User talk:Abecedare/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Re: Edit warring on India page

Sorry, I did not mean to be disruptive. The tiger image was inserted because someone had said its better to show people what you mean rather than discussing it. (And that statement got a lot of support(its in the section where universe=atom got mad cuz fowler kept reverting his edits or something). The Toda image has no significane to the section, there should not even be a discussion about it (which there is). Its very ridiculous that the image is still there, its in clear violation of relevancy. Same with the Apatani image. If the Apatani people get their image put on Wiki, what about Kashmiri people? Marathi people? UP people? Tamil nadu people? They deserve to have their image on the site as well. Why are the apatanis favored? it really is ridiculious. Nikkul 01:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Probs

So I think your an administrator. So Image:193261136 28074afd36.jpg is copyrighted and the author has not given permission for this image to be used on Wikipedia(on the flickr site and on the image's wiki site). Please delete this image. Thanks. Nikkul 13:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have marked the image as a copyvio and it will be deleted soon. I have also asked the author for permission to use it on wikipedia - if he gives the permission, we can re-upload it on wikipedia. Abecedare 19:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:BalanceRestored

I have reported disruption by User:BalanceRestored at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_User:BalanceRestored. One of your warnings to that user was included in the evidence. I hope you will comment on the report there and help figure out what to do about this case. Buddhipriya 07:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh ... for some time I was hopeful that the editor was just misguided but well-intentioned, and explaining the wikipedia policies to him is all that was needed. However his recent behavior clearly belies that hope and I expect that his conduct will lead to indef. block soon. Also expect him to use sockpuppetry, although he should be pretty easy to recognize.

I'll be on wikipedia only intermittently over the next 4-5 days but will try to help after that. Can you also keep an eye on the Dera Sacha Sauda article ? The organization has been news lately and is facing vandalism and POV edits by both fans and detractors. Thanks. Abecedare 10:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dera Sacha Sauda

Hi, neither i am a follower nor against the organisation, but the meaning of naam(section published on Dera Sacha Sauda Page) is wrong. Naam is the way how people do meditation, it is not related to any particular religion. I created that page because i found it missing on wiki. Now you are calling it vandalism, so how do you want things to be on wiki, biased by religious feelings. If you don't know about the subject then i request you to first do some research before commenting or changing anything. I challenge you to prove what i did is called vandalism, or else i would like to report against you. I like to write and volunteers write Wikipedia collaboratively from all around the world. We are suppose to make this place neat and clean, how do you expect me to support people if they are using the wiki to just make an negative impact on a social issue.

Yes I was facing some technical problem and did the page 3-4 times. I will keep that thing in mind. I found the page to be controversial. I request you to make the required changes. Divakerbhalla 11:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Divaker, Here are the latest changes you made on the page, which included deletion of material that had been sourced from Frontline, Times of India and The Independent. You also removed wikilinks from Guru Gobind Singh and the "current section" tag; and added the controversial tag, without explaining your reasoning on the talk page or even in edit summaries. Those edits certainly qualify as Vandalism on wikipedia but I did assume good faith and politely requested you not to delete sourced material from the article. Of course if you disagree, you are free to ask for a third opinion or report me at the administrator's noticeboard, but I would suggest that instead of making this an adversarial process, we contibute to the article cooperatively with the view of making it a well-sourced encyclopedic article. Thanks. Abecedare 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear, Guru Govind singh ji has nothing to do with this page or content or Dera Sacha Sauda.. This whole story started because Guru ji from dera sacha sauda wore similar dress tenth guru of Sikh’s use to wear. Thats why i deleted the name of Guru Govind Singh Saheb Ji, someone put the name there to make it more controversial. I am being called by one of Sr editor of a national daily to cross check the story. Everyone use to believe that Wiki is a place, you can use as a reference in a story. You know better what to do next. I am new to wiki. I hope you will do the needful. Thanks Divakerbhalla 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please clarify my doubt!

this is what you stated- The issue is not the point of view but verifiability, which requires that reputable, and preferable scholarly, sources be used. Tourism website are not reputed for their fact-checking and editorial oversight and none of the above listed websites qualify as authoritative published sources on Himachal Pradesh.

My doubt- I read the whole criteria what was given in WP:V. I didn't find any such statement that commercial or tourism websites are not reputed for their fact-checking and editorial oversight. i didn't get what do you mean by- the above listed websites qualify as authoritative published sources on Himachal Pradesh

thanks, Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I have uploaded new image while i write back to the author. I intend to expand the contents wrt that image. Stateofart 10:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

A "good faith user" is trying to conflate Hinduism with Idolatry. Noting that Wikipedia's article of idolatry defines Idolatry as a sin, it gives the reader the implication that Hindus are sinners. However to reinvent the wheel, I invite you to a discussion on Murti puja and etc at Talk:Hinduism#idolatry.3F.Bakaman 02:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment

Hi Abecedare, I just read your post on the Talk:India page. Thanks for the compliment there about the Indian Mathematics page. I must say I have been enjoying working on the page. Well, until today, when some edit wars seem to have begun. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Socks

Hello, I would just like to say that if you are still suspicious of my being a sockpuppeteer, that I would support (and encourage) doing a checkuser. One has already been done and came out negative. I would like to invite you to do as many as you can, since I would rather have no one suspect me. I'm here to stay. Please let me know if you'd like, I would willingly add myself as a supporter of the checkuser. Thanks. Nikkul 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this discrimination!

Hey abecedare, remember me. when i nominated the page Himachal Pradesh for FAC, all of you opposed that there are citation needed tags but now the article cites the source throughly. Now do me a favour, take a look at this page- Goa (this is Wikipedia's featured article). the article has unsourced statements (check out the categories). Howcome it was passed FAC. Was it reviewed properly. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 12:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right that the Goa article is sub-FA by todays standards; but when it got its FA star 2 years back wikipedia was still in its adolescent phase and FA standards were significantly looser. If you feel strongly about the issue please nominate the Goa article for Featured article review and it will either be improved or demoted from FA class.

I would also recommend that you please assume good faith. There is no conspiracy/bias against either HP or the wikipedia article on the state. If you feel unconvinced about this, I suggest that you drop a note at either WT:FAC or at the talk page of one of the Indian editors regularly involved with FAC process (Nichalp (talk · contribs), Ambuj.Saxena (talk · contribs), Dwaipayan (talk · contribs), Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs) etc) and ask if they think that the Himachal Pradesh FAC was treated unfairly. Abecedare 15:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, i am extreamly sorry. i didn't knew that it was nominated 2 years ago. half knowledge is always dangerous. thanks+sorry, Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Political history of medieval Karnataka

Thanks for your support.Dineshkannambadi 18:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Help me

Abecedare, when you say "my linguistic note to proper location", what does it mean? Am I supposed to look somewhere? If so, where? Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, I just made a minor change in the section, mainly moving the footnote that talked about the Indo-European sound laws from the last sentence, where it was misplaced, of the section to the first. Here is the exact diff of my recent edits. PS: The "mv" in my edit summary was not a mistyped "my", but a shortened version of "move". Hope that makes it clearer. Abecedare 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I appreciate your help. Thanks.Kanchanamala 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jana gana mana

Thanks for your message. As a lawyer I am trained to argue, and also to try and find compromises! Actually, I think this is a sensible solution so I hope others will agree too. -- Lexmercatoria 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What's next?

