This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, abec, I dont know wether you're an admin, but you certainly seem to be a helpful person. I was wondering if you could have a look at these comments and review Canvassing guidelines. Rueben lys 13:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rueben, While the language of F&f's message could (should?) have been more neutrally worded, I know that Bhadani, Nichalp, Sundar etc. are some of the most experienced editors on the India page/project, whose opinion would have been valuable in this debate, and more importantly (as far as canvassing is concerned), who are unlikely to be swayed by "personal considerations" as opposed to the merit of the discussion. Also, the RFC does not seem tainted with one line "agree with Fowler"/"agree with Ruben" support votes, but has seen substantiative input from a number of editors. So my (non-admin) opinion is that bringing up the charge of canvassing will only generate more bad blood in this debate, and not help deal with the actual content issue.

As I have stated on the Talk:India page, I think both F&f and you have worked commendably to gather sources to support your respective POVs, which is a useful exercise not only for this immediate discussion but also future improvement to the various history of India articles. It is unfortunate therefore that the debate has in parts turned personal and heated, and I hope that will not distract from the central issue. Regards. Abecedare 16:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Both pf the two main protagonists have put tremendous effort. While F&F has been a great editor for quite a while, and helped a lot in India related articles, I did not know Rueben much. However, they have really showed great efforts. Now, something concrete need to be done, whatever that may be. Do put in your cents. Those will be invaluable. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 01:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Really happy to get my 1st Barnstar! Knowledge Hegemony 16:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, I saw you message on Sarvagnya's talk page regarding the right usage, "remover of obstacles" or "lord of obstacles". I tried to find the discussion in talk page but was not successful at it. Even I feel "remover of obstacles" is the right term to use. I saw many scholarly works noted in talk page using the term "lord of obstacles" and I'm not really sure what they mean by that. The term "Vighna Nivaraka" means the remover of obstacles, right? Gnanapiti 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnanapati, The discussions are in Talk:Ganesha/Archive_2, specifically in sections: God of (removal of) obstacles and Vighneshwara - Remover of obstacles.

As you point out, "Vighna Nivaraka" does mean remover of obstacles, and there is no doubt that that is a (important) role of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon. However the point made by Buddhipriya on the talk page (and also confirmed by me independently) is that, as per numerous reliable sources specifically focussed on the deity, Ganesha in fact has a larger role as both a vighnakartā (placer of obstacles) and vighnahartā. This is also attested by other names of Ganesha, such as Vighnesa, Vighneshwara, Vighnaraja etc. (a very rough analogy would be that he is the God of "Luck" rather than "Good luck" :-) ). See also the discussion at Ganesha#Obstacles. Of course, if this is not convincing, please feel free to bring it up at Talk:Ganesha.

Aside: IMO Ganesha is perhaps the single best article in the Hinduism project, thanks mainly due to the efforts of Buddhipriya, Redtigerxyz and DaGizza etc. We are planning to nominate it for FA soon and it has already been peer-reviewed and copyedited by two (!) editors from WP:LoCE. Before taking it up at FAC though, it would be good to get feedback from experienced editors such as Sarvagnya and yourself, so that any remaining chinks can be ironed out. Regards. Abecedare 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the detailed explanation. I'll be more than happy to assist this article become an FA. After all Ganesha is my second favorite mythological character after Krishna and Idugunji Sri Vinayaka is our family deity. :D Gnanapiti 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! The more (constructive) editors the better. It would be especially helpful if fresh eyes could read through the article and see if there is prose that may not clear enough for a reader who may not be familiar with Ganesha, or even Hinduism.

