I am not able to understand how this comment is useful.

Why is everyone questioning the beliefs of another users? Who gave that right?

@TheDestroyer @Pandya ^

@Pandya, @TheDestroyer, there was a Qn closed by @Keshav earlier.

@iammilind unwanted heat

Can you help me with the reason, why the edit was undone? It seems that the OP @Rakesh is completely unaware of what is closed & what is open Qn.

@NogShine yes "unwanted" but "deserved". In past, that Mod has abused the power a many instances. It seems that now more & more people are coming against for various reason. The Mod is still doing the same by getting involved in petty things, as I suggested above.

@iammilind I will rollback to Rakesh's edit in which i cast i my reopen vote. That wording is proper. It says rajas, Tamas and Satva

@TheDestroyer, ok that also seems fair. But there were some spell/wording mistakes, you may edit those as well.

@iammilind Ok. I saw your edit. It also says the same.

@TheDestroyer Correct. Actually I didn't want to take chance of closing again. So made it clearer than before. English was also not upto the mark last time.

@iammilind If there are past things involved in this one, they should be seen separately. The heat here is not about moderation. It is about the beliefs of a user. And the users are cornering a user.

@iammilind and most of the things are not even eligible for meta. They should be handled by voting.

@iammilind You can remove electron, Proton and neutron. They are not Sanskrit terms and users will speculate

I voted to reopen when Rakesh removed them

@TheDestroyer OK .. actually I retained those words, because Osho has directly referred them as I cited in the source. It's ok to keep those words, since we already found the reference. In past we have kept the words like "simulation", "gravity" etc.

@TheDestroyer was against name calling in meta posts and name calling in meta posts is not allowed on many other sites because it leads to shaming. Now, he is allowing them.

@iammilind I rollbacked to original Rakesh' edit. You can improve it. But don't add these words

@NogShine When did i allow?

@NogShine Yes you are right in that part.

@NogShine Also see context

@TheDestroyer Aren't there name in the meta post by Tezz, Rickross?

@TheDestroyer in past we have allowed scientific words at many places like gravity, simulation & so on. I think, since we already found reference from Osho, those words can be retained. Thanks for rolling back. I will take leave.

@TheDestroyer Meta discussions should not be targetted to a user. It leads some bad opinion on that users.

@NogShine So, if a user puts some sectarian propaganda in his answers by voluntarily posting against some sects of scriptures which he don't subscribe and bringing to it meta is not calling name shaming.

Also, i hope you are aware such sectarian bias is not allowed.

Here, there is a link to the profile, name even after the comment is deleted.

@TheDestroyer Is saying some text has interpolations a sectarian propaganda?

@NogShine it's not difficult to see it. Why haven't he said about scriptures which he subscribe. Why only about scriptures which he don't believe even though those notes add nothing to answer other than importing sectarian biases.

@TheDestroyer So, we are seeing some user from sectarian lens... Good.

Also, can you say something about this comment?

@NogShine Maybe you are not able to see it. But majority of users agree with it. But anyways meta question is about to remove those notes by all users. This is what all answers on meta say

@NogShine Isn't it relevant to discussion?

@TheDestroyer Then that meta post can do that without saying the name and suggesting nothing.

@TheDestroyer How ?

Or how is it relevant to meta?

> how can he doubt on Radha given that proclaims to be a follower of such texts?

@TheDestroyer Sorry, I don't have sectarian lens.

@TheDestroyer Asking someone to stop something is censor ship.

@TheDestroyer All? I assume that you have read my answer.

@NogShine Asking someone to stop doing for good will and to not offend others repeatedly is not censorship

@NogShine because it is another example which justifies what OP says in question

@TheDestroyer Again, this is not a matter of discussion on meta. It should be done by voting.

@NogShine If every user posts such notes in their answers, site will become mess and warring zone

See how Some users felt offended for SK posts

Assume what happens if every user does the same like SK by posting these notes at end of answers

@TheDestroyer OP says he is a Sri Vaishnava or whatever. Who are we saying that how can we proclaim that he says Vaishnava by calling Radha not true?

It is questioning beliefs.

@TheDestroyer It is not the same case.

@TheDestroyer Are there any meta posts?

@TheDestroyer They will be downvoted. Simple..

@NogShine You said there new meta posts would come if every user posts some notes in answer yet you support such notes

@TheDestroyer See the total account history of that user SK.

@TheDestroyer Yes, I said that people will think like that but I'm not against those notes.

@NogShine If you are against those notes, why your answer says otherwise.

@TheDestroyer There are many scholarly works which say there are interpolations in Hindu texts.

@TheDestroyer Did you read my answer properly?

I said I'm against meta posts which say "This user is claiming interpolations"

@NogShine Ohh ok. There are also scholars (so called) who say scriptures which that user believes are also interpolations. So, you say other users can add these notes by such scholars?