Thanks. A small but important Kingdom in the annals of S.Indian history, the Western Ganga Dynasty. Hopefully in a couple of weeks.Dineshkannambadi 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Style edits

Hi, I changed 18th to eighteenth because previously, I had always taken it to be that ordinal numbers should be written out unless the writing is informal. Thanks for the correction other edits, though. I probably always use serial commas and write out numbers from 1-100 because probably that is how they do it in American English, which I have been taught. Thanks. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 11:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Standard source for India's population ???

I believe that the medIndia population clock is a pretty good source for India's population. Even though the estimate changes every second, the magnitude of the change is small compared to the entire population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fundamental metric tensor (talk • contribs) 18:33, May 12, 2007 (UTC)

Bhavishya Purana

I have added what I could find quickly on this ancient Vedic text. Would you give it a copyedit and help identify what mangled nonsense I have introduced? I think somewhere in that Purana is a predition of Wikipedia edit wars yet to come. Buddhipriya 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. I fiddled with it a bit, mainly adding some wikilinks, but made no significant content change. I also surveyed a few references and academic databases for more information on this subject, and it seems to have received surprisingly little attention. Apparently it is of minor academic/philosophical interest, although as google shows almost anything can be and has been attributed to "Bhavishya Purana". Wikipedia, currently, seems to be the single best online resource on this text - thanks to your efforts! G'night. Abecedare 06:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

I went over your changes on Yoga Sutras of Patanjali as you requested, nice job on improving language there. This was the first time that I read the article in detail, and I made a pass myself to remove some of the unsourced material, clean up some structural issues with the reference format, and add another citation related to dating and authorship. I would be willing to add some additional citations gradually, but I think that the problem with this article is that there are a lot of assumptions being made that would require improvements to other articles such as Samkhya which you may recall I tried to work on a while back, and was told to go read my Gita. There were some references to the Bhagavad Gita in the Yoga Sutra article which I cut as unsourced. I made some edits to Bhagavad Gita in the past and in the course of doing that found that the understanding of that work as given in that article would require some edits there to get any coherent connections between the Gita article and the Yoga Sutra article. There is also the current interest in Buddhist influences with Samkhya [1] which also has an echo in the Yoga Sutra article, as you cannot really talk about the Yoga Sutras without discussing Samkhya. Overall I feel that these are a group of articles which have connections that are currently poorly sourced, over-generalized, and in need of some debunking. Are you interested in working on this tangled web? Buddhipriya 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the article and editing out the extraneous unsourced material.

I understand your point about editing the Hindu philosophy articles as a group to maintain a uniform high standard and consistency. That indeed would be an ideal approach in real life if, say, one were producing a volume of contributed articles on Hindu philosophy. However on wikipedia the approach has the disadvantage of involving too many editors, with very different viewpoints and knowledge of the subject, simultaneously - which makes it almost impossible to establish consensus. Usually the discussion just devolves into talk page debates about some minor contentious detail and little progress is made in improving the actual article. (Recall the lengthy and circular debates on the Hinduism page on whether sanatana translates as eternal). So in my opinion it may be less stressful to edit these articles one at a time , without caring too much if the wikilinked article is of an equally high standard or even blatantly contradictory. Also some articles, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, simply have too poisonous an editing atmosphere - so it may be better to at least begin with the more technical and narrow topics.

But irrespective of which approach you choose, I will try to help you with at least article structuring and copyediting; of course withing the constraints imposed by real life. Regards.

Aside: My knowledge of Hindu philosophy is owed to readings several years back and, even though I have institutional access to a vast corpus of published academic work on the topic, I would hardly consider myself qualified to write encyclopedic articles on the subject. Fortunately/unfortunately the current standard of wikipedia articles on these subjects is so abjectly poor that it makes even a dilettante like me feel like a vidvān. :-) Abecedare 23:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

United States copyedits

Having dealt with a host of people who operate under the sadly mistaken—though often very loudly trumpeted—impression that they possess a particular facility with the English language and the competence to copyedit in that tongue, it's a pleasure to see someone who, making no claims other than the fine implications of a username, actually does. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I have enjoyed reading the article so far and left my comments at its FAC page. It will nice to see this article eventually featured. Abecedare 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nikkul

Abecedare, I would just like you to know that I am not trying to make more socks. I had just forgot to sign in the three times that it happened. I have moved your comment to my user page where anyone can comment on it, since I do not feel that it is necessary to have that on the Talk India page. You may block me if you feel for being disruptive, but I promise I will not do that again. It was just a joke. I have also appologized to Nichalp. Thanks. Nikkul 11:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie

Certainly Sir, but surely not OBE? - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right; someone added that in error. According to [2] he is a Knight Bachelor, which if my understanding is correct, means that he is knighted but not a member of order of chivalry. Ergo he is definitely not an OBE. Whew. :-) Abecedare 08:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Eskişehir Kılıçoğlu Anadolu Lisesi

Try PROD, if the PROD is contested, go on and send it to AFD. --Coredesat 00:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ganesha

I believe the article is ready to go through the WP:FAC process. What are your thoughts? Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll read it thoroughly in the next day or so, and see if there are any issues I can spot. If possible, it would be good to take care of all predictable issues before nominating it, else I have seen articles gather a few quick oppose votes and the regular reviewers then assume that it qualifies for WP:SNOW and do not even bother to look at it carefully. Abecedare 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

New Taj Image

Dear Abe,

I was quite sure that that image had not been featrured! I went to the image because the Author had requested that I give her the link. And I was going to tell her that I was going to nominate it for featured picture. When i got to the image, i saw that the image had already been featured, at which I was plesantly surprised and jealous (cuz I want to get that image featured). So i told her that the image was featured. I tried looking at the history of that page to see if anyone had put that there just like that, but there is no history tab on that page so I had to assume that it had been featured. I will be happy to nominate it. I definately dont want to replace a truly featured pic with one that is not. I hope you do not think it was I who did it. I would rather nominate it as a featured pic and get credit for bringing it here and getting it featured than declare it such. Please let me know if there is a way for one to search through featured pics without going through all of them one by one. Thanks. Nikkul 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Since you are a regular contributor to India related articles, I was hoping you could weigh in on this discussion. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_22#X_by_descent.Bakaman 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Baka, I broadly agree with you reasoning for merging these categories and will add my support with reasoning in the next day or so. Cheers. Abecedare 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

RKLaxman

He is now the "greatest cartoonist".Bakaman 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I had long intended to work on expanding this article, and had worked on the Early Years section in January but then got sidetracked. Hopefully this recent attention will spur me on :-) Abecedare 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi. Yes, I am Neil Paton. You're not the first one I've fooled.