I myself have learned a lot on the topic while reading/editing the article and looking up the sources, and there is the constant temptation to add more details about this most interesting deity. If you are interested in this topic, also see the articles linked at Template:Ganesha, which in many cases have been spun off and/or rewritten in the past few months, again, mainly by the above listed users. Cheers. Abecedare 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to learn a great deal about the deity by working on this article. Please take a look at Balamuri feature of Ganapati. Your comments will be appreciated. Gnanapiti 04:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey abce.. just dropped by to let you know that I'm getting delayed a little bit with my comment. please give a couple of days. and yes.. i agree that Ganesha is easily one of the better Hinduism articles. Sarvagnya 04:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The only directly related FA to Hinduism currently is Adi Shankara, which is still a very good article but lacks the citations that people have come to expect for FA (only 30+). The number will be doubled once Ganesha becomes one. Gizza ^{Discuss ©} 05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnanapati, I have replied on Talk:Ganesha and will add more as I learn about the topic.
Sarvagnya, No hurry. As is often said but rarely apprececiated: "There are no emergencies on wikipedia" :-)
Gizza, Yes, it would be good to make one final push with the formatting of references etc, finalizing the selection of images, and making sure that we have haven't missed some important detail, and then FAC it is!
Cheers all. Abecedare 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How have things been with BalanceRestored of late? Vassyana 06:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

He has been quite off late, at least on pages I have on my watchlist, but just resumed what I consider soapboxing at Talk:Vedas. See this diff and my comment at his talk page. I hope that this does not represent a resumtion of his prior disruptive activities. Abecedare 06:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It was only a request asking to present Views from Important Seers too, views from Shankaracharya and highly regarded Everywhere. I think you should WP:AGF. I think you have a problem with my past :). BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored, I am sorry but I have explained the issue on your talk page and am not interested in discussing it any further since my past experience has been that such discussions are circular and pointless. If you disagree with my actions, feel free to discuss them with any editor who's judgment you trust, for example, User:Vassyana. If they side with you and think I was in error I will disagree, but will not revert. Cheers. Abecedare 06:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this gets a bit outside my area of knowledge. I think he is concerned about cultural bias, which is a recognized problem in the English Wikipedia. I will discuss with him a better way to approach the issue. Vassyana 06:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would highly recommend checking the biographies of the authors cited in the article, Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Monier Monier-Williams, John Muir (indologist), Max Müller, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Michael E. J. Witzel, Robert Charles Zaehner or googling for Gavin Flood, Barbara Holdrege, Axel Michaels and V.S. Apte. That will perhaps provide a better picture of the quality of citations used in the article. Abecedare 07:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think AB, was right about my very straight comments. Well, I think Vedas at wikipedia is a total dedicated efforts from non-hindu editors like AB and DAB, if the article is in a good shape today it is due to them. I understand that there is always some affinity and love about quoting their authors at an article which is predominantly from India. I assume WP:AGF and consider these efforts to be truly great. But, AB, if I am not wrong, there are some guidelines and principles about the teaching and preaching of the Vedas which the orthodox schools follow strictly. I will get my hands at the same. I understand you have known about those too. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

A new user had posted a message on your User page and I have moved it here. Message is as below. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ ^{Talk to me/ My edits} 07:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>

How to you use India talk page? How to contact you?

                                   -arun1paladin

Thank Amarrg! I had missed the edit. I'll reply on the user's talk page. Abecedare 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to have read too much in your talk. I have been deliberately abused so many times that I lose patience sometimes (but I never abuse anyone even when I lose patience). I request you to examine my charges on Krishan wrt Kumārasambhavam and Śiva in White Yajurveda. There is no dearth of secondary sources, hence you should not call it my personal opinion. You are too quick to charge me of WP:OR. I have taken opinions of many Sanskrit professors and heads of departments in many universities, and I am confident about my stand concerning Krishan's two faults. I expect better response from you. When secondary and tertiary sources conflict, translations and commentaries of primary sources are the criterion, and these published commentaries are reliable secondary sources which can help in deciding which tertiary source is accurate. I do not give my personal interpretations of the primary sources. Why you mistrust me so much ? You have read too much of those books which belong to a particular type, and paid little attention to verifying the claims made in those books. I am not accusing you, I am saying this from my own experience. I also had a similar mindset till a few decades ago, when a former Vice Chancellor of my (former) university taught me how to read books. I know your stand and Wiki policies. You do not know my stand properly and think I am pushing my personal interpretations only. - VJha 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