@TheDestroyer Also, the question on meta is about the claim of interpolations and not the belief specific user follow and one doesn' tfollow.

@NogShine Read the meta question. Tezz asks is this allowed?

@TheDestroyer It's clear that yo haven't read my answer.

He says only one sect of scriptures has interpolations in answers which is done voluntarily

@TheDestroyer Tezz asked are they allowed Why not allowed? And the users said it shouldn't be allowed. So, the answers didn't address the question properly.

@NogShine I have read your answer. You answer is saying you can add notes against other scriptures too which i don't agree.

@TheDestroyer Now, according to you and others, Keshav is biased and propagating sectarian beliefs by adding some sentences because he doesn't believe in Shaiva scriptures. Isn't it?

Also, your answer sees it as attack on individual rather than what he did.

@NogShine It finally boils down to that, (whatever might be his true own intention) given that he adds those notes only for scriptures which he doesn't subscribe like Shaiva, Shakta, Ganapatiya and Gaudiya.

@TheDestroyer I was mainly concerned about naming a user and suggesting that he should put his scholarly works in his pocket and post somewhere suitable. Now, I ask you a question.. why are scholarly works not allowed on Hinduism? Is there some invisible ban on them?

@TheDestroyer So, if Tezz asks if he should add such notices, isn't he suggesting that he is against Vaishnava scriptures? See the examples he took in the question?

Now, one may ask in future in comments... How can Tezz proclaim that he is an advaitan by saying Vaishnava scriptures or upanishads are false? Is it okay?

@NogShine if you read post properly, many users are against selectively putting those notes on some scriptures like Shaiva, Shakta, Gaudiya and Ganapatiya and commenting selectively on popularity of some Gods such as Radha, Ganapati. This is first point. As as knowledgeable Hindu, you might know interpolations in Hindu scriptures is not easy t find. Different Sholars (we have to know first who are these scholars how relaible are thet?) say different things.

We are here on meta to discuss about site and not a specific user's beliefs

More importantly, they are not required and redundant.

@NogShine We are discussing how a user is covertly putting his biases in his answers. This is very much discussion topic for meta.

@TheDestroyer I remember you saying moderators are not here to check the reliability of the sources.. sources are primary and their reliability is secondary. If the sources are wrong, then it should be downvoted. Not flagged as rude or offensive. Not to be offended by them. Isn't it?

@TheDestroyer Did he quote his own works?

I hope you understand. Ask him why he is not posting such note for scriptures. This is intentionally done to demean some scriptures,.

> whatever might be his true own intention

More importantly, these notes are not required to answer the questions.

Hope you understand. We will discuss in meta further.

Now, you also don't know what his intentions are... how can you claim that a user is against the sect? Isn't this a prejudice?

@NogShine Again, this is not about what he believes or quotes. Why is he quoting for some scriptures even though they are not required?

Again saying, Why he is doing selectively for some scriptures even though not required?

Let's discuss in meta

Bye.

@TheDestroyer Ask him not me. Do you expect that notes to be on Vaishnava scriptures? Will you be satisfied by that?

@TheDestroyer I'm not done..

@TheDestroyer They are part of the answer.

@NogShine Obviously not. Except your and his answer, every answer says against it. Even my comments say

@TheDestroyer Are you seriously comparing S K and Keshav!? This is just unbelievable. A new low.

@iammilind I think the second revision is fine which is recently reactivated or rollbacked by @TheDestroyer . Talking about why your revision is roll-backed or rejected is: OP has already removed the electron, proton and nutron from the question and you again introduced that.

@LakshmiNarayanan Do you even read comments properly?

@TheDestroyer ofc

@LakshmiNarayanan Ok. I won't comment further on your interpretation skills.

@TheDestroyer And rightly so, because you have no rightful claims for doing so.

@Pandya Yes.

@NogShine Don't get sarcastic with "1 month" and such.

It seems you were angry with the whole fighitng going on on the site and let it show against this particular new user.

@moonstar2001 then what? Why are you so concerned about a not an answer?

A cool head and neutral approach is required for moderation.

Am I the one who sent away? Waaaahhh!

I am concerned about "mod" behavior - in this case you took the mantle of moderation and i am concerned how it impacts new users

@NogShine i thought youw ere the one who flagged it downa nd deleted. if not, my mistake. very sorry

whoever did it made a moderation mistake

@moonstar2001 Yes. I flagged and commented and voted to delete.

it was a moderation mistake then

Why is it a mistake? Can you elaborate?

the user's reaction was quite predictable

i already elaborated

in the meta post as well as privately here

Also I see a lot of answering in comments. Which is also not good for the site.

i feel you let yourself be affected by the other threads going on.

I'm not effected by other threads.

