Talk:Vishnu/Archive 1

message: Raj2004: I'm delighted with most of the recent work you've done on this article. It's added helpful info, and it's really helped clean the article up – but I worry about possible POV in one of the changes. It's a fact that many people believe that Vishnu is an actual god, and not just an aspect of a god. You might believe that those people are wrong, but we can't say "Vishnu isn't a god" if some believe he is. I know that serious Hindu scholars often see things differently than your average Hindu in India. How can we address this?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:03, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Quadel, I may have already distinguished that. Only Smartas believe that Vishnu is a personal aspect of God or one of many forms of God. Vaishnavites believe that God is only Vishnu exclusively. Also for Vishnu and Shiva, we generally don't preface with a lower case, (i.e., god); such notations are for devas. 
I am not saying Vishnu isn't God. Vishnu is God. Smartas simply believe that God has many forms such as Vishnu or Shiva; Again, Vaishnavites, however believe that God is only Vishnu-Narayana.
That is the difference.
Raj2004 16:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes by Raj2004 

message: Animesh Says: Hello friends! I was unhappy with many aspects and words chosen in description of Lord. I edited many sections, based on my readings from Vishnu Purana, Bhagwat Purana, and Ramcharitmanas. Please have a look and suggest any changes. Saying fourteen names as "important" renders other names (like Krishna and Raam) unimportant. This is not correct. Every name has its own significance and we should not undermine any names. There are other changes too where someone refers Shri as the accompaniment of God in this  + outside this world. This is again incorrect. God exists and His state is unknown beyond this universe, since we can only perceive things within this universe. Also, that shakti is nothing by Maayaa since according to the creation theory in Vishnupurana (most authentic), Vishnu created Maayaa to make the world. Please endorse or comment on my changes. animesh1978 AT gmail DOT com
Hi, Animesh I agree with your changes such as this:
"Note that even though Vishnu is portrayed with human features, the purana state that Vishnu pervades everything and is not anthropomorphic. Attributing anthrompormorphic characteristics to Vishnu is a common misconception held by non-Hindus. Vishnu has no particular material form but can manifest in any form, and is a center of all the forces, power, will, auspiciousness, goodness, beauty, grace, responsiveness, etc. In short, whatever we can think of, and whatever we cannot think of -- all are Vishnu." Yes, and thanks for editing but I think my original writing was edited by others:
This is what I originally wrote:
Note that while Vishnu is commonly portrayed with human features, Swami Tapasyananda, in his book, Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, states that Vishnu pervades everything and is not anthropomorphic. Attributing anthrompormorphic characteristics to Vishnu is a common misconception held by non-Hindus. Vishnu has no particular material form but can manifest in any form, and is a center of all force, power, will, auspiciousness, goodness, beauty, grace, responsiveness, etc.
I had originally added the comment by a Ramakrishna Mission scholar but it was removed somehow. So I will restore it, in some way. What do you think?
Raj2004 02:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by Animesh 

message: The etymology of the name is unknown. It is continued in Prakrit veṇhu, viṇhu. Conceivable is a connection with the root vay "pursue". Other proposed analyses include vi-ṣṇu "crossing the back", vi-ṣ-ṇu "facing towards all sides" and viṣ-ṇu "active". Other suggestions attempt to explain it as an amalgate of two unrelated words, or as derived from a non-Aryan root.
:Where is the source for this? Why can't these ideas co-exist w modern Hindu definitions of the word? Sam Spade  09:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mayrhofer's etymological dictionary. You had no business removing this, Raj, so put it back. If you cite "meanings" instead of etymologies, attribute them. Vishnu does not "mean" all-pervading, unless you take your guru's word for it. If it is a notable guru, cite him together with the "meaning", just don't give it as "the truth". This is Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 06:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Good edit, Raj! Now thats NPOV! Writing for your enemy, as well as the truth as you see it... thats what its all about! :) Click here to report admin abuse  23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The word "God" for most English readers (Christian or otherwise) has biblical associations. In particular, the Wikipedia entry for "God" clearly postulates it as the Supreme Being for monotheistic religions. 
Does everyone agree that God is context-free, religion-free label for a Supreme Being? 
Even so, from a Dharmic perspective, the label "God" does not signify Nirguna Brahman. Therefore, Vishnu cannot be a form of "God". Best then to describe Vishnu in terms found in Vedas & Puranas and as stated by Vaishnavas and Smartas.
I am now closely studying entries for God, Brahman, Nirguna Brahman, Saguna Brahman as well as the pauranik references to ensure accuracy. Help appreciated. 
--Savyasaachi, 20051127
Vishnu is conceived as both Nirguna Brahman which is a broader concept than God and as well as a personal God.
So  it's both.
Raj2004 10:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost a year to the day... The new improved intro looks pretty solid now. I appreciate it's difficult to satisfy all viewpoints, nicely done. Ys, GourangaUK 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with "God" 