VJha, I don't say that the content of what you claim in this instance on the Ganesha article is necessarily incorrect, only that without supporting secondary references your claims (even if correct) are of no use on wikipedia. As you saw in the YV instance, I am not opposed to ideas but am (IMO rightly) dismissive of unsourced ideas on wikipedia (and that includes ideas based on primary sources). So when you mentioned the YV quotes, I was against including them in the article; but as soon as Redtigerxyz brought forth a secondary sources for those quotes which verified that they (unlike the RV verses) applied to Ganesha, I myself added to the article (my approach would have been exactly same if say Redtigerxyz had made the original YV claims, and you had then produced the secondary source).

Again, as I mentioned, you can criticize Krishan all you want and to me those opinions (sorry for the bluntness) carry no weight - but if you bring forth other published scholars' writings that support your view that Krishan is biased, I will pay them due attention. I hope you realize that this has nothing to do with mistrusting you per se, but is a necessary consequence of editing in a anonymous environment where it is impossible to tell apart a pandit from a crank. If we were dealing with each other in real life, of course, my approach would be different having better knowledge of your person, qualifications, repute and scholarship.

You may think that I am biased against an early dating or Vedic association for Ganesha, to which I can only respond that I don't care either way as long as the contents of the article reflect the scholarly views of reputable, secondary published sources. If you think that I am biased towards such sources, that I readily admit and will continue to argue that they are the only relevant resource to be used in writing wikipedia articles, and anything else is unacceptable. When reliable secondary sources conflict, we usually cite both (keeping in mind WP:UNDUE) without trying to decide, which is correct. For example, since Sayana (as quoted by Roucher) and Krishan disagree, my suggestion is to cite both while looking for more secondary sources to see which view is more prevalent.

I hope that makes my views clearer, although I expect that you won't necessarily agree with them and this may continue be a point of contention on the common articles we edit. Be that as it may, I hope you trust me when I say that this has nothing to do with my opinion of you as a person and hope that in future we can avoid letting disagreements on content from getting personal. Regards. Abecedare 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to be blunt with you here.

• Michael is a convenience link, since he quotes Danielou verbatim, thats the only place we can find Danielou's views. Michael is an anthropologist, so nowhere remotely as quotable as Danielou. As Sarvagnya noted, its not just Danielou that hold the view that Ganesha is a product of the Vedas. *Also, I am not in half a mind to read BP, VJha, and Rudra's long rants on the talk page. Too much thought and not enough source.
• The article gives too much credence to fringy views; just because a view is held by a few backpatting Indologists doesn't mean it holds any semblance to, or relevance in, the real world.

As always, I know that you have worked on the Hinduism project for a long time, and value your input. Baka man 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Baka, I have looked into this over the past few months and summarized my understanding here. Basically, all reliable sources that I have seen seem to agree that the RV use of the word "Ganapati" in Mandala 2 and 10 are not references to Ganesha, but specifically to Indra and Brahmanasapati. I can provide you five-six references for this in the next day or so (by Indian and Western scholars), if you wish; but if you'll take my word for it for now, there is really no scholarly dispute on this point.

However, there does seem to be an academic debate on whether two verses in Yajur Veda refer to Ganesha or not, and if they are late interpolations. I have read BP's, VJ's and rudra's views on this, and while I respect all of them as editors, I am not yet sure myself where the consensus lies on this issue. I'll be looking for more sources on this YV issue over the next week and adding my views at the Ganesha talk page.

