User talk:Redtigerxyz/Archive2

User Visarga

Hello Redtigerxyz, thank you for rating article the Kaula and posting comments on my personal page. I was aware that the text gets too abstract at times. It is a challenge to make it more obvious but I want to take this challenge and improve my writing style.

By any chance do you have formal instruction in Sanskrit? I want to start studying it (hopefully some day to be able to read the Kashmir Shaivism texts in original, God knows there are many of them yet untranslated) but in Romania I can't find anyone to help. There is no Sanskrit course at the local universities in my country. Maybe you could give me some advice. I realize this pursuit is serious and might take more than a decade to get there but I still want to do it. Thank you. Visarga 14:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Shaktism

Hi Redtigerxyz

You wrote: "The article deserves a better rating. Would you mind if I nominate it for WP:GA status? You can do it yourself too." ==> Feel free! I am not going to touch that one with a ten-foot pole!

Re Lalita, you wrote: "The image says that it is 'unsigned religious art print' but there appears to be a sign at the right bottom corners, below the lamp stand and belows the agarbattis stand. Please check."

You are right. I updated the description to note illegible signature, and clarified that due to age of print it has been public domain for 20-30 years in any event.

Thanks as always! (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Subpage deletion

Just a note, if you require that some of your user subpages be deleted, use {{db-userreq}} instead of {{empty}} – this assures that the page is tagged appropriately, and so administrators can find the page more easily and deal with it. Cheers, Spebi 08:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ashta Lakshmi, 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.

--WjBscribe 17:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture

Sir, thank you for your comments on this FAC. I will provide all the citations you have requested for, clarify and/or make required changes where you have indicated your concerns, tonight. I will also move your comments to the the main FAC discussion page so that it is visible to all.thanks again.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made the necessary edits and changes you requested. If you have other concerns, I will gladly look into it.thanks. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The brightened image looks great. How do you do it? I need to learn that because it can help me with some other images I have.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look as I have addressed your recent concerns on the article.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are some phots that need some brightening up. I will indicate that later tonight.thanks for your efforts.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the yali image, go ahead and try it. If it looks good, then we can keep it. No problem there.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have uploaded over 300 images so far. From these, images that you could choose to/from to brighten up are,
Image:Somanathapura Keshava temple.JPG
Image:Belur shilabalika1.JPG
Image:Belur shilabalika.jpg
Image:Balligavi Kedareswara kirtimukha.jpg
Image:Lakkundi Brahma Jainalaya.JPG
Image:Keladi Rameshwara pillars.JPG
Image:Keladi Rameshwara nandi.JPG
Image:Keladi Rameshwara mantapa.JPG
Image:Belur Chennakeshava pillars1.JPG
There may be some others that need touch up too, but I dont want to burden you too much. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Those images look much better now. This is one of the tough things about photography of Indian architecture. As described in the article, lighting is often subdued inside the temples which adds aura but makes photography difficult. Often, artifical lighting is available, but can interfere with the image itself. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for supporting the article and for the time you took to thoroughly screen it.I will be writing a FAC of Vijayanagara architecture soon, an article I started a while back but got busy with other articles. Please do make yourself available for screeing that article also, when it comes of PR/FAC.thanksDineshkannambadi 15:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Did you mean you want the link to the article the image resides in? or a link to the image itself?thanks. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I know one user has objected to the grammar. But since then two copy editors, unconnected to the article have looked into it. So that issue will go away. If the issue persists, I will look into the Leaguge of copy editors. As such, there is nothing wrong with the articles grammar. Each reviewer has his/her own style and it is alomst impossible to please everyone. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. thanks. Looks good, so far.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement and all your efforts.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN

Regarding your recent edit to the Good Article Nominations page -- it should not have been made. The article hasn't been reviewed yet and so couldn't have failed. Please don't do this in the future. Regards, — Rudget _{contributions} 14:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. But, that was an older review in May. — Rudget _{contributions} 14:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mahakali article

Hello Redtigerxyz,

I reverted the Mahakali page to the revision that I did at the beginning of the year. my justification for this is that merely redirecting to the main Kali page is insufficient for a comprehensive encyclopedia; if someone were to ask me, "what is the difference between Kali and Mahakali?" I would direct them to the wiki page. being that Sadhana of different forms of Kali may vary wildly, it is important to distinguish between forms. for example, Narasimha does not redirect to Vishnu even tho Narasimha is one of Vishnu's avataras. I feel that this adds to the comprehensive nature of Wikipedia. Also, being that Mahakali can be seen in a Samkhyan light as opposed to simply an honorific of Kali or independent manifestation, this information is important for those wishing a better understanding of Shaktism. All of the Shakta pages I have made edits to are works in progress while I perform my weekly job duties. They will all be fleshed out further as time permits.