message: This article is missing the devanagari with sri. I will add it. --Shell 02:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [u]sri[/u] vishnu 

message: Shouldn't there be mention of the 10 incarnations of Vishnu?
Thiseye 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no independent Dasavatara article (at the moment a redirect). Maybe there should be a separate Dasavatara article, and this should then be linked prominently. dab (ᛏ) 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 Incarnations 

message: We need a picture of Vishnu himself, not of his avatars. The best would be when he rests on Sheshanag. Having Krishna displayed as the main picture is indirectly ISKON POV. GizzaChat © 12:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the picture selected should be region neutal. The current picture of Satyanarayana is Telugu-centric. Similarly, Venkatajalapathy, Guruvayurappan and Ranganathar pics should be put in the article interior and for the main pic we must select some Vishnu picture that is not copyrighted (we have to remove the copyrighted ISKCON works, unless they give us the pics in GFDL, as Vishnu might someday get in FA and in the CD) and that is acceptable to all faiths and regions.
Balajiviswanathan 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a pic 

message: The introduction has not even a single world Hindu or Hindu religion or Hindu Mythology. Is this some kind of an assumption that any body in the world can directly and unambiguosly understand that Vishnu is a form of Hindu god (or God, whatever)? Right in the first paragraph it directly goes into Vaishnavas, and I'm not sure how many non-Hindus can grasp this. I would suggest the introduction be modified to first introduce Vishnu as a form of Hindu god and a popularly worshipped one, and then in the next paragraph go on to say its importance to Vaishnavas. Vishnu is a common god for all Hindus, and it should not mean that only a particular sect of hindus recognize that. Balajiviswanathan 18:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro was crafted to talk about Vishnu as He is described, meditated upon and revered. It was specifically to address the problems and ambiguities with "god", "God", "Hindu god", "Hindu God", "Monotheistic God", etc. The intention was for a reader, to make their own interpretation based on the factual intro. Thus, we retain NPOV about the nature of the Supreme Being/Reality (such as it is). 
* Each of the terms Vaishnavas, Smartas has their own link for the uninitiated or the curious. 
* Popularity is hard to gauge, and is of no use in actually understanding. It is an attribute that is discussed in the "Worship" section 
* The intro ends by reinforcing that Vishnu is worshipped in all Sanatana Dharma traditions. 
Savyasaachi 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to disagree. The Vishnu, Shiva and Krishna articles all thoroughly discuss their respective sects in great detail, often a bit too much. The Shiva article for instance has a strong Shaiva POV, saying boldly that Shiva is the Supreme throughout the article and not even mentioning that this is the opinion of one sect. GizzaChat © 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current introduction reads as an all-round balanced viewpoint to me. I'll have a look at the Shiva article. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 07:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please see points above, regarding worship within all Sanatana Dharma traditions, as well as the nomenclature and discussion regarding the term "God". Savyasaachi 18:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the introduction 

message: Kurma avatar was translated as tortoise while it should have been turtle. Turtles are amphibious while tortoises are solely terrestrial. Kurma avatara took place during "Ksheerasagara Madhana" so the avatar should actually be translated as a "turtle" and not "tortoise"--Khammam 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurma avatar 

message: Please {help me} some one is vandalizing this article badly. Hope someone prevents this from happening--Khammam 09:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Formatting looks very poor right now.  Can anyone take a stab at fixing this up?
--1000Faces 04:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: The link to main avatars is absolute out of context. The current article is specific to Visnue and the main avatars discusses at length avatars of various personalities. Hence it is inappropriate to provide a link to the main avatars from this page. Jbarot 01:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Avatar article describes Vishnu's avatars (amongst others) in more detail than any other article so it makes sense to me that the main link in the avatar section diverts to there. What do other people think? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello Jbarot, - Following what you have said above I have amended the link to go directly to the Vishnu Avatars section on the Avatar page. Hopefully this will make things clearer for the reader. Many thanks, ys Gouranga(UK) 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Main Avatars 

message: User:Dj thegreat, I noticed that the formatting of the text of the 1000 names of Vishnu looks remarkably similar to the formatting of the text at http://www.salagram.net/names1000v.html. Did you get the text from that website? --Iamunknown 03:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the thousand names of vishnu 

message: Is amalgate a word having something to do with Vishnu, or is amalgamate the word actually intended in the article?  I'm asking because the question arose on the Wiktionary.  Cryptonymius 08:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amalgamate is probably the correct word.Bakaman 01:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amalgate? 