I have fond memories of working with HeBhagawan, Arjun and you on the Hinduism page when I entered wikipedia as a newbie, and although we haven't yet managed to get that article to FA (although it is in quite decent and stable state), I think Ganesha is on the verge of becoming one. I urge you to read it in toto and see if you still think it is fringy. Regards. Abecedare 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To Abecedare: There is no academic debate on whether two verses in Yajur Veda refer to Ganesha. Even Krishan does not refute it. Sayana, Rochure, and MW do not regard these verses as interpolations. Krishan's only point is that any Vedic reference to Shiva and Ganesha must be discarded as interpolation. I have read Ganesha in toto and found a lot of wrong statements in it based on Krishan's unfounded statement. I use the word "unfounded" because Krishan has no evidence to support his claim. Two archaic words in this passage cannot be traced in any post Vedic text. Yet Abecedare is insisting on giving UNDUE weight to Krishan's fringe point, forgetting Krisha's habit of resorting to blatant falsehood for buttressing his erroneous point. I think Ganesha cannot become a FA until these inconsistencies are removed. As regards RV.2.23.1, Baka has a right to cite Danielou who is not a false source like Krishan. There are many instances in RV when one deity has been called as another. The moot point is whether Brahmanasapati is Ganapati in RV.2.23.1 or Ganapati is Brahmanasapati. This discussion should not be carried on here. Regards. - VJha 08:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

VJha, as I clearly stated in my comment to Baka above, I'll be looking into the YV issue over the next week and will desist from opining about it till then. Abecedare 08:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! DMacks 01:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, my friend, what is the use of following certain rules and conventions of Wikipedia so literally that the whole effort fails to serve the very purpose those rules and conventions are intended to serve? It would be like a surgeon who is more interested in following a procedure meticulously than in saving the patient. Please think about it. Thanks. Kanchanamala 02:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Sri Pada should be renamed to Adam's Peak? It was originally called "Adam's Peak" before it was changed to the "Indian" name. Adam's Peak also gives us more google hits than Sri Pada. I can't move the article because it won't let me move over a redirect. -- vi5in ^[talk] 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know much about Adam's Peak/Sri Pad except what I saw in Adrian Room's, Placenames of the World. The issue of renaming would certainly be worth raising on the article talk page though. By the way, IMO Google hits is not always a good measure of the popularity of a name since it is liable to be hijacked by recent controversies. A better idea is to take a look at what other reliable sources call the feature. Right now the article is completely unsourced, so it would be good to source it first and then move it to whatever seems to be the prevalent name in those sources. Of course, as we are seeing at Adam's Bridge, it is easier to argue over the article name than to actually improve its contents. :-) Abecedare 19:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I know - no kidding! The logic I have been using is that the name needs to be both diversely referenced as well as numerous. For example "Adam's Bridge" satisfies both these conditions. Where are "Rama's Bridge" only satisfies the diverse part. "Ram(a) Set(h)u" satisfies only the "numerous" part, because almost every link is Indian. I get rather annoyed by this misplaced sense of nationalism. And I find myself re-stating the same thing over and over again! I will try and improve the "Sri Pada" article. I've already brought up the issue on the talk page, but I haven't got any responses yet. -- vi5in ^[talk] 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Abecedare..just saw the award ..a bit late..was busy with work so couldnt log in. Thanks a lot man :-) really appreciate it. Ninadhardikar 05:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Abecedare,

I'll be happy to assist in whatever way I can! -- vi5in ^[talk] 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[2] great. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need this? A bridge at the confluence of Aruna and Godavari? I'll redirect it to Adam's Bridge. -- vi5in ^[talk] 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change. Sorry about my slow response time! LittleDan ^talk 22:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I realize you are friends with fowler&fowler, but I urge you to reconsider your position about the Toda Hut on the India page. I do not see any justification why a demographic of only 1,100 people (I've attended weddings larger than this) is granted a persistent status (any and all attempts to rectify are reverted) on the India page when, for brevity, there is no representation for the architecture from much larger demographics, numbering in the hundreds of millions. This images contain british, mughal, and now toda architecture while devoid of representation for much, much, much larger groups. No other language version of the India article has this problem, German, French, or any other, it's limited to the English edition. -- Thoreaulylazy 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You can read my comments on the image here. I continue to think that the Taj Mahal and Toda Hut images together are an excellent exemplifier of the diversity of Indian culture, which IMO is its defining feature. I understand that you hold a differing opinion in good faith. At the same time, I also expect that you'll respect my independent judgment, even if you don't agree with it, and not insinuate that it is born out "friendship" with fowler&fowler or any other editor. Regards. Abecedare 17:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do understand your logic. I am just curious to know how many more years this combination has to exist. 5 years, 10 years ..... Will you be arguing same logic in year 2015 when Wikipedia will have 10 million articles? Background of that image is total lie as pointed out by me couple of months back. Combined opposition for that image is definitely higher than combined support. (Even after excluding Sockpuppets). I desist from arguing my case because people felt that there is too much of arguments in India talk page. -- Indianstar 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I too am desisting from arguing my position, since IMO I can put my time to better use on and off wikipedia. By the way, it should be clear that this combination (or even the idea of having a combination) is not the only possible choice for the culture section and I see the point when people say that there are other possibilities. However what I don't understand at all, is when editors use (what I consider) strawman argument that the Toda Hut is somehow not a good representation of Indian culture because the Toda population is too small. Anyway, I'll keep my word and avoid getting too involved with this minor issue.

