Jump to content

User talk:DaGizza/Archive/25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pandit

[edit]

Could you tell me why you reverted the edits I had made to the article on Pandit? My edits merely expanded the article, especialy in respect of the non-religious uses of the word. If you still feel they were appropriate, could you give me the reasons why? Peace Abhikmajumdar (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit and Sikhism

[edit]

Dear Girik,

You asked:

Sanskrit‎ (sikhism? The SGGS has very little Sanskrit I think, someone needs to verify this)

The verses labelled "Salok Sahaskriti" are in a unique form of Sanskrit. It is not classical Sanskrit, but it a form of Sanskrit. see

The Sahaskritī Poetic Idiom in the "Ādi Granth", C. Shackle, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 41, No. 2 (1978), pp. 297-313.

Similar form of Sanskrit can be found in some inscriptions and some Jain texts.

Incidentally I need some help. Can you help me?

--ISKapoor (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Bollywood

[edit]

Pardon me for being a bit confused and perhaps you can help on this. Less than 24 hours ago, I created a Queen of Hollywood dab page in response to a listing in Rfd - in my research, I had found reliable references pointing toward about seven women (actresses and singers) who were each dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" - sources like the Los Angeles Times, Time, and several Indian sites related to national or regional publications (I found the names per the Google search mentioned in the RfD discussion regarding The Queen of Bollywood). So when I see that it was deleted as nonsense (essentially) from a fan publication, I was surprised as dab pages generally don't have citations. If the version you deleted is different from the last version that I posted, will you kindly restore my last version? It is likely that if there were several versions after mine before you deleted the article, that some level of protection may be in order as much of India seems to be devoted to several favorite Bollywood actors and singers. Many thanks in advance. B.Wind (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every popular actress/singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called The queen of Bollywood. It's full fangush and POV. Take Priyanka Chopra for example, she is merely a beauty pageant newcomer who is not even considered a talented actress. It's just a simple magazine/fansite description to praise female actors - there is nothing formal, and Wikpedia is WP:NOT a magazine.
Your list for example does not include top-actresses like Nargis, Rekha, Waheeda Rehman, Nutan, Meena Kumari, Hema Malini (who is the most popular Bollywood actress ever), Preity Zinta (who is Bollywood's most successful actress today), which invalidates their popularity. And that's my simple list; someone can come to morrow and wonder why another actress is not there. You can add many reliable sources, but it doesn't mean that you can add everything using them. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what?
It's by all means nonsense. I'm personally assuming good faith, so I will say that you have to familiarise yourself with some policies like WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE etc. DaGizza, please do something, he keeps reverting the articles to his magazine-style written version, although he knows this has been speedied. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 08:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in each case it was the restoration of one unsourced statement of fact and citations from reliable sources like the BBC, CBC, The Hindu, Time, and Newsweek - all of them major international news organizations. Contrary to his assertions, the removal of the sources and the statement they supported without checking them was assuming bad faith. In addition, I've pointed out in our discussion over the space of a few minutes that Wikipedia policies apply to all of us and that perhaps we both need to step back. Nonetheless, the dab page was improperly deleted as the rationale was not appropriate for a disambiguation page (which was actually prompted by a discussion at WP:RfD. I'll await a reply regarding the dab page (which could - and should - be modified as it was written on the basis of limited access to sourced information). Instead of behind at loggerheads, we should be working together as it is clear that Queen of Bollywood needs either a dab page or a stand-alone article (also as the name of a best-selling musical recording, it appears). B.Wind (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Queen of Bollywood looks better as a red link. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Read my above message: "You can add many reliable sources, but it doesn't mean you can add everything using them." especially considering it is a total nonsense. Shahid • Talk2me 09:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shahid and B.Wind, sorry but I don't have too much time to go over this now. I may explain in more detail but in summary I tend to agree with Shahid here. Unlike something such as the King of Pop which is a nickname for only one person, I see no value in a phrase occassionally used to describe an actress. I'll show you that many phrases (using Google) like queen of bollywood are used to refer to many people. [1], [2],[3], [4] and the list in endless. None of these phrases have an article or dab page obviously. I am busy at the moment but I can give more arguments in terms of Wiki policies if you want me to maybe tomorrow. Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 11:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Queen of Bollywood

