User talk:DayakSibiriak

Nomination of Other Goddess Circle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Other Goddess Circle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Other Goddess Circle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 20:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Gaudiya Math into Gaudiya Vaishnavism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well. DayakSibiriak (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Other Goddess Circle


Hello, DayakSibiriak. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Other Goddess Circle".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Bir yıldız da sizin için!
Çok teşekkürler, many thanks. DayakSibiriak (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tengrism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kyrgyz ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tengrism check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tengrism?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work
Hello. I want to thank you for your hard work on various articles that you have rewritten using reliable, academic sources in Russian and English language (for instance, "Tengrism"). I wonder if you can help with other articles, for which there are a lot of Russian-language sources which, unfortunately, I am unable to read (for instance, "Bazhovism" and "Ivanovism", which are currently rather incomplete articles, and other articles about religions of Russia). Just one constructive hint: Pay more attention to translation into English, as I have seen various errors. For instance, aliran kapercayaan in Indonesian means "ethnic beliefs" or "gentile beliefs", not "branches of belief", which is a rather nonsense wording. I hope you will continue with your rich contributions!--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good day. Thanks a lot for your attention to my contribution. Of course there are errors in English. But not in the case of Aliran kepercayaan. I'm sure. "Branches of belief(s)" is a literal translation; an option "Flows of belief(s)" is also found in academic works. And this concept in Indonesia covers the ethnic religions, as well as new sects that arose in Indonesia, and even the western Theosophical Society in Indonesia. And specifically only for ethnic local religions there are terms kepercayaan adat and agama suku, agama asli. DayakSibiriak (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Judaism
I just wanted to express my appreciation for your latest edits on the Judaism article. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well. Thank You. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Mačuda
Hello DS. Thank you for having added Mačuda's paper, it is a good source. It is a monograph about Rodnovery in Russia. I can't access the full text. Does he also discuss Rodnovery in Czechia and the "Rodna Vira" organisation of Richard Bigl?--Æo (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. Yes, also. Together with one more source (Giuseppe Maiello's article in Pomegranate, 2018, vol. 20, no. 2) I'm going to add not long text on Czechia. Only G. Maiello himself is a native Italian scholar, which have moved to Czechia and follows Slavic Rodnovery. Expect, no problem as secondary source. DayakSibiriak (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I already read your edits in past months and noted the good quality. Remember to report the precise pages if the work has numbered pages; I have seen you have missed them for some of the new additions.--Æo (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And thank you for their corrections and your own contributions. DayakSibiriak (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish barnstar

 * Thanks a lot Debresser for this, for the attention of colleagues on the subject and control of the named articles. DayakSibiriak (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Siberian shamanic Rodnovery
Hello. Responding to your suggestion in the object of this edit, I think that "Siberian shamanic Rodnovery" (which now has the line about Bulgarians inspired by Tengrism, i.e. Siberian shamanism) should not fall under the section of "ethnic Rodnoveries" together with Slavic tribal, Meryan and Ossetian types, since Siberian shamanism is interethnic and Rodnovers inspired to it are not recreating specific ethnic identities (i.e. "we are Kriviches", "we are Meryans"...) together with the religious identities.--Æo (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good day. Yes, now clear about specific Krivich and Meryan. But Bulgarian Tengrism is the same—"we are the Turks-Bulgars and not Slavs-Bulgarians". In eddition, you yoursef know that Siberian shamanism is not only Tengrist (i.e. Turkic-Mongolic religion), but can be Uralic, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and other. That's why more exectly nor do identification the Russian Rodnovers shamanists with Tengrism which can be neither Siberian nor shamanic, but modern Tatar, Kyrgyz, Turkish etc. Thus, Russian shamanic Rodnovery is orienting to any shamanism in Russia: Turkic, Mongolik, Uralik, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, and other. DayakSibiriak (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Tengrism is obviously an outgrowth and codification of general Siberian shamanism (which is "Shamanism" with capital letter, that which the term "shamanism" originally and most appropriately applies to), and Rodnovers, belonging to more or less the same geographical and cultural area of Siberian shamanism, are inspired by it rather than by non-Siberian shamanisms (South American "shamanism", et al.). Regarding the distinction "monotheism vs. polytheism" (to which you made reference in one of your recent comments' edit-summaries), I think it does not apply to Siberian shamanism and Asian religion in general, which has this vision of a supreme principle identified as Heaven which emanates all gods and all beings (emanationism). The distinction of monotheism and polytheism is mostly a Western construction especially enforced after Age of Enlightenment rationalism.--Æo (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can agree with the identification of their shamanasm as Siberian, especially if so in the sources. At the same time, modern Siberian shamanism cannot be reduced to Tengrism, i.e. only Turko-Mongolic. There is no evidence that some of the Russian Rodnovers are focused only on Turkic shamanism (Uralic for them is same source). Some of the Bulgarian ones, yes, but there is no evidence that they practice shamanistic Tengrism, and not modernized neoTengrism such as the Turkish or Tatar Tengrists. Let us more carefully with the notion Tengrism. DayakSibiriak (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Shlyapentokh
Hello. WP:RSUE allows the use of non-English language sources. I'm obviously not against the addition of the English version of Shlyapentokh's article, this is not the reason why I reverted. The reason why I reverted is that the English version is not available online and we should add the precise page where the author supports the specific concept, not the entire interval of pages of the article (264–275).--Æo (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. The same with Maiello2018 you deleted. Links without a page number are not prohibited, especially if there is no reason not to trust the presence of information there. In EnWiki, English-language sources are preferred. And on the topic of Rodnovery, there are not so many of them to delete the ones I found. There is no problem if 2-3-4 sources are essentially duplicated in foreign languages ​​and in English, if the English-language text is not available online. It is not available to us, but available to other readers. The English-speaking reader will have a choice. There is no risk of repeating the same duplication many more times. Let's complement the foreign sources ​​without removing the English ones. In addition, it is good to support Slavic country scholars who publish some of their works in English. I suggest keeping Shlapentokh and Maiello's works. DayakSibiriak (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The references should be complete, and report the precise page where the information can be found, especially if the article is long and the pages are numbered (and usually long articles always have numbered pages, while short articles of 2-3 pages may not have numbered pages). Otherwise it is difficult to find where the information is located in the article and whether it can be found or not. Maiello 2018 can be added back, if it will be appropriately cited in the article; I removed it because I replaced it with his 2015 article that is readable online and of which I could make precise references to the pages.--Æo (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Hindu theologians has been nominated for merging
Category:Hindu theologians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

A note on your Yoga edits
Dear DayakSibiriak, many thanks for your good work on categorization. However, I've felt the need to oppose several undiscussed edits you have made to the yoga templates. These seem essentially to be replacing extremely well-known terms like Downward Dog and Surya Namaskar - known to hundreds of millions of people, possibly billions by now - with far more technical and less recognisable terms like "yoga series" and "standing asanas". That seems to me very clearly a retrograde step, making the navboxes less approachable, and without direct links to these major (and heavily visited, the evidence is there) pages, also less navigable. In other words, the edits directly reduced the quality of the navboxes, and of the project. I'm happy to discuss any changes on article or template talk pages (not here, it's not the right forum) but there are strong reasons not to go in the direction your edits have indicated. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well. About well-known asana names, maybe You are right. Only about the page Yoga series I don't understend stop of me, see its Talk page, and hope that general article on any yoga series will. DayakSibiriak (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I've added a note to Talk:Yoga_series; the same in more detail, and cited, is at Surya Namaskar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you're doing it again. You must not add categories with an edit comment that sources exist. Well do they. Actual written proof is required, in the article body, complete with full citations o reliable sources, you know the score. Only then may you add a category that repeats the claim. I do hope this is clear as you repeated infringement is becoming disruptive. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Movement?
I saw you had added "movement" for Radha Soami sects in the Radha Soami article and the same is added in Shiv Dayal Singh article. I wonder how can it be called a movement? In my knowledge, movement is something bigger like Sant Mat movement. This is just a few sects originated from a person. Lightbluerain ❄ (Talk | contribs) 12:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Partly agree. As you can see, some sources use the word "movement" (Jones&Ryan 2007), although another prefer "tradition" (Juergensmeyer&Lanse 2018), the "sect" is least neutral. In the lead definition, I have already changed to "tradition", I think it’s the golden mean. DayakSibiriak (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, tradition seems better. Thanks. Lightbluerain ❄ (Talk | contribs)  17:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Modern yoga gurus
Hi, thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia. However, nobody should be added to Modern yoga gurus unless they are widely attested in multiple Reliable Sources to be a "Yoga guru" - the exact phrase.