Sardaka 03:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Manu Smriti

I would like to raise the bar on sourcing for this article, which is a popular soapbox. Would you help by giving the article a copyedit and challenging anything that looks like a weak source, POV, or other problematic content? The article keeps popping up as an issue on other articles, so I think that improving quality on it will have a ripple effect elsewhere. Buddhipriya 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have watchlisted the article and will keep an eye on it; although my time on wikipedia may be limited in the next few weeks. I haven't looked at the history of the article but given the subject, I expect it to be a battleground for ideological forces of various hue. Hope you succeed in making it encyclopedic! Abecedare 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Jaguar Smile, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hulagu

Regarding the article on Bharadwaj, I had permission from the author, who referenced published sources, prior to posting it on Wikipedia. What needs to be done to make this reference and reverse the changes as there are no copyright issues?

Hulagu—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulagu (talk • contribs)

reply copied from User_talk:Hulagu

The easiest way to establish that we have permission to reproduce material from the website onto wikipedia is to ass the author(s) to replace the copyright notice at the bottom of the page with GFDL license, that will allow the material to be copied and modified by anyone (including commercially). You can read more about the rules at Wikipedia:Copyrights. Note that even after permission is granted, it is not ok to copy the material without acknowledgment. Abecedare 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Manu Smriti

I would like to raise the bar on sourcing for this article, which is a popular soapbox. Would you help by giving the article a copyedit and challenging anything that looks like a weak source, POV, or other problematic content? The article keeps popping up as an issue on other articles, so I think that improving quality on it will have a ripple effect elsewhere. Buddhipriya 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have watchlisted the article and will keep an eye on it; although my time on wikipedia may be limited in the next few weeks. I haven't looked at the history of the article but given the subject, I expect it to be a battleground for ideological forces of various hue. Hope you succeed in making it encyclopedic! Abecedare 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Jaguar Smile, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for the nice butterfly. I am being quite careful to only take part in discussions about things I know something about, so I'm happy that others think my contributions are positive. -- Lexmercatoria 19:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Change of Image

Changed Tibetian Ganapati image to Image:TibetianGanpati.jpg as i do not have any evidence on paper to prove that earlier picture was a century old Thangka. Is this image acceptable? --Redtigerxyz 08:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you say the same about Tibetian Ganesha pic on the Ganesha talk page ? Thanks. --Redtigerxyz 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Oh yes, I know :) It's good that we're discussing it. deeptrivia (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to add updates on WP:HINDU

On the new-look WikiProject Hinduism page, there is a "Recently updated articles" section where updates and creations related to Hinduism can be listed which will bring its attention to other Hinduism editors. I encourage using it as an effective and efficient notification tool. Thank you Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Gizza, and nice job on remodelling the Hinduism Project and Notice Board pages!

By the way, I read your recommendation of merging the "Core Concepts" section of Hinduism into the lead, and I like the idea. I have to rush off now but will think over it carefully and add my comments to the Hinduism Talk page in the next day or so. Cheers. Abecedare 22:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ganesh images

Details for Vakratunda.jpg and Ekdanta.jpg have been provided can u just go through and correct licensing if neceesary.--Redtigerxyz 06:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also i located many images including Vakratunda.jpg(though my initial source was different) on www.vishvarupa.com. This link next gives the terms and conditons of image use http://www.vishvarupa.com/zz-terms-conditions.shtml. Please go through them and tell me if any of the images can be used. --Redtigerxyz 06:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is this

Do you know who this whitewasher is [3]? I'm not entirely familiar with the Indian problem users - I thought you may know better. It is clear that he isn't a new user and his editing reminds me a bit of that Hkelkar sock I encountered at the same page. What do you think? The Behnam 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually never had the good fortune to interact with hkelkar in person on wikipedia yet (at least knowingly :-) ) I am more familiar with the activities of User:Maleabroad, but this does not seem to be him. Perhaps you can ask User:Aksi_great - I think he has had some experience with catching Hkelkar's (and other's) sockpuppetry. Abecedare 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway. I'll check with Aksi. The Behnam 05:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotra

Can I be updated with the latest in Gotra about other communities you are monitoring?. There are Regional books published. Are they accepted?BalanceRestored 08:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single citation mentioned at Brahmin_gotra_system. Please update the same. BalanceRestored 08:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you are referring to here or what you want me to do and why. Abecedare 09:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I just thought of removing all the articles with no citations. I hope you do not have the problem.BalanceRestored 09:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend that strategy, as other editors involved with the articles you intend to remove, will have a problem with you actions. Instead I would suggest that you use the talk page, raise the concerns you have and discuss the edits you intend to make. Wikipedia is intended to be a place to cooperative editing and not adversarial edit-warring. Abecedare 09:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So, do you mind if I keep the Gotra details at Vishwabrahmin as there are lot of references provided for the same, but the only concern is that, editors are not finding reliable sources!!!. The article has just started only two days before. We are sure there are references in the Vedas about the Rishis mentioned by the Vishwabrahmin at their Gotras, Also there are regional books in India those mentions the linage in detail. But, it will take some time to get details from more reliable and globally available publishers. In the mean time, it is requested that you too use the talk page in case you find anything you think is not referenced. CheersBalanceRestored 09:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

consider themselves direct descendants

You wrote: are a sect or community in South India who consider themselves direct descendants of Lord Vishwakarma. Kindly provide a citation for the same. Kindly correct the same if you do not find the citation for the same.BalanceRestored 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not add that line; I only changed the previous assertion that they are direct descendants which is both unverifiable and POV. Currently the article has no reference at all; that is the reason I added the "unreferenced" tag to it - unless references are found the article is likely to be deleted. Abecedare 08:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vishwakarms are linage of Lord Vishwakarma there are citations for the same. Kindly use the talk page and wait for some time before you prove it is false. Also the edit was a disruptive one and I had to correct the same. But, it seems you unknowingly have undone the same. I will respect you if you kindly edit the same. Thanks heartily for taking interest in the topic BalanceRestored 09:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare, BalanceRestored 09:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please see my comment on the talk page of the article regarding the references you have listed. Also note that another experienced editor has previously corrected your POV language, so perhaps you should step back and reconsider your edit. Finally, since this discussion is about a specific article, it may be better to have future related conversation on the article talk page. Thanks. Abecedare 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vishwakarma references added

You have added the { { unreferenced } } tag. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishwabrahmin&diff=next&oldid=142413062. I've only added the top 5 Gotra those where currently mentioned. If you find the edits satisfactory kindly removed the tag.BalanceRestored 09:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

