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)
Dear Girik,
You asked:
The verses labelled "Salok Sahaskriti" are in a unique form of Sanskrit. It is not classical Sanskrit, but it a form of Sanskrit. see
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
|
|||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
No comments have been added.