Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Archive 4

message: It has been proposed that the swastika symbol be removed from the welcome template. In an attempt to determine consensus, the question has been asked whether the template should have the swastika symbol removed or not. To date, the following responses have been received.
The comments on the now-archived page regarding this subject were as follows:
:*Option A:Include Swastika and Aum with a(n) educatory note accompaying Swastika - 9 indications of support
:*Option B:Delete Swastika as it could cause distress amongst some in the Wikicommunity - 4 indications of support 
:*Option C:Delete both Swastika and Aum - 3 indications of support
:*Option D:I disagree with all three above options and have my own idea:5 indications of support, three of which were "no action whatsoever", one of which was "(i)f one goes, all should go!" *Any other editors who become aware of this discussion through normal means are encouraged to respond below, so that we can try to determine what the consensus opinion on this matter is. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to determine consensus

message: *Any other editors who become aware of this discussion through normal means are encouraged to respond below, so that we can try to determine what the consensus opinion on this matter is. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one that left the "If one goes, all should go" comment. What I meant was if the swastika is removed from the Hindu welcome box, the symbols of all religious projects should go. However, I would ultimately like all symbols to stay the way they are. Anyway, I think the ‘tally’ shows that many people don’t want it deleted. (Ghostexorcist 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is extremely annoying.--D-Boy 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghostexorcist's point seems to be "let's make a point".—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I totally agree with him.--D-Boy 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus has already been determined. We keep the conciliatory and educational message that was added to the template, explaining why the Hindu swastika is a sacred symbol to Hindus, and move on. ॐ Priyanath  talk 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, we do have a consensus of all those editors who have seen this discussion in the past day or so. However, a full consensus would probably involve the input of other editors who may check this page, less regularly. I am hoping to give these editors, who check in less regularly, a chance to offer their input as well. That is why I proposed that it be allowed to continue for five days, which is the standard time period to determine AfDs. I hope that this is agreeable to everyone. However, if consensus opposes it, I would withdraw the request. Badbilltucker 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, we do have a consensus of all those editors who have seen this discussion ??? Um, 9/4/3/5 doesn't seem to be a clear consensus to me.  --BostonMA talk 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Point taken. I was mistakenly repeating the phrasing for  rhetorical purposes, to highlight the fact that not everybody has "chimed in" yet. However, I certainly hope that other people take the opportunity to express an opinion. Also, it should be noted that Ryan has also indicated an approval for the 
*Option C
which she had not done earlier. Badbilltucker 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bill, with all due respect, Options B and C are both closest to my preference. If I hadn't answered, this numerical assessment would not reflect my views, so I answered to avoid being misrepresented. B and C, please. You're welcome to update the tally accordingly. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't exactly understand but I'll leave it alone for now. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't dab in effect choose option 3? He realised that images are not necessary on user-templates ("not necessary" does not equate to evil) GizzaChat © 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The key word is "effectively." To indicate as much would be more in the area of determining what other people intended to say, which is generally risky. Badbilltucker 21:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked him on his talk page. Also, I've removed my sig from 'Option C', since I didn't put it there in the first place. It is my sincere hope that this will not be perceived by anyone as inflammatory (as it is not intended to be), but rather as my decision not to have anyone but me sign for me. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late for that...--D-Boy 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a waste of time let's keep status quo.Bakaman 01:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that only 5 out of 16 people support the status quo :) And the success of the Wiki is based on the principle of change, sometimes for the worse but most of the time for the better. GizzaChat © 03:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a complete waste of wikimedia servers. I think that IZAK should seriously go brood on his actions. I'm amazed you guys let one or two users mess up WP:HINDU like this and waste time with this bakwaas. Bakaman 06:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuation of Consensus determination discussion

message: *1) Have you ever contributed to Hinduism-related articles? If yes, how regularly (weekly, monthly, etc.)
*2) How well informed on the subject of Hinduism do you consider yourself to be? (Slightly, somewhat, moderately, very, extremely)
*3) If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika without an explanation on your userpage, how would you react? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 extremely negatively, 10 extremely positively)
*4) Would seeing a swastika on the banner without explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 never contributing again, 10 very enthusiastically)
*5) If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika with an explanation on your userpage, how would you react? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 extremely negatively, 10 extremely positively)
*6) Would seeing a swastika on the banner with explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 never contributing again, 10 very enthusiastically) 
*7) What led you to this page.
*8) Feel free to add any additional comments here:
I know that the above set of questions need work. Please feel free to modify them to clarify as you wish. Badbilltucker 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are good, I'll add them + have "what led you to this page". Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Swastika page is now linked to for a request for comment, so more responses should be expected soon. Badbilltucker 18:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's the link to the RfC itself: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Style_issues. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone favor making an addition to the project banner to call the attention of interested editors to this discussion? I could add a secondary notice "banner" to the page, and then remove it again at the end of the discussion, to call interested parties' attention to the discussion. Badbilltucker 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC questions

message: Someone changed a Heading to read "YUR MOM SUCKS A BIG ONE"  I would fix it, but am only experienced at reading here not changing anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.109.164.101 (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is it? It is called Vandalism on Wikipedia. GizzaChat © 05:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Banner 

message: Sai Baba of Shirdi has been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving this article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the best place to notify Hinduism contributors. The best page is WT:HNB. Cheers GizzaChat © 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article tagged as needing expert attention 

message: On wikipedia there is an article on Omnipotence. I have been trying to put in aspects of other religions into this article, since the article is now mostly (completely) western and christian oriented. As I recall Shiva is seen as omnipotent by Shaivism, Vishnu in Vaishnavism (read this in the Gita) and Shakti in Shaktism. I have to little knowledge on this to place any accurate references, hence my callling here, to also give this aricle an eastern point of view.
Teardrop onthefire 12:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the best place to notify Hinduism contributors. The best page is WT:HNB. Cheers GizzaChat © 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omnipotence article 

message: Can somebody clarify the criteria for inclusion in these categories? I'm confused. --Nemonoman 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saints vs Gurus 

message: I've filed an RFC relating to the Taj Mahal at Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taj Mahal RFC