ThanksBalanceRestored 10:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Happy birthday

thanks very much for the hapy b-day message :} ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 08:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Thanks for you message (again!). I think I can understand why Wikipedia has these policies - it's all well and good for me to say "I'm a laywer, I know this stuff", but then, how can others here be certain that I am who I claim to be and that I know what I claim to know! (I've always liked this cartoon[4]) I just need to get used to relying principally on secondary sources (which is quite unlawyerlike, we tend to use only primary sources as far as possible), and accepting the limitations that their non-availability places. -- Lexmercatoria 00:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a small footnote to your comments on the discussion page for India: Hindi's position as an official language which is the first language of a minority is not that rare, actually. If you want an extreme example, Indonesia's official language is the mother tongue for less than 30 million out of a population of 220 million! -- Lexmercatoria 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I didn't know that about Indonesia and the related pages ( Indonesia#Demographics, Indonesian language and Languages of Indonesia) gloss over the native language issue. Abecedare 20:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If I were Supreme Dictator over Wikipedia, I would write something along the lines of: "Hindi and English at the Central level, various others at the State level and for specific purposes." It can probably be made a bit more concise, but that's the general thought I'd want to capture. Anyhow, this is a very very minor issue, and I honestly don't think it's worth agonising over any more particularly given the large number of articles about Indian law that are begging to be written. -- Lexmercatoria 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to explain the distinction to Fowler&Fowler here. As I said there, it is a rather fine one, just the sort of things my profession loves (and makes lots of money out of!) -- Lexmercatoria 20:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Natl language

Hi Abecedare,

First of all, let me clarify that I dont doubt that you're acting in good faith. Not in the least. You have always come across as a reasonable and constructive editor to me. My barbs(if that is how you perceived it) was certainly not intended for you. There are others however, over there who have made it their vocation to own that article. No change big or small is allowed to pass without the condescending drivel and filibustering of the self-styled watchdog over there.

Anyway, my claim that English was US's natl lang., didnt come from the National language article, though I guess(in hindsight) my comment there didnt convery it very well. It came from the United States article(which ofcourse, says "defacto"). Also, whether or not India is unique in regards to not having a "national" language or not, it should be unique(or atleast there shouldnt be many like us) in regards to having several constitutionally sanctioned languages being used in administration everyday. For example, the US has hardly any other language other than English and Spanish that is used in administration.

And for whatever it is worth, my understanding of a national language or anything "national" has been that it is just symbolism. The anthem, flag and the emblem may be exceptions, but everything else is just a symbol and nothing sacrosanct about it. The Lotus may be our national flower, but doesnt mean every garden should have a lotus. Or every zoo a Tiger. In other words, it is just another fact that ought to be tucked away in its rightful place and not worn as a badge.

With "official" langauges, especially in India's case, there is a truckload of fineprint and it is rather simplistic and non-NPOV to just mention E and H. Sarvagnya 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please do not revert edits before you prove all the citations false.BalanceRestored 06:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Abecedare_edit_warring

Complaint postedBalanceRestored 06:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review for Rail transport in India

The article Rail transport in India has been in Featured article review for some time now. Main issues have been addressed. Please see the article's entry. Now the article needs a review for the language issue. Can you please go through the article for improving the language? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't read the article before, but it looks interesting - should make a fun read over the next couple of days. Abecedare 05:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are promoting Racial Slur

You are found promoting racial slur at Nastika attacking 2-3 religions. Complaint registered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Promoting_Racial_Slur_at_wikipedia BalanceRestored 11:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nāstika

Hey, the definition at Nastika is, I think, also in error (or at least presents one, modern, emic viewpoint as NPOV). For your reference, here is Monier-Williams s.v. "nāstika mf(ī)n. atheistical, infidel m. an atheist or unbeliever (opp. to âstika, q.v.) Mn. MBh. &c -tā f. (MW.), -tva n. (cf. W.) disbelief, atheism ~kya n. id. (with karmaṇām, denying the consequence of works) Mn. iii, 65 -mata n. an atheistical opinion MW. -vṛtti mfn. leading the life of an atheist or receiving sustenance from an atheist Vishṇ." Lanman glosses it (Journal of the American Oriental Society 40, 196): "From na asti, 'non est (deus)', comes nāstikas, atheist." (M-W s.v. āstika actually cites Pāṇini, so this is about as authoritative a derivation as exists.)

The place to look to rewrite the Nastika page (I don't have an academic library at my disposal at the moment, but if you do might as well glance at it) is probably Heesterman, Jan C. "On the Origin of Nāstika." WZKS 12-13 (1969), 171-185. I'm pretty certain the immediate origin of the view presented at Nastika is Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's A Source Book in Indian Philosophy (1957) or works which take over, unexamined, his six-darśana classification of Indian philosophical schools. A quick search on Google Scholar reveals a colloquium paper which usefully suggests the shortcomings of that classification (http://students.washington.edu/prem/Colloquium04-Doxographies.pdf) and which might be a useful resource in rewriting some of the Wikipedia material on Indian philosophy. Rājagṛha 16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful note. I don't question your MW derivation of the term, which you'll note is also mentioned (indirectly) in the nastika article through reference to the word asti meaning pious, or believer. So far so good. However we should be vary of (for want of a better term) originalism , i.e., believing that a word's only or true meaning is the one used in some idealized ancient time. Instead, a words meaning is defined by its usage, and in modern usage the word nastika is used in both the sense of atheist (in common parlance), and to mean "heterodox" when used to denote the Indian philosophical school.

You are also correct when you say that the six-darshan classification was popularized by Radhakrishnana et al, and even the nastika article is careful to state in the footnote, "For an overview of this method of classification" when citing his work for details. I think you'll agree with me that there is no correct classification of Indian philosophy into schools, and all are post hoc constructs of convenience. Even disregarding that fact, wikipedia's NPOV policies does not enjoin us to present the true or correct classification, but only the most widely accepted ones - and we should aim to present the alternatives and criticisms in depth determined by their "popularity" (among the relevant community of experts, of course). This in particular means that a paper presented at a graduate student colloquium is not a sufficiently reliable source for this field on which tomes have been written - however the paper can serve as a useful starting point to find authoritative references that can/should be used to critique the six-darshan classification.

