records honors. I don't think the Indian Book of Records is a legitimate source as they are a competitor with bias in the matter. Times of India, NDTV, and Times Now News have all used Golden Book of World Records as reference material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbhatt22 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Deepica Mutyala (May 5)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Deepica Mutyala and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Deepica Mutyala, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Deepica_Mutyala Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Praxidicae&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Deepica_Mutyala reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello Apollo1203. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Apollo1203. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Praxidicae (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note and thorough explanation. However, I can guarantee I am not receiving any compensation or incentive for the page I had submitted as a draft. Also it was declined because a lack of reliable sources, but I have used sources such as Vogue, Forbes and Entrepreneur as well as other large media outlets. How could I improve the article further to get approval? Thank you. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Gunatitanand swami
I have made edits. Even though large they are all referenced and correct. You can check if you want to. Guruvani (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Deepica Mutyala


A tag has been placed on Draft:Deepica Mutyala, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the.  DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox
I've been busy for the last few weeks but hoping to take some time in the coming weeks to rewrite what's in your sandbox. I added a few more details today with potential sources to give you a head start. Moksha88 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop owning the article. You will be blocked.
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of a page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.16.182 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your note. However, I was only reverting your edits due to the lack of reliable sources, citing any sources, and apparent vandalism to the article. There have been a handful of editors working on the page and there were discussions on the talk page whenever needed instead of edit warring. I have not done anything to warrant a block so please don't make any accusations and/or threats. Apollo1203 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is simply not true. Are you willing to disclose if you are a member of BAPS? All your edits are biased and editing them in favor of an interpretation. Your editing pattern is meticulous in favor of a certain group. I am working on a criticism section under BAPS regarding Pramukh Swami's Sexual Abuse Allegations. Let's end this back and fourth and work on this together?136.2.16.182 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am reverting your edits because Wikipedia is not a place for original research. I read through the sources you have cited and what you have been adding is original research. The published sources you are referencing mention the following: Source 1:"Dadubhai Patel and his brother, Bapabhai, left to form a separate group called the Yogi Divine Society"... Source 2: "There is yet another breakaway group, this time from BAPS, called the Yogi Divine Society. It was founded by Dadubhai Patel and his brother Bapabhai in 1966. This group does not recognize Pramukh Swami as the rightful successor of Yogiji Maharaj. In 1986, Hariprasad Swami became the leader of this group." Your claim is: "Dadubhai believed Pramukh Swami was against him and persuaded the BAPS trustees to remove him." If you can find this claim within the sources, please use the source and cite the page number. "Yogiji Maharaj's images and prior gurus are displayed at all Gunatit Samaj temples." This also cannot find this within the sources you have mentioned. Apollo1203 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the talk page, it would make more sense to continue the discussion there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya#Original_Research


 * I responded. Further more Will you help with Pramukh Swami's Sexual Abuse Allegations? We can add it to the BAPS and Pramukh Swami article. Here are the sources

http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2013/Message-for-All-5347.aspx http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/baps-refutes-allegations-by-former-sadhus/1186609/

136.2.16.182 (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ==

136.2.16.181 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Knock it off. Warning again.
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

136.2.16.181 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I collaborated with many individuals when the article was being worked on, we posted and had constructive discussions on the talk page. You are showing clear bias and slandering the content. If you cannot be open to following the Wikipedia guidelines and having discussions on large edits, please do not submit them. Also, please register yourself as a user if you are going to be so inactive. It is quite strange that you continue to edit from IP address(es). Apollo1203 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you a member of BAPS? Why are you compulsively editting akshar purshoshttom crap on to articles that don't apply? You are a vandal for constantly monitoring my edits and putting slanted information in them. 136.2.16.181 (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears you have a bias against the information that has been published in reliable/academic sources. And for an unregistered user to make such large edits, it appears like vandalism. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are you using BAPS books for articles of topics where BAPS didn't exist? That doesn't make sense They are a breakoff group that was formed in 1907 with a separate system. 136.2.16.181 (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Swaminarayan_Sampraday,_BAPS,_Morari_Bapu,_Vachanamrut. Thank you. Note this is a courtesy notification as the filer has failed to do so. Darren-M  talk  15:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Vedanta, you may be blocked from editing. diff: no, the source is not outdated; it's WP:RS, in contrast to , which is a primary source. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