Thanks,

Sedusa66 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 December 2007

Oh, also, I took a look at the main Kali page, and while some of my info has been absorbed into that article, I personally find it very unwieldy. There are too many fingers in that particular pie so all edits I make to THAT page are going to be minor, I believe. I don't believe that the article is very user-friendly; but that's just IMHO. in any case, in the near future you will see more information added to the Mahakali page, and it will be more apparent why She merits Her own page.  :)

Sedusa66 (talk • 12:34, 7 December 2007

Om Shanti Om

Hello Redtigerxyz!

I noticed you undoing my revision on the Om Shanti Om article. First of all, it's not nice. Secondly, Bollywoodpremiere.com is in anyway not an RS. If you want this controversy to be featured in the article, please add a reliable source. I haven't removed the controversy yet.

What about Shaktism? What are your plans? Is there any progress? Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, as I said, I have no problem with this controversy in the article. Yet, please look for a reliable source in the meanwhile.

And I suggest you to go to some of the GA reviewers, and ask to review Shaktism. It told you guys that it would take ages. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

About Mahalakshmi Temple, Kolhapur

I saw the changes you made in Candi article. The Mahalakshmi temple is called a Sakthi Peeth. Sakthi Peeths are not associated with Lakshmi the consort of Vishnu. There are three images. Please see the article

http://www.indiantemples.com/Maharashtra/kolhapur.html

Above the Mahalakshmi sanctum is a shrine with a Shivalingam and a Nandi. These are not asociated with Lakshmi.

Though the temple was not that of Lakshmi originally, may be later on some King has tried to make it a Lakshmi temple by erecting the Garuda Mandapa and associating lord Venkatesha with it.

It does not really matter. But I thought you should know.

Having spent a number of years in that part of Maharashtra, I know the temple well.

Thank you.

--Sankarrukku (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mahakali and Chandi

Did not know I had to get your approval for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks for telling me who is boss around here.--Sankarrukku (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Om Shanti Om

Hello Redtigerxyz! You've undone my addition in the Om Shanti Om article- I had added a new heading Trivia and included a fact. I don't understand as to how it violates Wikipedia rules? Is it the English or is this spamming, or is it unworthy of a wikipedia article? I see such Trivia sections in numerous other movies- so whats wrong with this? And whats the problem with you guys at Wikipedia? Do you not like any addition we new users provide? DO you just want it to be completely under your control? Why do you guys keep removing stuff I add without reason? Why don't atleast put it up on my talk page speaking about removal- it's ill manners to do such a thing! Remember- the very reason you're a regular contributor to Wikipedia and I'm not is because I've not been able to access the Net until pretty recently. I too have immense knowledge to share with one and all which I shall do in due course. SO PLEASE DON'T GO ABOUT UNDOING SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK WITHOUT WARNING! Thank You Sweetprashanth (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I didn't notice you mentioning the reason for deletion in the Talk page of the concerned article. Being a new user I'm liable to such mistakes. Kindly excuse me for that. But that does not still answer my question. You say you've removed Trivia due to one (or more) of the following reasons: "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel — continue to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research" See WP:TRIV. IMO the facts in the trivia section fit the "speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel" defn. Thus removing Trivia. But, the fact I've provided does not fit into any of the following : speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel Then why can it not be part of the film's article?

Sweetprashanth (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kapala

Hi. Thanks for adding the image to this article. See you 'round. Curious Blue (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Vajreshwari.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vajreshwari.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shaktism

The article Shaktism you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Shaktism for things needed to be addressed. SriMesh | talk 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. You have done very well fixing the above concerns. Are you going to change the lead to introduce the other sections. This is proposed as when the article goes to FAC, only the lead shows on the main Wikipedia page...so only the lead can induce the reader to keep delving further into the sections of the article. Let me know, and I will upgrade the GAN rating. (see quote on talk page from WP lead) Kind Regards. SriMesh | talk 00:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On December 18, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tandava, 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.