I emphasize that I am in no way trying to defend the status quo or the şaddarśana, just clarifying that our guiding principle while editing wikipedia on any topic should not be concern for truth (!) or correctness, but rather verifibiality and neutral point of view (and their progeny due weight). To summarize: I agree with everything you said except that I have have minor cavils against the use of the words (1) "unexamined": as per no original research we are supposed to use our editorial judgment to determine what experts in a field believe, but not question why they do so and whether they are right, (2) "rewrite": again the aim is not to replace a viewpoint we may object to or disagree with, but rather to expand the discussion to cover all prominent views in proportion to their popularity (not merit!). Welcome again to the weird world of wikipedia. :-) Abecedare 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: "On the Origin of Nāstika." looks interesting, but WZKS is apparently the Austrian journal Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens (Vienna Journal for South Asian Studies) which will be "Greek" to me, although there are editors on wikipedia whom we can ask to translate and summarize. Abecedare 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, all of which is well taken. Heesterman's article is in English, if you can get to the journal. Experts in the field here has to mean, I think, the status quo of scholarly research, and the properly encyclopedic way to present alternative doxographies is just that, as alternative doxographies. An article on the word nāstika should, it seems to me, first define the word, and its Sanskritic usage (MW amply attests to that), including in its self-affirming sense (Buddhists decrying Brahminical prejudice etc.), then discuss its modern usage, and probably finally point out that it can be understood as pejorative or a term of abuse. Similarly, it seems to me that a proper treatment of Indian philosophical doxography will give due weight to SR's influential treatment -- like "Raja Yoga" and other artifacts of the modern period, perhaps important enough to deserve its own article -- while not neglecting the nationalist background from which it arises or its covert assumptions, but will yet treat it as one classificatory system among many, many others. (I point out Pahlajrai's paper not as a reliable source in itself but because of his ample and concise citation of the wide Sanskrit-language variation on the question.) None of this is to argue with you but to hopefully build consensus so that an eventual rewrite of these articles goes smoothly. Rājagṛha 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I have access to WZKS from 1970 onwards - so close yet so far! The journal itself is in English/French/German, so yes, the Heesterman's article should be in English.

By the way, the above note was not meant to indicate a fundamental disagreement; rather since we agreed on so much, I chose to point out only the subtle differences. As you say, the nastika, and Hindu philosophy articles can certainly be expanded to lay out the the background history which gave rise to the classification and its critical appraisal. Perhaps a useful starting point would be to list a set of references that editors think can be used to expand the article, on the article's talk page. Buddhipriya has contributed greatly to the current content of the article (you can see our past discussions on the talk page), and it will be good to drop him a note too.

Finally, my belief is that while nastika is hardly a neutral term that Buddhists et al will choose for self-identification, it is far from a pejorative term in the vein of infidel or kaffir. In case you are influenced by the recent messages left by User:BalanceRestored on Talk:Vedas and above, please note that his view is hardly representative (see this discussion). In my experience, technical articles such as nastika are usually places of congenial and cooperative editing, unlike (say) articles on histography or nationalism. So don't fear that you'll have to walk through a minefield, to make knowledgeable edits to these articles. Abecedare 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourier transform

[Message from thenub314] Your absolutely correct in the fact that I left out the real part. It looks like other peoples comments have cleared the matter up. Do you agree? Thenub314 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Steven G. Johnson suggested the missing step and the equivalence you were trying to establish indeed holds. Thanks. Abecedare 00:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit war

User:SGGH said I was gay :( SGGH ^speak! 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm schizophrenic and so am I. SGGH ^speak! 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for sending that wonderful article. It was completely on target for the discussion. If I was compiling an Abecedare Sahasranama, it might start something like:

• Abecedare
• <redacted by an page owner Abecedare 04:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)>

(more to be added) Buddhipriya 04:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't embarrass me. The "Comparative Studies in Society and History" article was first mentioned by User:Wikiality123 on the Hinduism talk page a month back and I had looked it up at that time and even quoted from it. It was only recently though, when you mentioned the definition issue, did I recall the article and thought that you'd be interested in it too. Glad you liked it. In fact, for me this is the enjoyable part of editing wikipedia - expanding our own knowledge while we attempt to write an encyclopedia for other readers. Abecedare 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous brahmins

Please see this. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pranava Veda is "allegedly" a Veda?

Abecedare You made the following change and wrote, check the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pranava_Veda&diff=144120765&oldid=144120510 I did not find citation which says Pranava Veda is "allegedly" a Veda. BalanceRestored 05:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason the word "allegedly" is used is because, we don't know whether the "Pranava Veda" followed by the Vishwabrahims refers to :

1. the concept of Aum as a Veda, or
2. a separate and specific text

So the word allegedly simply represents our lack of knowledge. I have looked through academic databases such as JSTOR, ISI Index and Bibliography of Asian studies and none of them has a single reference to any document called the Pranava Veda. So perhaps we need to look into Tamil literature to see if we can find a reliable source that can clarify the nature of the concept/text; and you are perhaps best placed to make this search. Once we have found an authoritative source on this topic, we can change the language on the disambiguation page accordingly. Abecedare 07:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok AB, I will find out in tamil, I am trying to read tamil .. it is very very very very tough.. BalanceRestored 07:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine that! I hope you appreciate by now that neither Dbachman, Buddhipriya or I are trying to hide or demean the Vishwabrahmins, Pranava Veda etc. Our only concern is that we need to have reliable published sources for whatever we write on wikipedia. All the best in your search. Abecedare 07:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Temperature of India map

Hi, Abecedare. Sorry I didn't notice your message until now. Feel free to modify the maps as you see fit, but I should point out that the all the mapwork that went into the base map in this series of maps was done by Planemad and Nichalp (all I did was place some shaded sectors over India and add the legend/title). Thanks for spotting the mistake. Saravask 03:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Lalitpatil (talk · contribs)

Shivaji Maharaj

hello brother whatever i added is fully authentic.U can verify it from any source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalitpatil (talk • contribs)

Wikilove!

Sushant gupta has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sushant gupta 08:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dera Sacha Sauda

Hi, I dont know how to read Punjabi. I only know how to speak... But the way he puts it right now, I dont think it should be included (without a reliable source to cite it) — Lost^(talk) 07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks LitB. I have removed the Punjabi text (once again) since the editor who has repeatedly added it is not forthcoming with source/translation. Abecedare 07:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tirupati

I've emailed you. BalanceRestored 08:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: India Infobox

By default, if have three or more lines in the template, it will be collapsible, as the others templates with "NavFrame".. I tried use it In India article, but something is wrong. I don't know where is the error. I had use it with the same format as I used in the European Union article. Probably it is a bug of Media Wiki. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 00:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lena

You were right to remove the tag. I was thinking it was the RFU tag, which shouldn't be removed; I was going to re-add it and then dispute it, as that image is irreplaceable. But it wasn't the RFU tag, so I undid my change right away. Sorry for the confusion.—Chowbok ☠ 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism

Go ahead and revert me. As long as you are going to go ahead and fix the problem manually, I have no problem with that.... I'd rather not revert myself but no problem if someone is going to fix it correctly... IPSOS (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I should probably posted on the talk page, but people making up their own styles and implementing it is one of my pet peeves. They never seem to understand just how much work they are making sooner or later for other editors. They never seem to see why they should try to change the guidelines rather than just going ahead. It's one thing to edit boldly, but to ignore the fact that other editors will eventually edit it back toward the guideline is a serious blindspot! IPSOS (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's an extensive list of FAs using split method for notes and citations! Especially, Demosthenes is remarkable. Thanks a lot. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Karnataka FAC

Hello Abecedare,
Greetings! I believe this is first time we are interacting each other. :) Thanks for your review and comments on Karnataka FAC. If you think all your concerns/comments are addressed, please strike them off. If you want me to do that on your behalf, please let me know. Thank you! - KNM ^Talk 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think all the concerns I had raised in my partial review were very promptly addressed and I'll be happy to strike them down. I'll also read through the remaining section of the article and leave any comments on the FAC in the next day or two. Regards. Abecedare 02:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking opinion from regular editors on reference pattern

References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections

Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article Hinduism regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).