message: I just noticed a couple of pictures on the page that include advertising credits for krishna.com.  I removed one of them, as I don't think it is appropriate to push a particular web site in this way.  What do other editors think regarding this? Buddhipriya 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images were added long-ago when no decent quality free images were available. I see no reason to keep them in this article now that we have a number of copyright free images. The krishna.com watermarks could not be removed from the pictures without breaching the original copyrights. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense that as more images become available the free ones be given priority, so I removed the other one that had the watermark for krishna.com. Buddhipriya 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisements for krishna.com 

message: The below mentioned text is given in the article where it mentions a Rig Veda script at V.I.15b.3. I dont see such numbering in Rig Veda at all Is it a typo mistake where it is supposed to be VI.15.3. In rigveda numberings at sacred-texts.org) I don't see any alpha-numeric numberings given like the 'b' in the 15b. The numberings in sacred-text site for RigVeda runs like X.xx.xx format (5.15.3).  Can some one please tell me whether the quote 'O ye who...' given below (this in in wikipedia's vishnu page] comes in RV or is it a general statement given by the Translator. I am unable to find out which RV sloka is cited by the translator as the numbering seems to be given wrong here!. Thx.
From Wikipedia Visnu Page ->[The foreword of P. Sankaranarayan's translation of Vishnu sahasranama, Bhavan's Book University, cites Rig Veda V.I.15b.3, for the importance of chanting Vishnu's name, "O ye who wish to gain realization of the supreme truth, utter the name of Vishnu at least once in the steadfast faith that it will lead you to such realization"]
Ram S 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please verify where this Rig veda script existis in RV? 

message: The sixth paragraph of the section called "In the Vedas" concludes with this parenthetical sentence:
"(This story can be found in later epics and Puranas with ever increasing emphasis on Vishnu's role, till in the Bhagavata Purana, Vritra is a warrior, philosopher and devotee in whose comparison Indra is a pale figure.)"
Surely, "Vishnu" is meant instead of Vritra?  
Olav Smith 22:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Vritra that is meant rather than Vishna, but I have removed the sentence on the grounds of it being confusing & unsourced. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 07:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Devas have different names in the Vedas e.g. Shiva's name in the Vedas is "Rudra."--ॐJesucristo301 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vishnu or Vritra? 

message: There is a discussion on Krishna's status as avatar at Krishna and Vishnu avatar discussion. Any comments you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krishna article and avatar discussion 

message: This came up at the Reference Desk  - Is Vaikuntha an appropriate entry for the 'planet' field on the info box? Other articles (e.g. Varuna, Bṛhaspati, Chandra, Surya, Budha, etc.) use that field for the astrological planet the deity is associated with, not for their "home". -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet? 

message: Does anyone know of any copyright free paintings of Vishnu which we can use within the introduction? The current one is too low-res for the infobox and has a dubious copyright notice in the commons. Maybe an old painting exists somewhere? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 13:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded an image. It's title is: :Image:LVishnu.jpg. The picture exists on many websites and has no known author (just search Standing Visnu on google to see what I mean). No copyright info nor license info is given on any of the websites. To be safe, I'm not going to use it yet, but can someone tell me whether or not it's safe to use for the leading picture? Armyrifle 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the image is beautiful, it soon may be deleted. Can Armyrifle ask the website author about the copyright status of the image. I also suggest other users that they upload the image in wiki commons so that even if the image is not included in the article, people can view it. Aslo free, PD old images are prefered.--Redtigerxyz 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed the copyright info and the summary to fit the situation. I've based it off the info of a Hanuman image that has the same copyright case (impossible to determine copyright and licence, used by many people). Hopefully, this is satisfactory. Just to be safe, is it ok to use this image (Image:LVishnu.jpg) as the leading image? Armyrifle 04:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still feel free, PD-art images will be prefered as they represent the iconography more accurately then images like :Image:LVishnu.jpg but since it is of higher resolution, i am temporarily putting it as the lead image.--Redtigerxyz 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider using a more reliable image. If this image has been selected solely for its "beautiful looks", this is opposed to many ancient statues where the depiction is natural. Protozoan (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading image 