Just out of curiousity : what did you mean by, "Background of that image is total lie". There has been so much talk about that image that I might have overlooked or forgotten your point. Cheers. Abecedare 05:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to go through [ this]. I don't foresee that we will ever get opportunity to change images or improve some parts of the article. People who wants to have statusquo have time and energy whereas people who want to improve article or replace images don't have patience,energy & time. -- Indianstar 05:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic about why demolition consequences cannot be put in Adams bridge article. I am only putting consequences of demolishing Adams bridge. Sethu samudram canal project can be implemented using 6 different alignments and one of them is through this bridge. I feel it would be more appropriate content for Adams bridge article. -- Indianstar 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Indiastar, Note that "demolition" is not the right word for dredging through Adam's Bridge (consider, for example, that building/expanding a pass/road through the Himalayas does not mean demolishing the Himalayas). Secondly I did not delete the consequences of the Sethusamudram project, only summarized the details, which can be discussed to a greater depth in the SSCP article. Finally, note that the [Tarun Vijay] opinion piece can be used as a source for RSS's position on the project but is not a reliable neutral source for factual details about the project itself. If you wish, we can discuss these issues on the talk page of the article where other editors can chime in.

PS: When citing news article, one should make sure that the article title is cited as it appeared in print, and not make up ones own titles as was done here. Cheers. Abecedare 13:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I did not notice your reply. I concur with your view that demolition is not the appropriate word. I added Tarun Vijay citation to prove that there is a opposition to breaking Adams bridge on other counts like Marine wealth depletion. Thorium deposits etc. RSS is one of the organization which supports these views so I feel citation is appropriate one. There are multiple citations available but I did not want to clutter page with more citations. Also Tarun vijay has consolidated opinions of other scientists and experts like Prof. Murthy who do not belong to RSS. These views also appear in other places in web. So I feel there is nothing wrong in having that as citation. If you wish you can post this in Adams bridge talk page.-- Indianstar 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now, you just said it I was upto Soapboxing about the bridge. While, the comment I wrote was neutral and was nothing to do with the bridge. If you can explain me the same it will be great. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just had commented to dab, about what he said. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Already replied on your talk page. Abecedare 05:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've accepted BR's request for a mentor. If you notice something that needs to be explained or pointed out to him, beyond what's already passed, please leave a message on my talk page or drop me an email to let me know. Be well! Vassyana 02:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

Did not know that the temple was copyrighted since ive always seen it on the bangalore page and assumed it was free Nikkul 05:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, Although I left a note on the Talk:India page, I forgot to leave one here, but I did post my comments on the culture section here. Let me know what you think. I added some references too. Look forward to seeing you return to editing that section; you were doing a great job. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(Re your post, "Anyway, the details can be worked out on the subpage's talk page. I suggest that we use the subpage to rewrite the section and not only as a place to comment on the current version. We can leave a note on the Talk:India page informing others of the effort and inviting them to contribute. My own contribution may be somewhat sporadic, but I look forward to the (overdue) revision effort.")