This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.

Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Please do so in Talk:Hinduism in the section Talk:Hinduism#Seeking_opinion_from_regular_editors_on_reference_pattern. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Message from Ancientcoinsofindia1( Amol)

All coins are mine and the scans / photographs are taken by me . So don't hesitate to use the image or information .

You can see image used by PHG Image:EranVidishaCoin.jpg, If you follow the same i will not have any objection .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancientcoinsofindia1 (talk • contribs) 13:38, July 27, 2007

Thanks for great info of editing on wikipedia Ancientcoinsofindia1Amol N Bankar 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint made at ANI

I am still inline with what VY told me, I've registered a WP:ANI as told. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Abecedare

BalanceRestored 10:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It will be good to get more neutral eyes looking over this. Abecedare 10:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:) Yes, it is good that neutral eyes see the same.BalanceRestored 10:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

BCSE

Thanks for your assistance. I got rattled when that editor with no record appeared out of nowhere to challenge this article. Admittedly I should have been more diligent tracking down their lobbying activities and included that. I do notice his only previous edit was an unsigned edit to Truth in Science complaining that it was not objective. Hmm...--Filll 23:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought you would be used to such tactics by now. :-)

Anyway, I just happened to see your message on Dave's page and decided to survey a bit. Glad I could be of help. Cheers. Abecedare 23:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindu demographic section

Abecedare, when you create a demographic section on the Hindus, please give serious consideration to my input on the talk page. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

reply

My userpage has been under continual attack for a while now, it hardly bothers me anymore.Bakaman 17:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The creative names have all come from established users, the trolls prefer to use schoolboy insults.Bakaman 17:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

HINDUISM : Reply from Vinay Jha

To Abecedare:Your objections to my editing has changed not a bit. You have not mentioned Surya Siddhanta in your new list of charges against me, because the reasons I had advanced were hard to refute. But if I was right, why the wrong view (taken from Johnson) is still there in Surya Siddhanta ? You wanted to invoke WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS against me, but I insist that these apply to that version of Surya Siddhanta Wiki still carries in spite of my protests. Why you are applying double standards? Either impose a ban on me if I am a vandal, or rectify that spurious article.

Initially you charged me of (1) unnecessary details, (2) WP:V, (3) WP:OR and WP:FRINGE, (4) WP:RS, unsourced contributions (5) NPOV.

Your new list of charges against me are (1)unnecessary details, (2) Verifiablity, (3) original research. (4) reliable sources, (5) Neutral point of view.

Hence, in spite of all the points put forth by me, the list of offences made by me remains the same, and will perhaps remain the same unless you readjust your opinion of my contributions. What was wrong in my attempt to pectify the lopsided definition of 'Dharma' in Hinduism? My definition was perfectly in tune with the article on Dharma. I had hoped that you will have some soul searching after learning the misconduct of some Wiki editors with me, but that was a vain hope. The present article on Surya Siddhanta still mentions : "The average length of the tropical year as 365.2421756 days, which is only 1.4 seconds shorter than the modern value of 365.2421904 days. This estimate remained the most accurate approximation for the length of the tropical year anywhere in the world for at least another six centuries." This is a totally false statement, based upon Johnson, and has no connection with any passage of Surya Siddhanta. Why you do not invoke Wiki policies agaist this pseudoscientific statement, wrongly glorifying Hindu science ?

Now your grudges are two : (1) my reference to sapta sindhu flowing to the east being mentioned in the Mahabharata,without providing the verse number and publication, and (2) my attempt to cite Gita on Samkhya.

My answer to both charges are :

(1)As for Mahabharata's reference to saptasindhu, Buddhipriya had deleted it and I had then sent a message on July 19, 2007: "When I return (at the end of this month) I will provide you the original verse of Mahabharata about Sapta Sindhu, which I believe you will like to keep in this article." I did not engage in any edit war, and accepted the action of Buddhipriya, and simply told that I will provide the source when I return from an international monsoon conference to be held by Indian Institute of Science where my paper was part of the conference program. Now I am free to provide as many sources as you may demand.

But you posted your second complaint againt me next day (on July 20) citing this episode as an instance of my irresponsibility. You should not have done this, because the passage was already deleted and I was out, having asked for some time before I return and provide the source. Why you act in such a haste ? Perhaps you do not think that such actions may force a person to leave Wiki, because many editors are already biased against me due to DAB's unjust charges levelled against me. DAB has included my long and largely unsourced contribution to his article brahmarishi (in which I cited all major statements from original texts because I remembered these Vedic hymns by rote; I had no time to consult the texts). Each and every sentence cannot and should not be sourced. Only those portions need to be sourced which are significant and may lead to controversy if left unsourced. Now, DAB is not making any charges against me, but you have taken the cue. Perhaps you do not know that modern scholarship and traditional Indian scholarship has one major difference : traditional Indian pandits are still expected to be master of each and every line of the original texts on which they are commenting, while modern scholars are allowed to work out their papers in libraries. I am a combination of both trends, but your hasty remarks are creating an environment against me in which I will not be able to work for long in Wiki.

(2) I had cited the original verse of Gita on Samkhya. Gita has an undisputed and fixed text published by a countless number of publishers. Gita is a source of Hinduism itself for a large number of Hindus, but it is unfortunate that some people regard Gita to be unreliable ! Buddhipriya's remarks are not palatable to me : "If an article on Jesus were sourced only be references to the New Testament, those who do not accept those scriptures as historical records could challenge any point made by them." . The New Testament is a historical record in its own right, although it may be added that different manuscripts have different dates, and one should make a reference to a particular manuscript if, and only if, other manuscripts give a different account. As for Gita, its text is fixed for well above at least one or two millenia, and it is therefore a historical record. Different manuscripts do not give different versions of Gita. Those who refuse to accept Gita as an ancient work must prove so. Some people say that Gita was added to Mahabharata at a later stage. But that is not the point I made. Whether Gita was composed before Christ or in 4th century AD is not my issue, I merely gave the point of view of Gita about Samkhya which Budhhipriya and you deleted ! The entire Vedic period is based upon Vedic texts, and if Budhhipriya's arguments are to be applied there, the Vedic period must be removed from history. This type of reasoning is a misuse of reason, and will make it impossible for me to work in Wiki. Wiki has innumerable articles based on such sources, and I fail to understand why different standards are being invented for me.