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Queen of Bollywood. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. B.Wind (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject India Newsletter Volume III, Issue no. 001 - June 2008

[edit]
Project News
  • Tag & Assess 2008, an assessment drive initiated by the assessment department began on June 7, 2008 and will be running until July 2008. Many Wikipedians have started contributing to this mammoth task. This housekeeping activity will help manage articles in better way. You can also get involved!
  • Bot Assisted Assessment was successfully done using Bot0612 in May 2008. 1744 articles (18.5%) of all India unassessed articles were marked if they had been assessed by some other project.
  • What's Featured and Good?
  • IPL was hot on Wikipedia too!!! During the tournament, the article was among the most frequently edited articles. It is currently the only Indian article in top 100, occupying 58th spot.
  • Do you know of an article that is currently underrated? If so, please nominate the article at the Assessment Department's request for assessment. This will allow our project to get a better idea of the quality of our articles.
Article statistics and to-do lists
Current proposals and discussions
From the Editors
  • If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject India and also may choose to get this newsletter get it delivered as desired.
  • This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – July 2008). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
  • The last newsletter was more than a year ago and after feeling the pinch, we got together in working towards in renewing this feature for our members. Fresh pair of legs we are, and hence can greatly improve with your suggestions and ideas. Please feel free to let us know of your thoughts. We hope to release the newsletter on a monthly/bi-monthly basis as per our initial thoughts.
Contributors to this Issue
Did You Know?

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

QoB

[edit]

Article was unfortunately restored. I've started AfD. As I see, you have quite a firm view on the matter, so you can also participate if you want. Any vote is now crucial; things are coming out of proportions. It will be sad to see how the Indian cinema project is becoming a fansite, after so much work. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

[edit]

My previous edition specifically refers to the fact that Hinduism is the oldest major world religion. Is there an issue here? Trips (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

[edit]

Hello. I'm contacting you and other members of WikiProject Books in order to find if you are interested in collaborating to expand and improve The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence article to make it worthy of becoming a featured article candidate, in light of the fact that it is the first book the U.S. government ever went to court to censor before its publication. --Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory sentence in Hinduism Article

[edit]

Defamatory sentence in Hinduism Article

[edit]

Following sentence id defamatory and malicious in nature. "Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or are based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India.[4] Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India.[5]"

This sentence does not make logical sense either. First there is no such thing a Brahmanism, Word Brahmanism is a slur used by Christian evangelists for Hinduism because they try to project Hinduism as a religion of Brahmins and not the rest of the Hindu society. Similarly Vedism is also an invented word and does not make sense. Second sentense "post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions " is even more ridiculous, since it implies that there was change in cultural traditions in india after the buddhism. I recommend removing the whole sentence as it is based on invented words like Brahmanism and Vedism with malicious intent. Some users had provided a reference to Brittanica to justify the inclusion. On investigation I found that there is no such thing in britannica.

Please remove the sentense or unprotect the page.

CFDs

[edit]

Hello DaGizza,

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I have been assessing Hindu related articles for some time and for well over a month I have listed a number of articles on Hinduism deletion sorting. Due to this number, for the short term, I will only add one or two Afds at a time. On another note, I do appreciate your message concerning CFDs. This is a new area where I will look for OR categories. Also, in the meantime, if you have any suggestions on how I might make a better contribution to the Hinduism project, please do let me know. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credible author

[edit]

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Ellis NZ dual code int'l

[edit]

Hi I know you don't contibute on RL so much anymore but.... don't suppose you have access to a source saying when Marc Ellis (rugby footballer) made his NZ RL representative debut (what game, where) ? Rgds -Sticks66 04:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Vaishnava on the Article: Vishnu

[edit]

Hi Ma'am, I really appreciate your politeness in addressing my edits and also explaining to me kindly about the issue. I now understand it. However, I would like to submit that the sacred texts like the Yajurveda, Rigveda and the Bhagavad Gita are accepted as authoritative texts on the Hindu religion by a majority of the Hindus. These three texts, namely, the Yajurveda, the Rigveda and the Bhagavad Gita are a part of Hinduism and not just Vaishnavism. To describe my edits as purely a "Vaishnavite" point of view means that the sacred texts like the Yajurveda, the Rigveda and the Bhagavad Gita are not a part of Hinduism. The language used by me only state the facts of Hindu Religion and not a "POINT of View" of Vaishnavism. For Example, the Quran declares Allah as the Supreme God. Now if this is mentioned, it is not a point of view but a fact that the Quran describes Allah in that manner. User:Vaishnava —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaishnava (talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Vaishnava on the Article: Vishnu