message: NO MERGE. Thirumal is one of forms in which Vishnu is worshipped like Vitthala in Maharashtra, Shri Nath ji in Rajasthan, where Vishnu takes on local characteristics and mythology into His folds, though that does not mean that they should all be merged into a single article, infact it is their very separate nature that makes the Hindu iconogarphy so interesting, and worth preserving serarately, it is polytheist monotheism afterall. 
Also one form of Vishnu, would hardly known in another region, except through its connection with the central Vishnu icon, so AVOID. For example the Thirumal form of Vishnu is virtually unknown in most of North India, so it would only create confusion, and added layers. (Ekabhishek (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: Many books identify Vishnu and Thirumal, Perumal. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Comment: The current contents of the Thirumal article are describing the history of Thirumal as if He was originally a seperate deity. If this is the case I would vote to keep the articles as they are. If this is not the case, and the reference is giving a very unorthodox view, then yes, I agree it re-direct here, and we can merge what little information may be relevant. From what you have said above it sounds like the latter is far more likely. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Gouranga. Instead of merging at present we should mark Thirumal as unreferenced and search for some supporting references. If none are found after a few weeks and the article content turns out to be a hoax, then we can attempt a merge. Note that we have separate articles on Rudra and Shiva and; Ganesha and Vinayakas because of the same reason. Abecedare (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: No merge these are two subjects about two deities, they are related, but each have attributes that are different enough to merit its own article. In Tamil, Thirumal is identified to as Kannan. I have cited a reference below. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a reference,  please see page 177;  Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  ref provided by Ism schism says: "Lord Vishnu is popularly known as Thirumal (kannan) in Tamil." Doesn't that mean Thirumal is Vishnu. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Definitely no merger - in this way you will merge all in Vishnu. Moreover article points out to the evidence that Perumal worship, as seen today has been a product of syncretism of an indigenous deity with Vishnu.Thus no, just as no, as there are different perspectives on this particular deity, not everyone agrees to =Vishnu. Its a later development. As article states that was associated with Krishna the dark or black deity of Yadava cow-herders in North India, eventually to be identified with Vishnu when Krishna was accepted as an avatar of Vishnu.Wikidās-ॐ 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DO NOT MERGE, It seems to be an Aryan / Dravidian tussle. But, more evidence is required for Tirumal as a separate entityProtozoan (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Do not merge. If this is to merge, why not merge it with Venkateswara instead of Vishnu?
Yogacharya (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No Merging - I don't think that the two of these articles should be merged together, for all of the reasons listed by Wikidas, Protozoan, etc. AparnaBlackPearl14 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Articles 

message: "Vishnu (IAST viṣṇu, Devanagari विष्णु), (honorific: Bhagavan Vishnu), is the supreme God, as declared in the the oldest sacred texts of Hinduism that are the Yajurveda (Verse 1 of the fifth prapathaka (chapter) of the Taittiriya Samhita of the Krishna Yajurveda of the Yajurveda), the Rigveda (Shakala shakha: Verse 1 of the Aitareya Brahmana) and the Bhagavad Gita (Verse 7 of the chapter 7), considered to be the revered scripture by almost all Hindus today."
: The lead does not acknowledge that other branches like Shaktism, Shaiva, Ganapatya does not consider this as true. Thus, it is necessary, to add the word Vaishnavism. Also details like verse are not needed in lead and can be added afterwards. So changed it.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No mention of Vishnu, forget him being supreme????????? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV in lead 

message: The article is Absolutely Neutral and it is not a "point of view" but absolute facts and references have been cited.User:Vaishnava
:What a travesty the lead of this article has become - one of the more important Hinduism articles deserves better. And Vishnu deserves better. Shame, shame. ~ priyanath talk 23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you username suggests, only Vaishnavas consider him to be the Supreme God, not the whole world. If we allow such bias on this article, why can't Shaivas, Muslims and Christians write the same thing on the Shiva, Allah and Jesus Christ pages? Please read Wiki's policy pages WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS to understand why. Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Absolutely Neutral 