If Wiki editors will continue to engage me in useless debates, I will better leave Wiki. Levelling charges is easy, but answering requires time. I have wasted much time in answering undue charges levelled against me, and I could have worked on better projects in that time. It is not hard for me to see that my clarifications are falling on deaf ears. I am sending more through email to you. Instead of deleting everything contributed by me, try to discuss your differences on talk page. If you find sources wanting, ask for them and I will supply. Too many deletions portrays me as a vandal, which I am not. I never vandalised any article, I never deleted anyone's statement, even if it appreared to be wrong, except in one instance when I vainly tried to rectify the value of tropical year in Surya Siddhanta, making it more realistic. But I reaped the consequences. Those who are not interested in reading the original texts are making a mockery of me. -Vinay Jha 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Since my name has been mentioned, I would like to make a comment here regarding one specific series of edits that I think have been helpful overall, but perhaps presented in a way that it not consistent with Wikipolicies: [5]. Let me begin by saying that on balance, I think that on a content level much of this material is actually a valuable addition, and generally in line with my own personal opinions regarding the subject. Unfortunately, the editor has sourced the material by citations to primary scriptures, most of which are in Sanskrit (and thus of limited direct use by most editors), and with no use of secondary sources that would be considered reliable by the average Wikipedia editor. That in itself is not an impossible problem, and the comments made by the editor suggest personal familiarity with traditional methods of scriptural study that make such an approach understandable. The subject is somewhat obscure, and it is only by coincidence that I happen to have an interest in it and had done a makeover on the article just prior to the edit series. If you examine my edits in response to the scriptural additions, you will see that I removed some material that was completely unsourced and strongly POV. However I left most of it in, adding some fact tags to indicate that additional sourcing is needed, particularly from academics and from mainline Hindu works in addition to the scriptures themselves. I will try to track some of these down in the weeks ahead, simply because this is a topic I would like to learn more about. This example of an editing pattern may illustrate a correctable problem in which some cooperative sourcing effort may lead to the best outcome. Quoting scripture as a primary source can be done to establish what those scriptures say. What those statements mean is a matter of interpretation, which generally requires the use of secondary sources. And when the scriptures were written, and by whom, is a matter for historians and should be sourced by WP:RS in the field of history. Another way of saying this is that the edits made to Svadhyaya make sense and show a contextual familiarity with orthodox Brahmin practice, but they are not sourced in a way that is likely to be comprehensible to the Western reader. Buddhipriya 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, Here are my comments on some of the issues you raise above and some general observations:

• From your edits it is clear that you are a knowledgeable editor who can make useful contributions to several wikipedia articles.
• You initially experienced some growing pains acclimatizing to the wikipedia environment, although you are quickly learning your way around here. Here are some further tips that you may find useful in future:
  • On wikipedia any content one adds is edited mercilessly - sometimes to the article's benefit and sometimes not. In either case it is important (for ones own sanity) to not take that personally, and instead discuss the issue calmly on the article/user talk pages, while assuming that the other editors are acting in good faith.
  • If someone points to a wikipedia policy or guideline, please don't treat that as an accussation or a charge, but rather a friendly pointer. It is best to quickly go and read the relevant policy page, to try to understand what point the editor was trying to make and then decide whether one agrees/disagrees with it.
  • Wikipedia is a tertiary source edited by anonymous non-credentialed editors. Those two characteristics make the following two policies essential:
    1. Verifiability: any content on wikipedia should be attributed to an external, published , reliable source (please see WP:RS), i.e., even if an editor is an expert in the field he/she is not supposed to add content to wikipedia unless it can be sourced to a published work. If one discovers something new in a field, one needs to publish it in a book (with a reputable publisher) or in an academic journal, before it can be added to wikipedia.
    2. Academic journals, which are secondary sources, usually prefer that content be sourced from primary sources as far as possible. However wikipedia is a tertiary source, and thus requires content to be sourced from secondary sources, and not primary documents. So, surprising as it may sound, wikipedia prefers if one cites what a scholar X has to say about Bhagavat Gita (or Shakespeare's Hamlet), rather than cite Bhagavat Gita (or Hamlet]]) itself! In the above post, Buddhipriya has explained very well when primary sources are appropriate, and you can read more about it at WP:PSTS

I see that you have already started citing sources for your edits and getting used to the wikipedia manual of style. I hope that soon, you will also begin to cite secondary sources more often and phrase your edits in a more neutral language. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask me or any other editors here - also it is highly recommended that comments be kept short and to the point, so that individual issues can be easily addressed. Regards and happy editing. Abecedare 03:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

REPLY : I had anticipated (wrongly) that Buddhipriya will not like some of my edits and will make changes or may even revert everything, hence I had posted a message on DAB's talk page which perhaps you did not see, otherwise you must have reacted otherwise. I know Wiki policies you cited, but the problem was twofold : (1)I had to cite from Sayan's commentary of Rgveda (in svadhyaya)which is world's best commentary but has been translated in no other Indian or non-Indian language as yet, excepting into German (by Max Müller). I know little German. Moreover, quoting German on English-Wiki is worse than to quote from an original source in Sanskrit. Wiki allows such quotations in similar situations. (2) My second problem is more complicated, in which I need help from editors like you or Buddhipriya : as I had told to DAB, "I have not mentioned the publishers of Taittiriya Aranyaka and Upanishada because Wikipedians will like English translations while I use Sanskrit originals". Taittiriya Aranyaka and Taittiriya Upanishada have English translations, but I have always studied from the originals, and it is not possible for me to purchase English translations of all Sanskrit works. Hence, I quoted small clauses and gave literal translations which cannot be contradicted by anyone because all my translations are based solely on Monier-Williams who is regarded as the best English lexicographer of Sanskrit and worked for 50 years on it. Buddhipriya and others should help in finding English sources, instead of removing important contributions made by me. Fortunately, Buddhipriya has acted in a cooperative way, but in future I anticipate problems from less tolerant editors. Instead of deleting my contributions, editors should add tags like "citation needed" and discuss the matter first.

Initially DAB had perhaps misunderstood me to be a chauvinist Hindutva-vādi (cf. Surya Siddhanta, and not only reverted evrything but even refused to talk to me for many days, but this problem is now over, perhaps. In that phase, some charges were actually levelled on me and I was also converted into a sockpuppet due to no fault of mine. These problems are now over. If one refuses to talk, no problem can be ever solved. Even today, signing my user name on talk pages always fails to link to my user page, and I have to type manually to make such a link every time. -Vinay Jha 06:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the edits I have just made to Svadhyaya you will see that I have been trying to preserve the key ideas that you introduced, while at the same time sourcing them formally. This is a time-consuming process, however. I emphathize with the problem of lack of English equivalents of Sanskrit sources, and have faced it myself on other other articles such as Ganesha and Shiva where all of the primary sources are in Sanskrit, some with only limited English translations, and many of the best secondary sources have extensive Sanskrit materials in them that are untranslated. The best approach for this type of difficult sourcing may be to first raise the issue on the talk page for the article rather than on the article itself. Issues of sourcing can be worked out there, and then some consensus material put into the article itself with formal citations. That approach will reduce conflict and improve quality of the source materials. For your information, I try to follow a self-imposed one-revert rule. That means that I am easy to overcome if you choose to just begin an edit war (I surrender at the first shot). However in the long run, as more eyes come to bear on the action, others may eventually enter the fray. I have found that most conflicts can eventually be resolved on the talk pages, but it often takes a long time with much back and forth. Buddhipriya

Sritattvanidhi

An unfortunate outcome from the recent changes is perhaps worth addressing: [[6]]. Buddhipriya 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. I have added my comments on Sritattvanidhi and Rajachandra's talk page. Loosing useful content will be bad; loosing a useful contributor will be worse. Abecedare 02:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way am busy in real life so have been absent from wikipedia for some time and may be tardy over the next few days too. So don't mind if I don't reply to comments here or other talk pages in time. Abecedare 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

External link Delhi

Hi, You removed the external link to WritingTravellers I placed under the Delhi article. You referred to WP:EL. But I could not find a clear reason there for removing the link. Could you please explain a bit more why you think it should be removed? Fharmsen (talk)

Message from Jai

Dear Abecedare,

How are you doing?