-- Royalbroil 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting this article done for DYK. :) Ekantik ^talk 06:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I also tried a DYK nomination recently for that article here, but yep, those rules sure are annoying.

I've actually been on wikibreak for the last 8 months, haha. But this is one of those spells where I'm back for a while and hopefully for a bit longer. I keep the notice up because I'm affiliated with various WikiProjects and don't need people bugging me asking for housekeeping etc., so I can just concentrate on a few select articles. :) Ekantik ^talk 04:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shaktism

The article Shaktism you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Shaktism for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Thank you for addressing my comments in the talk page, you'se have all done a wonderful job on the article - Good luck in all your future endeavours.SriMesh | talk 00:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Devanagari in Shaktism

Hi ... I see you've already inserted some Devanagari into the Shaktism lead. Proper name for Shaktism is not Shakta (that is either an adjective; or else a noun describing a practitioner, not the practice itself); but ShaaktaM, Sanskrit "doctrine of power," derived from Shakti, Sanskrit power ... (Devi bhakta (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Your GA nomination of History of Shaktism

The article History of Shaktism you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:History of Shaktism for things needed to be addressed. SriMesh | talk 04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of Shaktism

The article History of Shaktism you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:History of Shaktism for eventual comments about the article. Well done! It is an honour to be able to pass this article. Good luck with your aim to achieve feature article status! (You'se deserve it) SriMesh | talk 21:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Shaktism FA Nomination

Thanks so much for your kind messages and your efforts in nominating and helping to bring these articles up to GA and FA levels. I received your message re: the Oppose, and have attempted to address it. Thanks again! DB (Devi bhakta (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Shaktism Feature Nomination

I think it is too soon to withdraw. I'd like to see what others have to say. The quote issue may be legitimate but it is not a "quick fix." A couple of the critiques, strong though they are, lack substance. One of them didn't notice that there was a History & Philosophy subsection, the other merely mentions the quotes issue and the rest is just gratuitous insult. Personally I would like to see more input. To withdraw the nomination based on a few non-constructive, under-baked critiques seems silly. Once I have a good pool of critiques to work from, I will have a better idea of how to re-frame the article -- or simply an educated basis for withdrawing it. What do u say? (Devi bhakta (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Re: Khandoba

Ah I see. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Yep that sure does seem very unencyclopaedic. I wonder what else can be done? Ekantik ^talk 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This WP:OWN by Vishal is getting annoying. I've put a warning on his (anon IP!) talk-page and we'llsee what happens from there. By the way, congrats on the Vajreshwari DYK and have yourself a happy new year. Ekantik ^talk 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vajreshwari temple, 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.

--Wizardman 18:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha

Congrats! on the featuring of this article as main article. Seasons greetings and a happy new year to you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Shiva

I've reviewed the article for GA status, and left comments on the talk page. Please address the concerns as soon as possible, so that I can pass the article.Bless sins (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this: for now I move the worship section to talk, and pass this article. If a user comes along before Jan 8, and sources, then I'll add the section back. If not, you can add the section after Jan 8 yourself.

Alternatively I'll leave the article as is, neither passing it nor failing it, until you rewrite the worship section in jan. However, I can only put it on hold for 7 days, after which another reviewer can pass or fail this (I can only guarantee my actions, not those of other reviewers).Bless sins (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Manasa, 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.

Cheers, Daniel 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Shaktism edits

Thanks for your note. If you cannot edit without removing quotations, please refrain. I have more than two decades of experience copy-editing; we do not need to approach any third party to "get rid of quotes". As noted earlier, I will do the job. However, like you, I am "busy in real life" and such extensive edits (which I do not entirely agree are needed in the first place) will not happen instantaneously. Repairing erroneous deletions will only extend and complicate the job. Thank you for your understanding. (Devi bhakta (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Please assume good faith. I am requesting a courtesy, not claiming ownership. I am simply interested in making the article as accurate and fluid as possible, within style guidelines, and very honestly felt that your initial edits were such that they would complicate rather than simplify that job. The handful of FA critics who have weighed in do not "own" the article either (as noted, they often do not even reflect a close reading), and frankly I would rather remove the article from FA consideration than have it diminished in an attempt to appease them. On the other hand, if you wish to refrain from precipitous edits, I feel certain that I can successfully incorporate the suggested changes. It is up to you. (Devi bhakta (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

Abhinavagupta picture

Hello Redtigerxyz, first let me thank you for your continuing support and advices. You are teaching and motivating me to improve my writing, and the Abhinavagupta article is not the first article of mine you reviewed.