@NogShine well yeah. i am guilty of that too. but i don't always have the wherewithal to search and post references

Then search properly. I don't think it is hard task for a user like you.

And we can also vote on it.

I am not violating anythign by posting a comment

Which is in general useful to the site

I will continue to do so

Its not necessarily bad for the site. It happens on other SEs as well.

Answering in comments are a bad thing.

Those comments will be deleted by the moderators.

well then if the general consensus is that it is a bad thing. and this consensus becomes difficult to follow for me, we'll have to see how that plays out

I have seen CM asking the user to post an answr and deleting the comments.

@NogShine these moderators need to be moderated

well it is what it is then

site rules are site rules. user convenience is user convenience. site rules always win out.

i dont have a problem there

nice pivot to making me the problem @NogShine

And off topic questions are also answered by some users. What is the point in closing the question then?

they can be answered until such time that they are closed.

what is your issue with that

@moonstar2001 you are not the problem at all. There are bigger problems to handle.

And I also saw your question about duplicate questions. It's a good one.

@NogShine hmm

I tried telling some users not to answer a questions which have some close votes. Then they obviously did not agree with me and said they don't agree they are dupes.

that's a difficulty of this site

So, they said they don't always agree with 5 closevoters.

there are a some such Qs that I disagree are dupes

but I dont have the energy to fight every issue

And they said they will continue to post the answers and said stay away from them.

@NogShine :D

how is anyone able to answer a clsoed Q? i thought those get blocked out

When they say like that they don't post a comment it's not a dupe, don't try to reopen the question by editing the question how they are not dupes. Just answer the question.. That way they say they are not dupes. A very bad way.

No. It is not Available for answering.

@NogShine then how are they able to post answers?

And what they answered were clear duplicates too. There was no disagreement in the review too.

ok

They answer when there were 2 or three close votes. Almost four.

my only disappointment with the situation is the user rajesh kaza was a paapam case. he deserved something kinder.

@NogShine then it should be fine. they dont have to agree with the 4 that it is ad uplicate. until the site shuts down the Q,, they are within their rights to answer

thats not a problem

And what's interesting here... their comments got reasonable upvotes.

@moonstar2001 No, they should also participate in the reviews... shouldn't they?

@LakshmiNarayanan what's happening?

@NogShine in an ideal situation - yes-because this is a community-driven site. but they don't have to. we cannot make them. so, this behavior must be tolerated.

To me it is about convenience. If rules become straightjackets, participation becomes difficult

@NogShine nm, just trying to understand the hate slowly paralysing this institution.

What is initial heavylifing? @moonstar2001

There is no hate @LakshmiNarayanan. There is only a reaction to sneaky agendas.

@LakshmiNarayanan Yeah...people are mixing up faith and moderation...

@moonstar2001 ok thanks for the clarification

Agendas? Please don't say you have also seen sectarian thing in the post..@moonstar2001

@NogShine heavy-lifting. you asked why did the user not challenge the comment. i think old users/mods/rest of the users put less onus on the new user to understand the site and push inputs rather than expect the user to pull information from us.

@NogShine Can't believe the two-faced bigotry that people are depositing on meta. Users accusing users of sectarian bias when clearly they are the ones sneaking flowery deceptions into their answer.

immediate deleting and moderator intervention is called for when there is spam and abuse.

but paapam cases, lets be a little more lenient.

@moonstar2001 Wrong.

@NogShine what so spam and abuse also can be allowed to stew? i dont have a problem with that!

@moonstar2001 Not an answers should be flagged immediately. You took the other way.

hi @Tezz

I like your dakshinamurty picture :-)

@LakshmiNarayanan One new user who has posted an abusive post on meta started saying that Keshav believes a toxic belief of Vishnu staying as a soul in all the devatas and since Keshav is a self claimed sectarian, he should be out of the moderation...

And 4 people voted to it. Isn't this hate? @moonstar2001

i have also contested keshav being a mdoerator.

many times in the past.

Your case is different. It is about moderation..that's fine.

he is not here to defend himself but yes. i had major problems with the way he was carrying out moderator duties

as far as sectarian stuff is concerned

I think some people here think that giving "Notes" is actually sneaking. It is more deceptive to push their own philosophy say Advaita (which I have seen to be taken as obviously the default stance in "correctly answering") as universal as so many of our distinguished users do on a daily basis.

Now the matter is not about moderation...about his faiths..Just because he is a Sri Vaishnava ... A user said he should not moderate...is this a good thing?

the post on meta does have legitimacy. it is a well -thought out post. if there is inaccuracy in any of the statements, then those statements can be contested/corrected. i have personally seen keshav treating posts/qs/as on adi shankaracharya differently from those on ramanujacharya even when there was good reason to act or not act a certain way.