[edit]

Hi Ma'am, I really appreciate your politeness in addressing my edits and also explaining to me kindly about the issue. I now understand it. However, I would like to submit that the sacred texts like the Yajurveda, Rigveda and the Bhagavad Gita are accepted as authoritative texts on the Hindu religion by a majority of the Hindus. These three texts, namely, the Yajurveda, the Rigveda and the Bhagavad Gita are a part of Hinduism and not just Vaishnavism. To describe my edits as purely a "Vaishnavite" point of view means that the sacred texts like the Yajurveda, the Rigveda and the Bhagavad Gita are not a part of Hinduism. The language used by me only state the facts of Hindu Religion and not a "POINT of View" of Vaishnavism. For Example, the Quran declares Allah as the Supreme God. Now if this is mentioned, it is not a point of view but a fact that the Quran describes Allah in that manner. User:Vaishnava —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaishnava (talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for responding civilly. I will respond on the main Vishnu talk page. Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 07:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Karma in Hinduism

[edit]

Gizza, I started the article Karma in Hinduism and citing theistic sources. I want to improve the article to a level to Featured article status.

Can you help? By the way, we were cursed by Vaishnava; see talk-Vishnu. Thanks,

Raj2004 (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important vote at wiki-project rugby league

[edit]

Many people have been working hard on getting a new infobox up and running and we would like to have your thoughts on the subject here.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

I Didn't get a chance to thank you for participating in the Swaminarayan poll. I remember some time back we got into a huge debate about POV within the article. What do you think about it now? Do you have any suggestions?    Juthani1   tcs 22:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AR Rahman photos: Encyclopedia or Photo blog?

[edit]

Hello,

The photos in the AR Rahman article seem to be copyrighted and it seems more like a photo blog rather than an encyclopedia! For example, there is a photo called "his pic", "his pic" etc...

I removed the photos but the person who posted them has reverted the edit. Perhaps you could assist? The link is here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar_rahman#Photo_Zone freewit (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARYAN818

[edit]

I saw where you reverted the IP that is changing Aryan's Userpage. H/she's still at it, and is IP hopping. Is there any way you can semi-protect the page until Aryan can chime in as to if they want the changes or not? Templarion (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the archive ;) BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/ADvaitaFan

[edit]

Hi YellowMonkey, this user is editing similar pages and with a similar tone to User:VedicScience. Could you check whether VS is sockpuppeting and therefore evading his/her block. Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 07:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the technical it is certainly possible. VS only edits from a home account, and ADF edits from an office computer. However, the locations of the home and office are only about 20-50km away from each other in teh same metro zone so that's quite plausible for a developed country with a good transport system. He seems very up to speed with all the policies and the like, and if he talks with the same idosyncrasies as well....YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Administration of Orissa Page

[edit]

Listen, I am tired of being accused of puppetry and what not on the Orissa page. There are at least 4 users who agree that the violence against christians in Orissa should be covered in the article on Orissa.

The violence in Orissa cleary passes the '10 year test'

  1. The "ten-year test" is one simple thought experiment which may be helpful: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics on the page, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" For example, in 2004 devoting more time on George W. Bush's page to the ongoing election rather than his previous one may have seemed logical. However, in ten years, when neither event is fresh, readers will benefit from a similar level of detail in both articles.

Sandwich Eater (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aryan invasion theory...

[edit]

hi, just to get your point of view on the topic and not to start a hardcore discussion. isnt the "aryan invasion" theory itself a biased one? i mean first of all its a theory. and it has been changed somanytimes to fit into the latest archaeological facts. there are no proofs suporting the theory. before 500 years the scholars in europe belived that the earth was flat, en for them it was a fact. we know better. do you think that the citation i added is fully without any facts? (Samar60 (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaGizza/Archive/25&oldid=1144893099"