I have applied almost all the suggestions you made. I still have a little conversion to do at the list of works section. Regarding the picture, there might be some problems. You see, there are only two pictures of Abhinavagupta on the internet, one is from a book by Pandey [1] and the other from an article on ikashmir.net [2]. They are from different paintings based on a description in prose of the master made by a disciple. The description is 1000 years old but the paintings might be recent (at least under 100 years old).

I have written to iKashmir.net to ask for permission. I don't know if they are the owners of the rights. We might also take a policy of wait-and-see, though, it might be against the Wikipedia rules to do so. On the other hand, not having any picture is pretty difficult to accept, it would detract a lot from the article, I think. What do you say? Btw, the frame was a little Photoshoping work I did on the picture from iKashmir, and now that you have removed it, we're back to square one. LOL. Funny, isn't it?

My second plan is to have a painting made here, in my country, by an artist, based on the two variants of the Abhinavagupta images and the prose description, but I don't know when that will be available for posting online - it depends on the artist. The painting will be sufficiently distinct from the other two so as not to have copyright problems. As a big fan of Abhinavagupta, I wouldn't mind having a big nice oil of him.

I see you are working on Shaktism and Matrikas. I might have an interest in the Kashmiri Shaivism perspective of that. In KS there is the practice of uccara (mantra meditation) with phonemes. I have been studying the phonemes for more than a year at a formal KS course I am attending. There are many books on the subject but none as complete as my course so I don't know yet how to get references for all that needs to be said. Regarding Shaktism, there is a Srividya connection with the Kaula and Krama schools. Sometime I will have to dig into that too. I just pray to be able to maintain a continuous rhythm over enough years to get to that article too.

Do you think we could have conversations directly over email? I think it would be a little easier that me writing on your discussion page and you writing on mine. My "E-email this user" link is functional. You can contact me on that so I can learn your address without posting mine here. I hope I am not imposing too much. :-) Visarga (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism

I thought the maroon and gold colours were about as evocative of Tibetan Buddhism as we can get. I initially used a dark maroon - a deep burgundy colour but it was too dark for the writing. As for bright colours -what about all of those beautiful prayer flags, thangkas and sand mandalas!!! I and John both think the template serves a useful purpose and is attractive ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 10:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If we could get the text to be white rather than blue the dark burgundy would be good. I originally used #9F1D35 but was too dark for the writing ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 10:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes thats what we originally started with and yes it is closer to the robes. If we could change the text to a white colour or black it might work. But trust me as it is the deep burgundy was too dark for blue text ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 11:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bhagavad Gita

The article Bhagavad Gita you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Bhagavad Gita for things needed to be addressed. SriMesh | talk 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Made some checkmarks for your awesome progress! SriMesh | talk 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For fair use images go directly to the image page...and I see that it is completed. Will strike it out. Thanks :-)

SriMesh | talk 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess what!!!... The article is ..... passed !!!! Congratulations and very best regards on your continuing progress with it. SriMesh | talk 00:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bhagavad Gita

The article Bhagavad Gita you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Bhagavad Gita for eventual comments about the article. Well done! SriMesh | talk 00:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Matrikas

I didn't review this article as I have been sick with cold/flu for a little while, so it was hard to do the concentrating needed for review. It is good that Dihydrogen Monoxide had a putter with it, and you'se achieved Good Article Status. I puttered with some rote items for a bit while awake. I did see that you had another article up for GAN, Bhagavad Gita, so I worked on it, now that I am feeling better. It is too bad that the Shaktism article couldn't go to feature. Good luck.SriMesh | talk 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re article above Matrikas sometimes the {words in parenthesis} have a space before the leading { sometimes there is no space. In the same article be consistent for appearance. SriMesh | talk 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. All I did in that edit was a minor. I just made sure if a {statement) like this was in Parenthesis that there was a leading space throughout the article, and that Something{something) didn't appear like that but like this --> Something {something)...so very minor edit. SriMesh | talk 05:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry about the doubling up. Oops. Will try again.  :-) SriMesh | talk 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing Jagatkaru to Jaratkaru