August 2020
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swamiblue/Archive. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Do you really believe that users accused of sockpuppetry aren't allowed to offer an explanation or defence?Please check and reverse your previous censorship of comments except in those cases where they were blatantly disruptive. Cabayi (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Akshar-Purushottam Darshan, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Akshar-Purushottam Darshan, you may be blocked from editing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  03:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * - I don't think there has been anything disruptive about my editing. In fact, it seems like you are pushing your edits without reading the other users posts regarding the sources. I think edits need to be suggested on the talk page and discussed.Apollo1203 (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep removing Gavin Flood, who is WP:RS; at best, you can add a statement, as I did, that the Swaminarayan-movement was recognised as a separate school of Vedanta by the 17th World Sanskrit Conference. Not that it is a separate school of Vedanta (attribution required), even lessthat it is the 7th school of Vedanta, which is WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It is a separate school of vedanta as it has been accepted as one by Kashi scholars and by world Sanskrit conference and many colleges and universities in India and abroad. Tilakny (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * The edit you are making is a valid source, however it is outdated. The most recent work published by Bhadreshdas Swami has been accepted as a school of Vedanta. Please reference the source used in my edit. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean . Trust me, Swami Paramtattvadas and Hinduism Today do not override Gavin Flood: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct that is the source. I am not questioning the validity of Gavin Flood's scholarly work, I am stating that the source you are using is from 1996. Since then there has been new scholarly works published. Specifically, I am referring to Bhadreshdas Swami's work which Sadhu Paramtattvadas is writing about in the article I cited. I think if this needs to be discussed further we should engage on the talk page instead of constantly going back and forth with the edits. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan vedanta
Swaminarayan vedanta is a separate vedanta but Joshua Jonathan keeps saying it is not even though it has been proven with reliable sources Tilakny (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you want to do, but please reference your talk page for my most response to you. Apollo1203 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies
Hallo Apollo1203. My apologies for the number of warnings I gave to you; too many pov-pushers at India-related pages lately. I thought you were the same, but I noticed that a couple of editors, including you, significantly improved the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page last year. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation
The sockpuppet up was not me as that is not my IP as well as the fact that i am only using this account and i cannot edit on other devices as well. Tilakny (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Length of responses
May I suggest trying to write shorter responses? This edit, adding 22,000 bytes, is extremely long. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that my responses are quite lengthy, however, I believe in some cases they are necessary to address each of your points thoroughly while citing scholarly sources. As I have previously mentioned, you have repeatedly accused me of bad faith edits, so I think anyone can understand if I feel forced to properly defend myself for the valid changes that I have made. I am sure that you took the time to read and understand my response, and I ask that you also respond to each of my points instead of ignoring some of them. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your rationale. But be aware that you can also raise too many points, when asking to respond to each of them. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m glad you agree with my rationale, but let me further explain the reason for my thorough responses. Initially, in response to your edits, when I would revert or revise, I added a short description in my edit summary. With those, you reverted or asked for more clarification. To address your concern, I started discussions on the talk page to explain my rationale, yet again you did not agree, ignored my comments, and continued to suggest the same edits. Finally, I began giving thorough and detailed explanations, yet you are not fully engaging with these, either. The goal here is to ensure the content is encyclopedic, and if that requires complete and detailed explanations, then my talk page posts are warranted. I would appreciate you taking the time to understand my points and address them in its entirety. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I got your point about the roots; thanks. Nevertheless, you could have tried to formulate an alternative text, instead of simply deleting. Also because formulating an alternative helps to make clear what your point of view is, and how different pov's can be integrated. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

3RR
Be aware of WP:3RR, and give yourself a break now. It will do no good if you continue, I think. I've said the same to Kevpopz. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)