Darkgloom

Welcome!

Hello, Darkgloom, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Darkgloom, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Hi Darkgloom! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of Vaishno Devi. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Vaishno Devi, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. EM (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I believed my edits were helpful because the article is currently flagged with a 'multiple issues' template. Specifically, the article contains significant instances of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH.

For example, the article previously claimed that the Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā identifies 'Maniki' as Vaishno Devi because she resides at 'Manika Parvata.' This claim is inaccurate; the Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā actually describes Devi Maniki as the daughter of Divya Vibhuti and a divine consort of Lord Sri Krishna Narayana in Akshardham. It does not state that she resides on Manika Parvata. Similarly, the identification of Vaishno Devi as the 'Vaishnavi Kala' from the Varaha Purana lacks direct textual evidence and constitutes original research. I have added a Socio-historical origins section to ensure WP:NPOV. This section provides necessary academic context regarding the deity's evolution from a regional folk tradition to a pan-Indian pilgrimage site. Unlike the removed sections which relied on interpreted primary texts this section uses peer reviewed secondary sources (such as Pintchman and Chauhan) that specifically analyze the Trikuta shrine. Per WP:V (Verifiability), we must prioritize sources that explicitly discuss the subject rather than primary texts that require editor interpretation to establish a connection Darkgloom (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello ChatGPT, if we want to ask an AI, we'll ask an AI. Please use your own words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Because I used formal language and follow Wikipedia's formatting guidelines, unless you have actual proof which you don't because I am a person sitting here writing this, accusing me for being a bot is just a convenient way for you to avoid addressing the actual evidence I’ve brought forward. The current article contains misinformation regarding the Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā and the term Sukṛti. Instead of making baseless assumptions about who I am, I suggest you look at the peer-reviewed sources I've provided.. If you can’t disprove the scholarship of Pintchman or Chauhan, then your personal opinions about my writing style are irrelevant to the accuracy of this article.thanks .Darkgloom (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)"