Well, different texts can potentially have different names but you may choose to use the correct one by tracing the sanskrit etymology. Besides, if you want to use 'Jagatkaru' then that should be used uniformly ; however at one place in your article, it says 'Kashyapa married her to sage Jaratkaru,'.

I shall humbly advice to stick to the sanskrit text as much as possible because, during the 18th century and early 19th century, the age of formation of the transliteration of sanskrit text, different indologists has transliterated sanskrit words in different ways.

Amitava Chakraborty (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Matrika: Nepal

Thanks for the message. Well, Ajima is one of the original Newar deities. She is the mother protector. Over the course of time, the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism developed in Nepalmandal (the area of Newars) which resulted in fusion of Newar, Hindu and Buddhist deities to create a pantheon unique to Newar. Since this deity is the same as Matrika in Hinduism, the two cultures blended. Most of the Ajima temples are considered as Matrikas/ Shaktipeeth today. About Nepalese view of Matrika, the Khas and Madhesi who form the majority of Hindus in Nepal have the same system as in India. However, the system in Newars are a bit different owing to Ajima-Matrika combination. I will add the Nepalese view as soon as I get some citable source in English. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Dear RedTiger, I appreciate your editing, and especially your recent improvements to the Bhagavad-Gita page. I hope you understand my concerns in regards to the ISKCON article. Politics are rife on the internet, especially in regards to religion. My aim is keep the content as encyclopedic as possible. Hari Om, ys, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done on pushing Bhagavad-Gita into the GA category :-) The Jagannath temple story didn't make any news at all in the Western world. I'd only heard it through the internet. My guess is that it's one of those things that'll probably be forgotten about (by the media) in a short space of time. All the best, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For your work on Hinduism Articles

		Hinduism Barnstar
		Great job for all your work on Hinduism Articles.SriMesh | talk 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

GAR

I think you will do awesome in doing a good article review! It is amazing how much learns from creating articles, and then also, how much one learns from doing a GAR. Good luck. I will peek in at Matrikas, but not tonight, as it is getting late here. SriMesh | talk 05:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

D. D. Home

Daniel Dunglas Home. I think I have done all of them as you wished. There is only one thing with the years or names of sections. --andreasegde (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you have another look? --andreasegde (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken all the google references out. --andreasegde (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

All the best!

A Barnstar from Bhadani to Redtigerxyz for your regular contributions for upgrading the quality of the Project's content. --Bhadani (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sure. --Bhadani (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi

Thank you for removing article from list. I had a peek, and did control F and it didn't come up that it was still there, so it was curious. I see now my last entry for the article was hold. I did update the article talk page and the good article page. I usually leave the GAC page for last so I can still contact the submitter with the results. It was getting late... so I must have contacted them, and gone to bed and forgotten about the GAN page, but I don't know why it didn't appear when I searched for it. Ah well. Thanks again  :-) SriMesh | talk 05:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Thanks for catching that. I meant to nominate Easy Jet, and really shouldn't do something like that so late at night. Thanks again!Ealdgyth | Talk 14:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

American Ceylon Mission

Thanks and will update it with time. Taprobanus (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I went through your GA notes. I have to say that you really do take this very seriously. I learnt a lot from your review as to how better to write an article. By the way I read your Khandoba article. That deity is so much similar to one we have in Tamil regions called Murugan who is identified with Skanda. Even the rituals are similar. Good work Taprobanus (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nader Shah