@NogShine if there is evidence that a person of a certain faith can be neutral, then they can be moderator. else they must not be. so the response here is to prove the ability to be neutral

we are fighting here too. *sigh

@moonstar2001 Can you give an example of a neutral moderator on this site right now?

you know, i am part of my apartment complex's executive body

@moonstar2001 They should contested in chat or comments if the answers are wrong. Meta is not a place to give lectures about any god.

@LakshmiNarayanan keshav does not seem to be as active as he was in the past but the rest of the team - both destroyer and pandya are neutral in my observation. i have yet to find cause to call out either of them.

@NogShine noone gave lectures about god. the meta lecture was that lectures about beliefs were being sneaked into answers.

chalo people

i have to call it a day

@moonstar2001 Every person and every user has some faiths. Faith and moderation are different. And keshav proved them many times. Finding a person not subscribing to any god is impossible. I think you know which site we are on. Just stop seeing mods from sectarian lens and don't assume things which he didn't say.

sorry @NogShine have to leave

@moonstar2001 This is exactly the kind of thing i'm talking about - Many answers of destroyer has Advaita bent yet I won't hear you crying wolf on such issues. It is because there is a certain expectation that default stance is advaita and now it is demonstrated that any push back by users is correlated to unrelated positions and they are bullied into writing "neutral" answers which is clearly advaita in disguise. Where's the moral outrage on this?!

@NogShine very oftne inferences can be drawn from patterns of behavior. and such inferences are usually accurate

@moonstar2001 What is that in that meta post about Ganesha being son of Shiva, Parvati and about Radha?

@moonstar2001 Just assumptions without proofs...

Even Destroyer admitted that he was not sure about Keshav's intention..

@LakshmiNarayanan there is no bullying into coforming with advaita. you may qualify your answers as being adherent to a different faith. nothing wrong. BUT being of faith A and consistently making sneaky remarks about faith B is not okay. Destroyer may post with an advaita bent but he does not say VA is interpolation ( to give you a gross example) .

then let keshav prove his intention, right?

@moonstar2001 HOW IS IT SNEAKY!?

@LakshmiNarayanan well if it is not sneaky then it is blatant which is worse.

@moonstar2001 He did it in the answer to Tezz's meta question. Didn't you read it?

@NogShine idk which post you are referring to

@moonstar2001 This is a hard non-sequitur if i've ever seen one.

@NogShine not necessarily. but even if you are right, the person being called out has an obligation to prove them wrong, if indeed they are wrog

My answer reached to -4 when I replied to a comment of destroyer and first downvote was after 30 seconds..

@moonstar2001 Which message are you referring to? Can you say please? I can't see it.

@LakshmiNarayanan no it is not. slipping vague and non-verifiable remarks which can put unnecessary questions into people's mind and undermine a faith are not ok. that is it not easily verifiable makes its sneaky. and doing so consistently on subjects that are not in alignment with one's personal faith makes it agenda-driven. if you dont agree it is sneaky, then it has to be the opposite which is blatant

@NogShine well somethings we just have to bear, nogshine. not all aspects of user behavior are controllable in online communities

@NogShine that was in response to when you said "assumption wihtout proof"

And I wrote that first comment in 2 minutes

@NogShine guess it was not satisfactory to the community. there were more questions that came up.

@moonstar2001 My intention is to say that some downvoted without reading the answer completely.

hi @ChinmaySarupria

@NogShine hmm

@moonstar2001 Hello!

@moonstar2001 And?

@LakshmiNarayanan And so your arguments are not good enough to conclude that your position is accurate

@moonstar2001 Again, hard non-sequitur.

@LakshmiNarayanan good counter-arguments have been provided by the others on the meta post

@moonstar2001 "@LakshmiNarayanan good counter-arguments have been provided by the others on the meta post" I'm in conversation with you.

@LakshmiNarayanan if I find the counter-argument good, it means I am not ready to accept your contention.

We need more to conclude

At the end of the day, this is a user-driven site and users must be happy

with content and moderation

I agree, which is the reason why i'm giving arguments. You are welcome to provide those counter-arguments here if you please.

hi @rohit. gn rohit

@LakshmiNarayanan but they are not different from what is already presented in the meta post. so we are running around in circles

@moonstar2001 This is not a therapy site.

i am going now.

gn all

@LakshmiNarayanan eh? where did that come from? :-D

users must be happy = most users must agree on almost all community practices and user behaviors.

bye now

@moonstar2001 Then first agree that this is part of larger SE network and that this is a site about Hinduism and not for Hindus.

@moonstar2001 What is your reaction on'put your scholarly works in your pocket or post them on other site suitable ' ? It is not definitely harsh and benevolent.Isn't it?

Accepts this statement by a user and accuse others that they have driven out some unregistered users..-_-