I like your suggestions, but with two alterations: (a) we can work out the details on the sub-page (i.e. preliminary edits on the subpage and discussion on the talk page), but I'd prefer to transfer the edits to the main page once a day, or in small digestible bits, rather than all at once at the very end; (b) I would prefer that you make that announcement on the Talk:India page; if I did it, I fear that the usual suspects will divine some conspiracy on my part to assert "ownership" of the India page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Abecedare, I was looking at some old posts on my talk page from when I was still new to WP, and I came across this. In light of it, I think it might be less headache, if we made the edits directly on the India page; however, the idea of discussing things on the subpage is fine. Sorry for the flip flops. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the point and have no problem with that approach either. I'll try adding to the references and helping with the structure/prose over the next few days. Abecedare 23:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, otherwise would never have known :) too bad they didnt credit me for it or link to the original -- ^{PlaneMad| YakYak} 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare, I need your help on the British Empire article. The article contains no balancing criticism and my attempts to add some have been repeatedly undone by Wiki-Ed and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Since I am relative newcomer to wikipedia any help will be greatly appreciated. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi FMT, My time on wikipedia is somewhat limited nowadays, so I am not sure that I would be of much help at the British Empire page at present. You can to post a message at WT:INB to bring any balance/POV issues to the attention of a wider community.

Looking at the particular latest edit of yours that was reverted - I think the POV you wish to express is certainly noteworthy for the article, but you do need a better source to make that point. A book review in Time of India is not really an authoritative source on the history of Bristish colonial rule in India and elsewhere. There are tons of books and articles on the topic, so I am sure that a bit of research and legwork will yield results. F&f and Deeptrivia may be able to point you in the right direction and to the appropriate references better than me. Hope that helps. Cheers. Abecedare 00:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare. I appreciate your help and advice. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 05:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi abecedare, I know you've commented on the India culture in the talk page, but could you at have another look at the current discussion please and leave any comments you might have. Rueben lys 12:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, I know that you are busy, but when you get a chance, please take a look at Talk:India#Talk:India.2FText_Peer_Review_and_Sandbox. Thanks, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you took part in the recent RfC on Talk:India, it would be great if you could weigh in here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at this diff? I'm not really qualified to judge the claims, but they look a bit agenda-driven to me. Orpheus 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Explain what policy of Wiki was voliated? I presented a fact. Explain [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalanceRestored ( talk • contribs)

Hi! How are you doing?-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you back here, and congratulations on Ganesha reaching FA — it was mostly you and Buddhipriya who got it there, though a few others helped push it across the finish line.  priyanath  talk 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very unsatisfied with the quality of this article, and nearly deleted it. I have ennumerated my issues on the talk page and am engaging who I percieve to be the articles main authors. Your contribution in the discussion would be appreciated. -- Shaggorama ( talk) 05:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit is sourced. pls dont revert. -- Radha2008 ( talk) 07:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are back for good, we've missed you on the India articles. Baka man 04:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I made a few minor changes myself, where I felt necessary. For most part, your edits were okay. Thanks for your effort to improve the article. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 15:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on regarding whether or not the following image should be a part of the Poverty in India page. Most Poverty in *Country* pages do not have any images, at most 1. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought many images showing extreme poverty in India and has tried to mislead people into thinking this is the way a majority of poor Indians live. There is a vote in which your input would be appreciated. You can find this discussion here

Nikkul ( talk) 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare, in your talk page this user has made wild accusations on me. I will request you please read the relevant sections on Talk:Poverty in India to give you an inside in this user and to understand who is incivil. You please read the texts like these [5], [6], [7]. The Bodggaya beggar image is more appropriate than others because:

• You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities.

There is no "typical" definition of poverty, or beggar. There are abled beggar, disabled beggar. The purpose of the article is depicting poverty. The other beggar images which this user want to place deleting the Bodhgaya beggar image are not good quality, one is B&W, and the other depicting a beggar girl in Ladakh. But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain. And this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level. It is not right to conceal the situation of poor men like this, it is the truth, the reality. This image touches the heart of the reader, which is a real situation. Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument? On the other hand it also can be said that not all beggars are abled. Our job here is not to understand who is abled, or who is not. But to find a good image which is representative of many.