This is regards your message about Sri Sri Ravishankar. I aggree that nobody is born double honorofic. So as per the conception, only sentences related to birth should not have "Sri Sri". Your advice to write a great article is always welcome. Thank you and Take Care... Jaimalleshk

Somebody is giving wrong information about The Art Of Living Foundation and are misleading People. I am doing Sudharshan Kriya from past 4 years and practicising it regularly. I have seen remarkable changes in my daily life. Please do not post / criticise false information about Art Of Living Foundation..

Let us be good, promote good people, organisations instead of spreading false critcisms on a non profit philanthropic organisation Thanks again --- Jaimalleshk

Comments I removed

Hello Abecedare - just thought I would bring to your attention to my action of removing these comments from the Hinduism talk page today, which I believe count as a form of concealed vandalism. The user has added similar comments in the past (although not as strong) and at present I'm not sure whether the matter should be taken any further? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious trolling by Anwar; should take it to ANI if he persists. Regards Abecedare 17:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry

I didn't know that, I thought flag icons were always put on at the start....oh well my mistake, I apologise Speedboy Salesman 08:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see..Personally I don't think it cheapens the article, but hey, that's my opinion...Thank you for pointing it out to me Speedboy Salesman 08:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Geology of solar terrestrial planets

Hi Abecedare, I created an article on Geology of solar terrestrial planets on 4th August 2007. Can you please do a bit review and tell me what all can i do in order to improve it and further pass it on for FAC. thanks, (if you wish to reply on your talk page then do inform me also) Sushant gupta 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing flag icons

Hi Abecedare, If you do get around to removing flags from places of birth and death, I suggest adding a hidden comment to the infobox. I've been doing this so new editors don't just keep adding them back. You can see how I did it at Mahatma Gandhi, in the edit view, where I added (inside comment tags), just above the place of birth, "Do not add flag icons to place of birth/death, per Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags". There may be a better way of saying it, but that fits on one line. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 04:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea! I don't plan an organized search-and-remove spree but will remove flags accompanying places of birth/death from articles that I run across; hopefully every bit will help. Regards. Abecedare 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving 'Maithili Brahmins'

Thanks for your well meaning advices. The article 'Maithili Brahmins' had two defects (1) its title was totally wrong, Maithili is the name of a language and not that of any branch of Brahmanas;(2) the matter within this article had almost nothing to do with the aims for which Wikipedia has been founded, and acted as an advertisement to a matrimonial website. Yet I have retained the link to such web sites and I also retained some of earlier matter in a changed language (because in the earlier article sentences from a website were copied verbatim without copyright permission, for which I received a warning from bot after I copied it to the new article).

In future, I will either use 'move' command or ask you to help in similar situations.

I have started a project of providing well sourced information about each branch of Brāhamana (esp. gotras &c) one by one, because all this matter will be untoward in a single atricle which already exists ('Brahmin gotra system').

While editing a talk page,the tilde for signing my name just gives my name and time, but does not give the link to my user page, for which I have to type manually. But this tilde works well in the main article. Can you help me in fixing this bug? Vinay Jha 11:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, there is no objection to the moving of the article itself, just the way it was done; since a cut-n-paste move breaks the article history and anyone looking at the list of contributors will think that you have contributed all the content in the current version (that is the reason the bot suspected you were responsible for the copyright violation). To be clear, I fully know that that was not your intention and making such unintentional errors is part of learning one's way around wikipedia. You can post a message at WP:SPLICE explaining the issue and an admin will help merge the article-histories to comply with the GFDL legal requirement. As the comment I posted on your talk-page said, you can use the "move" button for future moves; also in general it is a good idea to post a comment on the article talk page a couple of days before moving an article, so that other editors have a chance to speak up, if they have any objections.

I am not sure, why your signature is not working properly. You can post a question at the Wikipedia:Help desk and see if someone knows the answer. Hope that helps. Happy editing. Abecedare 11:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Viking17

It's good to see that there are people making sure that there's no vandalism on the Hinduism article. My changes weren't an attempt at vandalism though. I felt that adding "monotheistic" to the introduction, above the table of contents, would help quickly explain the basics of the religion to people coming to the article....I personally often use the first paragraph to get a basic understanding of whatever topic I'm looking at. The articles for Christianity and Islam, for example, include that, so I felt that the addition would be alright. I don't think I made any technical mistakes in my edit, so the only objection I can see would be that the information I added was false....although I can see how someone coming from outside Hinduism may believe that it is polytheistic at first glance, it is widely accepted that the beliefs of Hinduism fall under monotheism. I did read the section on "Concept of God"; nothing in there elaborated on the concept of atheism in Hinduism, and everything else in the section supports the idea of a single, all-powerful, all-pervading God. Based on both the existing article and my own personal knowledge, I believe monotheistic is a far more accurate and far less disputable "overarching term" for Hinduism than henotheistic is.

Wasn't sure what the problem was, sorry for overelaborating if it was just something small....I'm new to Wikipedia. Thanks for reading my comment, hope I put it in the right place (I didn't see a reply button for your message).

--Viking17

Comment

Hi Abecedare, Hello. This is Professor Anil Aggrawal. I feel truly honored reading your limerick. How can I get in touch with you through email? My Emails are dr_anil@hotmail.com

and

anil@anilaggrawal.com

Hoping to hear from you. Kind regards Anil Aggrawal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs) 14:49, August 2, 2007

Comment from Jaipurschool

Leaving Wikipedia

Please help me opt out of Wikipedia. I don't think I can be part of this group and its policies.

Regards.

Umesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaipurschool (talk • contribs)

Comment from NinadHardikar

Hey Abecadare, Thanks for the advice and the pointers..i am fairly new to editing at wikipedia...so i will surf around a bit and try to learn all the rules and policies etc :-) ..till then just keep correcting me

btw liked ur nick..very unique :-) ~ NinadHardikar

Re:

Hi there! good to see you too! I've been very busy for a few months, but it looks like the Hinduism page is in pretty good shape overall. I haven't read the whole thing, but I'm amazed at how many of the changes we made earlier in the year have been kept. Good work.HeBhagawan