message: Wikipedia is not the property of the User : Redtigerxyz nor is he the authority on Hinduism. Secondly, the User : Redtigerxyz is dis-respectful of Lord Vishnu. All users are equal before Wikipeida which is impartial and just. I as a user have full faith on the integrity of Wikipedia and also hope that Wikipedia respects me as a valuable contributer in enriching its content.
In reply to the above long passage given by the User : Redtigerxyz, my reply below:
ref provided stated "A. Berridale Keith,  The Yajur Veda - Taittiriya Sanhita 1914, full text, (online at sacred-texts.com)". (Verse 1 of the fifth prapathaka (chapter) of the 5th Kanda of the Taittiriya Samhita of the Krishna Yajurveda of the Yajurveda). The verse says: "All the deities are Agni; the sacrifice is Visnu; verily he lays hold of the deities and the sacrifice; Agni is the lowest of the deities, Visnu the highest" User:Vaishnava
::Please keep it to the topic of actual editing of this article. You are not proposing putting all of the text of Yajurveda here, if you do? Maybe use WikiELSE for that, not Wikipedia. Redtiger may not be the best possible contributor, but then who is? You seems to think that you are 'better'; to earn respect as a valuable contributor, you need to show some good work (Something Redtiger did on a few occasions), and that means working with people you do not agree with. Being dis-respectful to Lord Vishnu has nothing to do with it per se.... one needs to be respectful to each other first, and that means no major cut and pastes for the talk pages for example, that will be symptomatic of respecting Vishnu who is in everyones heart. Wikidās ॐ wrote it on 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  O it was the Fifth Kanda, I didn't know that as it was not given. I looked up in Kanda 7.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User : Redtigerxyz has hurt religious sentiments in his remarks against Lord Vishnu 

message: Wikipedia has no respect for God. 
Wikipedia is full of lies or dangerously evil half truths.
Wikipedia has no respect for religion.
The following users of Wikipedia, namely: Redtigerxyz, Priyanath, Emperor Genius, Raj2004, Wikidas, Wikiveer and DaGizza have all committed blasphemy and sacrilage. Curse upon you that you will all perish.
I curse the following users of  Wikipedia, namely: Redtigerxyz, Priyanath, Emperor Genius, Raj2004, Wikidas, Wikiveer and DaGizza that you will all perish.
I curse that the Wikipedia will entirely perish.
I beg forgiveness from the Supreme God, Lord Vishnu for choosing the blasphemous Wikipedia website to write about the truth. 
A true devote of the Supreme Lord Vishnu has been hurt and my curse never goes in vain.
I will never again edit or read or go to the evil Wikipedia website, forever . 
Delete my user-id and all edits you evil Wikipedians.
Mr. DaGizza, you are a Male Chauvinist Pig and a misogynist to the core and you call yourself an administrator !!! Ridiculous !!!
Mr. DaGizza, you are a curse to your existance.
A man like you, who cannot respect women is a worthless in his existance. 
You Wikipedians are useless people. You are a burden to the civilized world. You are not even worth hatred.
You Wikipedians must be ignored.
Dear Madam:
Vishnu is my Ishta deva and Guru Narasimha is my Kuludevata. I have substantially improved all of the articles on Vaishnavism , especially Vishnu sahasranama which is 90% of my own. All of the cursed wikipedia users have done the same. Gizza and Wikidas are Vaishnavite wikipedians so they no way would insult Sriman Narayana as well.
Sriman Narayana protects His true devotees.
Raj2004 (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC
:Sorrrry Vaishnava for offending you feelings. But could you actually tell me where I insulted women? I think I said I am not a woman and that there are very few women on Wikipedia. And I never the second thing is good, in fact it is terrible. The situation is worse among Indian editors, where female probably account for less than 5% of editors. Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has even commented on this unfortunate trend. It is odd because my ishta-devi is the Mother Goddess, in all her forms. From a Vaishnava angle, you could I believe Vishnu is nothing, without his shakti, Sri Lakshmi.
:Seeing as how you insulted six users at once so strongly and with such hatred, I needed to block you as a preventative and not a punitive measure. You are welcome to stay at Wikipedia but please do not get so emotional when somebody disagrees with your editing. Wikipedia has rules and guidlines on which its success is built upon and one of these is WP:OWN. This means no one editor owns any Wikipedia article, the community collectively owns it. To enjoy your experience here by being part and not against the community.
:If you understand I (or another admin) can unblock you at any moment. Just add :Template:Unblock to your user talk page and say you can edit in accordance with Wiki rules. GizzaDiscuss © 11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the curse, I know Vishnu will protect all of us for following Wikipedia guidelines. I have removed the verse numbers as such details are not needed in the lead.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't get it, why did he add me to the list? I do think that you can state that 'Vishnu is supreme God' and that 'most Hindus consider it'. However its encyclopaedia, you  have to say it carefully, not foolishly. I still not get it, why did he add my name to the list=:-) Forgive me but according to Google-samhita there is no such a thing as "Vishnus curse" or "Curse of Vishnu" so we are safe I guess. Forgive us anyhow for not understanding you Vaishnava. Wikidās ॐ 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curse 

message: I think :Image:VishnuWat.jpg is not a general representation of Vishnu and only his head is visible, so I think the image is inappropriate as lead image. Other suggestions are welcome. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox img