User talk:Kbhatt22/Archive 1

June 2019
Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition), 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. http://www.swaminarayanvadtalgadi.org/about-us/acharyas/ is not a reliable source. Peaceray (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Swaminarayan Sampradaya, 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 the 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. Please don't ignore the consensus of other editors, see article talk page. Harshmellow717 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not ignore the consensus. I provided nearly 4 paragraphs addressing each concern and am not sure if counter discussion was posted any where. I outline the source validity and each concern raised. What additional is required? I revised it based on your suggestions. It is down to 1 sentence. Please advise what you think is still not addressed. Feel free to advise on proper use of sandbox/talk. I am new.


 * Hello on my sanbox please feel free to post your proposed version of the edit underneath the original. We can discuss the matter on the talk page of the sandbox. This way we have a central location to work on this. Once we have a consensus on the matter it can be moved to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article. Regarding consensus, please see (BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) for future reference. Harshmellow717 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow up
Thank you for contributing to the discussion and taking lead. I see you not taking sides and I created an account after your suggestion. Moksha88 and Apollo1203 have a meticulous history of only wanting Pro BAPS positive content and constantly gang up on edits. They have been accused of sockpuppting in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moksha88 and they call on other users to push pro baps agenda and overwhelm editors as you see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morari_Bapu#Removal_of_Sarcastic_Dig_at_Swaminarayan. I am going to edit that article and add Morari Bapu's criticism of Swaminarayan based on encyclopedic value since its definitely a mob of the same group of users pushing the same agenda. Watch how fast they try to block me. They will try to accuse me of vandalism and are already trying to block me and I promise Moksha99 will start reverting all the edits that I have contributed to as done in the past to the me and the other IP's.

I wanted to get a point of clarity. The Swaminarayan Sampraday article is completely misleading and I have had readers review it and they think the BAPS made up ideology is the correct one. How can it be when BAPS is a separate group? So my question is, does the article need to be rewritten with a BAPS section as a Schism/Vimukh/Excommunicated group and their references kept to their section and we only use sampraday materials during swaminarayan's time?

Applebutter221 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the positive feedback. I am simply trying to be neutral here and can't speak to every thing on the page as I am not a subject matter expert. I look at things subjectively which helps. I would suggest not using language that seems to target individuals or words that seem to pick fights. Not much will get accomplished that way. Try to stick to sources and stick to wiki policies best you can. Trying to do too many edits at once can be overbearing. Work through single edits at a time. I agree their is a strong bias of images and some sources that do skew the narrative to one branch. Since that Sampradaya page is a shared page for all branches, as long as you can source the material, feel free to suggest bolstering other brand presence and sources. I am glad you created an account and hope it does not get banned (I don't know the banning process) but just try to avoid targeting individual accounts and focus on connecting sources to origin and finding multiple points of views. I have supported some things from all users in the entire discussion and will continue to do so. I am all in favor of any edits that add value to the pages. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I tried my best. Looking at how they work together and drag out the editing process on several dozen BAPS related articles, they will eventually attack you too. They want ownership of the things that they know they are the breakoff group for like the Sampraday, Vanchamrut and avoid anything or minimize the Acharyas, Desh Vibhag Lekh and others. Their versions of their texts are modified so they can't even be used. Swamini Vato was published dozens of years after and then BAPS added so much unsourced material. How can they have one sentence on the Shikshapatri which the guy himself wrote and leave out the Satsangi Jeevan. It's insane how many times the Akshar Darshan, a completely made up concept created by cherry picking through works and scriptures which ultimately led Shashtri to get worshipped himself is dominated in this articles. Applebutter221 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think if anyone wanted to target me, I have made enough errors learning wiki for that to have happened. I have been able to work with all editors in the section to get consensus on any edits I have proposed except the last two weeks. I agree the process feels very drawn out compared to other articles across wikipedia. My advice is to not target in this case and bolster the shikshapatri section with proper sources if you feel their is content missing there. I will support anything I feel diversifies and adds to the collaborative content culture of Wiki. As long as you stick to policies and are civil about it, targeting both ways won't accomplish anything. I agree that their is biased source selection or images at times. As long as you present the points in civil way, dialog can be had. Their is a teahouse section where new editors can help one another and you can request third party opinions and a third party opinion as well. Kbhatt22 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I dug deep into Moksha88's user history and found out that he is a member of BAPS. I wrote on the dispute page that I investigated the users history further and I found that Moksha88 is a member of BAPS and discloses this fact in a earlier edits as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93261344. If you look at his edits back then, he spent years of his life trying to edit the articles over time to make the Swaminarayan Sampraday from BAPS pov. He succeeded by gathering other BAPS followers and using sources that only fit their narrative and ganging up on any one else. Do you know if there is a conflict of interest here and how to report this and get him banned from editing more swaminarayan articles? I am deep searching apollo1203 history now. Applebutter221 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am sure their is an avenue to do something like that. I don't know of one tho. I am not a wiki pro. I just doppelgang around a bunch of pages I find interesting and do independent research to learn and contribute. If you think what you are saying has merit and have evidence, then I'd say reach out to someone on wiki who has more wiki experience and see if their is an avenue to have that looked at. I have not used it but there is a place called Teahouse, try there maybe? Kbhatt22 (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did some searching. Instead of my talk page, this is a good place to read up on a workflow for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I just want to be very clear, I am not implying if there is or isn't merit to you're claim. I see where he said something to the effect of being a representative of a swaminarayan branch. But I dont know enough to decide if that is a policy violation. Maybe read through that page and find a recently active admin and ask them. Thanks and wish you the best of luck. Kbhatt22 (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have a question. On your sandbox why did you disagree with edit 3. I want to understand that if BAPS alleged this part...:


 * The brothers were expelled after it was discovered that Dadubhai illicitly collected and misappropriated funds and, falsely claiming that he was acting on the organization’s behalf, led a number of young women to renounce their families and join his ashram under his leadership.


 * ..based on one source. Other one does not stated that and the last one is a BAPS source we can toss it... So then why can't it have encyclopedic value that the same source plus one more states that they do believe pramukh was against them and still include yogiji in their iconography? It's not cherry picking because they were accused and excommunicated by Yogi but their founder continued on. This gives the reader both sides and it would be more balanced. I am not getting why the accusation and result is allowed but then not the other side of response and result if it all from the same source. Honestly, the baps members have problems with pramukh getting criticized but I want to understand it from a wikipedia perspective.Applebutter221 (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I went though the notes again. I originally was in favor of it AFTER rewording it to match the source. Their was a naming conflict between what the IPs proposed and the source so I cleaned it up and was on favor.After the back and forth and lack of consensus or middle ground, I proposed that we can hold off on it pending a second source that can corroborate that claim. Since it is only one source. It is a part of the branches origin story and seemed relevant to their founding so I supported it initially. But I was trying to be neutral and find consensus but it was getting difficult. If you can find another source and want to re-up that discussion, go for it. I think finding more people to contribute and review it will help as well. Can I make one point of advice, don;t try to go after the people or the accounts trying to make the edit and don't use abrasive language. It does seem frustrating but follow some of the things for admin review listed above and see if you can make a case but in terms of trying to push edits, stick to sources and outlined reason for inclusion so it is cleaner. It will help avoiding getting banned. Good luck! Kbhatt22 (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So I can do it on your sandbox if I include additional sources? I appreciate your words but I am pretty sure moksha88 will assure I will be banned at the end of the week. He is trying to link me to a user and called me a sock. I am so relived I found out him stating in a edit that he is a member of BAPS. That just revealed to me the intense conflict of interest and why certain articles are written to espouse BAPS theology. I went through entire history and he spend 15 years of his life editing the Sampraday article to make sure slowly that it is presented as BAPS is apart of the original sampraday. That is dedication. After I read that most wikipedia readers spend only a few minutes reading the lead paragraphs and I see why BAPS representatives are particular about controlling the narrative and removing any critical content as more mandirs are being opened and more people are googling the sanstha.

And I don't want to waste your time. Are these four (+ 1 main) new sources worthy to include if I can edit your sandbox?

https://books.google.com/books?id=B105DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1241&lpg=PA1241&dq=Encyclopedia+of+Global+Religion+%22dadubhai%22&source=bl&ots=hghnOQA7w3&sig=ACfU3U07yz4vj7-S4DetzURrHYcHtCxvJg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDgfi2v_bqAhXPQc0KHcnGCvgQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=dadubhai%22&f=false https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dharma_and_Development/SorXAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=dadubhai https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304302683_'Networked'_Religion_in_Network_Society_Case_of_Swaminarayan_sect https://www.google.com/books/edition/Acts_of_Faith/Sgs9BAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=dadubhai+yogiji&pg=PT170&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Introduction_to_Swaminarayan_Hinduism/tPkexi2EhAIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=dadubhai&pg=PA66&printsec=frontcover

Applebutter221 (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I would move the edit from resolved to not resolved and post these 4 sources for further review. Then try to seek out more com mentors on the matter. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks and I did that. Would you consider moving your name from disagree based on the new sources? It can give passerby editors a false feeling that consensus has been reached. If you disagree, I am fine but I don't think that it will matter if there isn't support for encyclopedic value. Applebutter221 (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will remove myself from the disagree section and wait some feedback before adding myself back into consensus on either side. I think that's fair Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I feel like I know the strategy that they are using by waiting to respond. They are hoping I get blocked and then they can strikeout all my comments and edits and in turn it will overwhelm you and you'll leave it be and give up. From what they are accusing me of, and what I researched, soon you'll have a couple users such as sacredsea that will continue to push the BAPS agenda. The Swaminarayan Sampraday is ultimately mis-titled and needs to be called Swaminaryan Hinduism with the Sampraday section talking about and two Gadis and then the all the baps stuff. I will work on it. I want to see a neutral editor or moderator put some effort into this and realize one group is manipulating their appearance online on this site and it's messed up. I can't believe you were accused of wrongdoings by the scooby doo guy. That's wild. You have disagreed with me and directed me in the right way vs the baps followers just post warnings and try to block. Applebutter221 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That comment by Skubydoo was very upsetting because it was a personal attack. I don't like fighting and have been extremely neutral and subjective about this discussion both ways. I would suggest letting the existing edits play out before investing in any new edits. I have agreed with and disagreed with and supported both sides of the debate that has been going on and for Skubydoo to make such a personal attack was pretty wrong on his part but I don't want to turn that dispute request into a battle stage about users. Just the merit of the content. I don't want you banned nor do I want anyone else banned. That's just not me. I hope a good moderator does step in. Someone with no bias in the matter hopefully. Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Implying that I am not following NPOV as you did here is unwarranted given that I was following core policy . Moksha88 (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The edit you cited doesn't really say anything about you or make any good or bad faith assessments specific to anyone. It was a general observation that was made and I agreed with the sentiment of sensing some branch specific promotion taking place. The page kind of supports that observation. Nonetheless, nothing was directed to you so I am sorry you feel this way. I did provide a more detailed response on the Swaminarayan talk page. I thought we had a respectful relationship as wiki contributors and hope that is still the case. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Swaminarayan Sampradaya. ''As I had mentioned in my response on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya talk page, I believe the accusations of sectarian POV pushing is unwarranted. Please assume good faith moving forward.'' Apollo1203 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not make the accusation against anyone in particular but have laid out ample cause for being skeptical about the source and image selection as well as disclosure of branch representation by users. I have assumed good faith where appropriate. Kbhatt22 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Lekh
I saw that you participated in the this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_193. You are the only user on that list of users that takes a neutral side. The other topics say closed for all of the topics but this remains open. It is obvious that consensus wise the Lekh won't be included as there are too many users on pushing for branch. Do you mind escalating the issue to another administrator or leaving a message for the current one why consensus beats neutrality for this topic? The lekh is a scripture stated by a dozen books. It's not for other sects because it would contradict their guru but they can't ignore it because it was signed by their god so they can downplay it or state that it was only for administrative purposes even though every single other scripture of that time makes reverences to the aacharays.Kevpopz (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevpopz. I was actually the one who created that DRN request. I am not sure why this is open. I think that might have been an error because it should be closed. I was saddened by that resolution but respected and appreciated that moderator\admins time invested in trying to resolve it. Ultimately majority was the deciding factor despite the merit of the content and the properly sourced proposal. An RFC for that content prior brought a user, Skubydoo, who claimed to be third party but it wasn't weeks after the DRN closed that I found out that user had edited Swaminarayan content years prior and just happened to stumble across the NPOV noticeboard (eyeroll). A lot of users have come through the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page in question and had sentiments of inherit bias and POV pushing. I understand it can be frustrating but just stick to and stay within the wiki guidelines and policies and you can never be in the wrong is how I look at it. That DRN probably just got archived before being closed is all. Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kbhatt22 Oh okay. I see what you are saying. I don't think it will hurt to try. Do you mind if I leave a message on the Moderators page? His name is Robert. At one point he says he will not intervene but one point that wasn't made is that BAPS and other sub sects still acknowledge the scripture but dismiss it as much as they can as it doesn't fit their guru's narrative. That in itself is a cause to include it. Also I was thinking, most sources state that the Shikshapatri, Vachnamrut, Satsangi Jeevan and Lehk are the four core scriptures that are important and made during Swaminarayans time. Why is the Satsangi Jeevan more important then the other books listed in the article? I can't seem to find a source that explains why it became the choice sacred biography over the dozens of other books and group with the Shikshapatri and Vachnamrut. Kevpopz (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevpopz. I can tag Robert McClenon here if that helps. I know he is extremely busy with admin functionality but incase that item needs to be closed for tracking purposes. Ultimately his role in the DRN request is simply to moderate a discussion in an organized fashion. DRN rules are sticking to the content and not the users. Maybe some day an admin will try to make a sourced change and go through that editing experience on that page but in terms of this specific edit, its been disputed and majority decided resolution so its best to move on. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Kbhatt22 I feel if it is just left, then it shows that a group of users can team up even though there are clear, very clear sect pushing going on with explicit biases. It's not a goal I am trying to achieve, It is a simple that the Lehk is a scripture attributed Swaminarayan about his family being the leaders and of course a group founded in 1907 who disagree with that would feel weird about it cause it means they are contradicting their own god but its in every single scripture so that confuses me even more. If the goal by the BAPS team is to hide within the body and places it may get overlooked, then that is even more tedious. I mean guess its in the intro so whatever...Let's see what he says. Kevpopz (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Kbhatt22, User:Kevpopz - It appears that that dispute was archived by the bot before it was closed. However, there seemed to be agreement that the Lekh was not one of the scriptures of the denomination.  At least that was what I understood, and I don't know anything about the organization, worship, or theology of the denomination, except that it is a religious denomination.  It was my understanding that the Lekh was a testamentary document, but that was only what I thought.  I declined to express an opinion.  I know little about Hinduism.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * @ Robert McClenon thank you for your expeditious response. I have multiple sources that explicitly call it a scripture and this was made by Swaminarayan himself when he was alive in 1826. The other groups were founded almost a 100 years later and they  have to call it an administrative document as Swaminarayan explicitly made a hereditary successorship by adopting his nephews. The other groups that were founded 100 years later based their interpretation on 1-3 verses of single book or two and its based off of spiritual succession so obviously they would like to minimize this scripture. It even says that in the articles we quote. Like I said, I have no affiliation or involvement but I do see BAPS (1907 group) users sort of teaming up to ensure this particular scripture is not as visible as it contradicts their justification of existence. Just because they have a great online presence, doesn't mean they can distort Wikipedia for their narrative... Kevpopz (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Robert McClenon. Appreciate the response. Yeah that was the misleading narrative push I was trying to get reviewed. The agreement was questionable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya#Devotees_ownership. The faith consists of multiple branches. Initially 2 main ones created by its founder and then all other branches trace through the main two and separated over time. Various levels of acceptance of the document/scripture. Scripture for the original 2 and document or scripture for some of the separation groups. Regardless, I appreciated your time then and do so now. I think that proposal has run its course. I've moved on. Thanks Mr. Robert!! Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"In media" edit
Because the Corvette C8 had appeared in many video games 2005emsaguindan (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Being new edit the "In media" section 2005emsaguindan (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi 2005emsaguindan. I think that's a great edit. I added a source and adjusted the wording just a little. I imagine it will be in other forms of media like movies and tv shows so that section will grow over time too. Well done! Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read the guideline at WP:CARTRIVIA:
 * This includes video game appearances. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This includes video game appearances. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Vossanova. Thanks for bringing up that policy. Learn something new every day. I can see the reasoning for not including that info. I was just proof reading and sourcing. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Page rename
I think this link would help guide you on changing the name of an article: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Moving_a_page Apollo1203 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Apollo1203. I will look into doing this for the Satsangi Jivan page