It is not enough for a person to be well-known, to teach yoga, to write books, even to be charismatic, to have a following, to have invented a brand of meditation, etc etc.

It must be the exact phrase, cited repeatedly, by multiple sources. The citations must be in their article, supporting a directly written claim that they are a "yoga guru", and repeated in the article "Modern yoga gurus".

ONLY THEN may they be added to the template. I do hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hellow. Thanks too for your control of this template. I expect, she is not a principal figure for the template. Only you can see in article about (Ching Hai), that her method was attributed as Surat Shabd Yoga-derived, she is one of few female gurus related to the contemporary Sant Mat movements (Radha Soami), which promote this kind of yoga. The template is not only on yoga sport. That's why better to include her name. After you. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That is a very curious kind of thankyou, and you are making very heavy weather of a simple matter, a list membership criterion, which happens to be well-defined. However, the template is for modern "yoga gurus" ONLY. Unless you can *prove* from multiple WP:RS that she is widely acknowledged as a "yoga guru" then she is not one. The criterion is nothing to do with "yoga sport" (competitive yoga) - actually, none of the yoga gurus listed is a leader of "yoga sport" except perhaps Bikram Choudhury, and even for him it was a side issue; he is known as a "yoga guru" (yes, this EXACT phrase) for his teaching of yoga as exercise. Other gurus in the list taught devotional or other kinds of yoga; Sant Mat could be construed as Bhakti yoga. No, the criterion is that the person is agreed widely to be a "yoga guru" of Sant Mat or any other kind of yoga, and Ching Hai is not so described in multiple reliable sources. I do hope this is clear. Once again, the criterion is sharply defined and she does not meet it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * By the way, Kriyananda does qualify as a reliably-reported "yoga guru", so I have added citations to his article, added him to the modern yoga gurus article, and left him in the template. I hope you can spot that this is back-to-front - the sources should have come first, then the articles, finally the template. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So think I. DayakSibiriak (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Good. But I do not see multiple WP:RS out there for the claim that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is a "yoga guru". What sources can you provide for this? If the claim is correct we should easily be able to find three or more sources that say this; I've so far found none, and there are none in Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar - indeed, the claim isn't even made there! That is what I mean by back-to-front: the matter should be firmly established with multiple sources there, then with the sources in the modern yoga gurus article. Simply citing the Encyclopedia of Hinduism is not sufficient as we need definite proof of wide agreement here; it counts as one source. You should be clear that the evidence needs to be provided first; it is disruptive and a great waste of other editors' time to have to keep going over the basics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Um, sorry but I'm seeing the same problem for Kripalvananda, we'd need multiple RS both in his article and in the MYG article, all the sources to say *in terms* that he was a "yoga guru"; if from an offline source then please supported in the ref with quotations also. You provided one source in MYG; his article doesn't even make the claim. We shouldn't need to be revisiting this same issue again and again. Many thanks for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of World Vaisnava Association


A tag has been placed on World Vaisnava Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/World Vaisnava Association. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Russian sub-ethnic groups has been nominated for renaming
Category:Russian sub-ethnic groups has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi DayakSibiriak. Thank you for your work on Spiritual Administration of the Muslims of the Chechen Republic. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)