• This user is repeatating his arguments and has taken a densive position by his ad hominem attack on me. Any one do not agree with him, here I am trying to depict poverty, and he is labelling me as Indophobic. There are other editors who honoured me for my contributions. It is ture that on the article like religious violence, we may share some different point of ciew. Not all people living on Earth share the smae opinion. But other user, like user Darroween, who also share a different point of view, he himself honoured me for my contributions. The only reason given against this image that "since all beggars have not messed up legs, this image is undue". But it is an anti- individualistic argument. So what if not all beggars do not have messed up legs? The fact is that such secenes is a reality and it would not be right to conceal it. Such scenes exists, it is the truth. If it is reality, if such scenes exits, then an article depicting poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.
• Please remember the article is not about India, but the article is about poverty. This article is not depicting India, depicting poverty in India. So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India. This image, I think, will be very appropriate. I will also request you check this user's contributions. I have told you why I am supporting the includsion of this image. Regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already cited in the Bhagavatam (regional languages) that the gopis wanted to have Krishna as their husband. Krishna fulfilled their desire. There is nothing wrong in posting facts that are verifiable and are sourced. It is not provoking. People those who do not know can ask any Vasihnav and he/she will agree with the fact. -- Radha2008 ( talk) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this? Thanks. Relata refero ( talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref your recent edits to Adams bridge. I have added contents with other references like Rediff/University of chicago atlas etc. Information available can be verified from multiple sources. If required I can add additional references for any sentence from News magazines like Times of India, Rediff, News today or The Hindu. Please feel free to ask additional references for any sentence by marking as ^{citation needed} Article in Ivartha has been written by Former IAS officer who has worked in Tuticorin port and is directly connected with the project. His articles appear in many news magazines. I wish to understand exact clause of WP:RS which discredits ivartha as reliable source -- Indianstar ( talk) 08:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PLease participate in the discussion at Talk:Historical development of Ganesha about the question should the article Historical development of Ganesha be retained or deleted. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Abecedare. It is very much appreciated, especially at this present moment in time. You have always been a pleasure to work with. Some days I'm not sure where Wikipedia is going to? All the best, Gouranga(UK) ( talk) 14:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! How are you?-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! After a hiatus of 6-7 months, I also came back to wiki some days back. Recently, there was Mr. and Mrs. Iyer on FAC, which failed. Now, there is Kannada literature by Dinesh. Lately, there has not been much activity in the FAC department from India, except the excellent works from Karnataka brigade. However, there are several film articles that gained GA status.

Most concerning is the stalling of WP:PINQ. Let's try to revive. This current active question omn numbers, nobody is being able to crack it. -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 05:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. First, I will again fall short of time very soon. Second, I really do not have enough exposure to procedural issues, such as deletion.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 06:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On Mr. and Mrs. Iyer, you can still help. Because we plan to renominate it following copyedit, and, perhaps, a peer review.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 06:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, Could you take a look at the post I made on Dwaipayan's talk page. Would be great to get some feedback from you. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Especially for that vignette on your user page, which is funny! :) I'll have to look for Lore Sjöberg next time I'm in a bookstore or on amazon. As for the editor in question, he seems to have backed off for now. Have my fingers crossed. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Of course, none of us is here for the recognition, but it's still nice to get once and a while. Please let me know if I can ever be of any further service. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 08:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the {{reflist}} templated you added to my last edit instead of

Much appreciated, and will note that.