Can you explain your comments leading to your "quick fail" of this article? Especially the claim it "had a virtual or complete lack of reliable sources". What on earth are you talking about here? I've fixed the minor problems with the article you pointed out but some of the other comments you made are simply incomprehensible or show an imperfect understanding of Good Article Criteria. Thank you. --Folantin (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please reinstate this article as a Good Article Candidate since your review "quick failed" it for an invalid reason, namely "A complete lack of reliable sources". Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've reinstated it myself. --Folantin (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You should have asked a neutral party to resinstate it instead of doing it itself. Just my opinion. We are all volunteers here. So we need to be civil to each other. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It was failed on completely specious grounds. I am quite within my rights to reinstate it. " We are all volunteers here". Yes, other users and I have volunteered a good deal of our time to work on this article. The least we can expect is for a reviewer to read it properly and know what the applicable review criteria and policies really mean. Thank you. --Folantin (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yoga template

Plz see the template discussion. Regards, NazarK (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarasvati River

Could you explain why you rated the importance of this article "High" for the Hinduism Project? I could understand such a rating for the India Project, as it's quite a political football. By the potential readership criterion, the average person looking for information is likely to be motivated to look here, in my view, by something that dealt with current affairs (social, political, etc.) rather than something that dealt with Hinduism per se. In relation to Hinduism (i.e. the intrinsic relevance criterion), I don't see the Sarasvati River as something that it would be of high importance to know about thoroughly. Perhaps you see this differently? (Please reply here, I'll check back; or if you like, you could move the thread to the Sarasvati River Talk page; I prefer to keep a thread all in one place. Thanks!) rudra (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The river is praised in the Vedas, identified with Sarasvati and is believed to form one of the holiest Sangams with Ganga and Yamuna at the Triveni Sangam, Allahabad. You are welcome to reassess if you disagree with my assessment, without any further discussion.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC) (copied over from User talk:Rudrasharman)

Thank you for your explanation. As I'm not one of the assessors signed up for the project, I'd rather not change the assessment, especially without discussion. Since you're not inclined to discuss the matter, I'll just drop it. rudra (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mahabharatha

Hi there! As the main member of the assessment team for WikiProject India, I noticed you've nominated the article for a GA assessment. I've had a brief look and see that the article contains a stack in terms of text and content. Is there any reason why you'd rather not skip the GA process and try for FA? It might be easier for both the reviewer(s) and the editor(s) of the article if multiple reviewers and editors participated. So, if possible, it might be more beneficial if you nominated it as an FA candidate rather than as a GA nomination. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mahābhārata

The article Mahābhārata you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Mahābhārata for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

I had nominated Jaffna Kingdom article for GA, status. I respect your opinion. If you havetime, can you kindly take a look at it ? Also I would appreciate your views on if Aryacakravarti dynasty can be nominated for GA status. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a million :)) I have nominated the other per your evaluation 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

Suspicious Link

Could you check in on the Surya Page again? Someone has placed a suspicious link there under the name Theholisticcare. Cheers.--AaronCarson (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Vajreshwari Discussion

Actually my question, posted in the Vajreshwari discussion page, was in the interests of enriching the article, not the meandering speculation it might have seemed. However, I'll try to limit my, material, and make it more pertinent from now on.--AaronCarson (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Once Again Thanks

Thanks again for all your help with my articles and posts. I have read the policies regarding posting on the talk pages and now I've re-read them at your prompting. I respect that the talk pages are not blogs, where people can vent their various opinions about religion and politics, and spout random speculations. However my thinking was this: if Vajreshwari had ever been associated with any other Goddess besides Parvati, then I felt it should be included in the article. It struck me as particularly odd that she had been identified with Parvati, as Parvati is hardly ever depicted with the thunderbolt, has no affiliation with storms, and is not normally associated with the colour red. Shachi, however, is associated with these qualities. I was hoping to promt someone who reads the talk page to look further into the matter as I live in a remote area and my library has been depleted due to excessive lending out of books and scriptures. I am, however, well read on the topic of Goddesses for what it's worth. If this style of discussion is not acceptable on Wikipedia, then I opologise. I am learning the ropes and getting my bearings, but I assure you, I am trying to help, and not hinder, the content of Wikipedia. I hope you will continue to be as patient with me as you have been. Many Regards--AaronCarson (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC) You weren't at all rude, I just wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from with that question. Thank you for your helpful, and complimentry comments. Look forward to seeing more of you on Wikipedia. --AaronCarson (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Consorts of Ganesha

The article Consorts of Ganesha you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Consorts of Ganesha for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ganesha Purana

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ganesha Purana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. jackturner3 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)