FlowRate ( talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,,,I was just wondering why you have removed the Mumbai skyline, As it is just quick view of city, its not personal thing which I have posted, well I have seen New york page it has same thing except the name, even If you visit Thane it has same thing under name Thane Quick Look...etc If you help me to know the reason I would glad to see. Thanks KuwarOnline ( talk) 05:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page in a few minutes. Thanks for contacting me instead of readding the information. Abecedare ( talk) 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,,,I want to make some correction in Economy_of_India regarding the revenue in company list which more now than specified on page of Economy_of_India eg. Indian Oil Corporation showing revenue 34.22 now as per Indian Oil Corporation page it showing 53.7 Billion. shall I do????I m just confused as you told me before... KuwarOnline ( talk) 07:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the BSE website lists the 2006/07 revenues of IOC as Rs. 2026B ~ $50B, while the Forbes list gives the revenues as 34B, which is probably the 2005/06 revenues. Note though that we cannot update the information in the table on the Economy of India page piecemeal since then we will not be making an apple-to-apple comparison and the world ranking etc information will be inconsistent. Instead I suggest that we wait for the Forbes 2008 information to be released (perhaps later this month) before we update the stats. on the Economy of India page. Of course, the IOC article can contain the latest known statistics. Does that make sense ? Abecedare ( talk) 07:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you interested in learning about the relevant wikipedia policies, see WP:SYN, which says that we should not synthesize information from different sources; that is another reason I think we should stick with a single source for the table even if the data is a few months outdated. Abecedare ( talk) 07:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I believe the article is in need of a much more comprehensive cleanup though; standardizing into British English, formatting of references, and most worryingly, not enough inline citations. Oh well, it is a good start though. :) indopug ( talk) 07:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! As is true for many FA articles, there is usually an intense effort to get it to FA status and then the article slowly gather bloat, inconsistencies etc till some editors are motivated enough to get it back in shape. Well, at least wikipedia will always have the need for volunteers like us :) Abecedare ( talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's her specifically . . . unless she decided to refer to herself in the third person when asking for editor's assistance. - Warthog Demon 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, could be; but it does seem like someone who is familiar with her. We may learn soon enough if the editor decides to discuss the edits and the article on its talk page, as we hope. Regards. Abecedare ( talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Abecedare. I had a question about one of the edits you made to the Krishna article. The article currently mentions Krishna's "death", an edit you had made to the article (according to its edit history). However, Hindus believe that Krishna did not die, but rather left the earth to return to Vaikunta without actually dying. For this reason, to reflect the beliefs of Hindus, I had changed "death" and "died" to "departure" and "departed" respectively. However, you had changed it back. Why did you do this? I just wanted to know your opinion on the subject, of whether it should be changed back or not. I did like some of the other edits you had made to the article. -- Shruti14 ^{t c s} 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me for clarification. Please see the brief discussion on Talk:Krishna about this and User:Imc's comment; I have to sign off now but will reply to you at greater length later today. Abecedare ( talk) 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Shruti, I copied your query to Talk:Krishna#Death of Krishna? and replied there; so that a wider set editors can participate in the discussion. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 00:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me. I was surprised on seeing the Feb 2008 attacks on North Indians article being restored. I requested it to be deleted after some serious flak it received. But I guess you didn't find it that bad. I have tried updating the article. Please have a look at it some time. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 ( talk) 17:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the article was quite a well-developed and well-cited article (see my comments to the admin, requesting undeletion). I would have emailed you to ask why you had requested deletion and retired, but unfortunately your email wasn't enabled and I didn't want to post a message on your talk page since it was a redirect.

Anyway, I am glad to see you back and hope you'll continue to contribute to that and other India related articles. Cheers and happy editing. Abecedare ( talk) 17:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why you are allowing other ELs and not mine? I am writing a blog that follows well known rules of Sanskrit and Lingusitics, and showing if the meaning comes to close to English or is its opposite. What is wrong with making it interesting for people to know this language from English point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilsrivastava ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you an authority to decide the authority of anyone? If you are an authority of Sanskrit, then please read the blog on Sanskrit, and tell me where the content is lacking. I have spent a good part of my life studying a language and went to a very famous school which the CBS 60 minutes called "better than many top schools combined in the US". Unless one gets a brand, you would not accept that person to be an expert? I have never heard about you and so why I should treat you as an expert - but yes I know you are adding value to it. If you know Sanskrit, and know the language which you are acting like a chieftain, please tell me, what I have shown is not correct. I am not after any ego or name recognition - which is what you want because you seem to come from the holy grail of academic research and not willing to take anyone on par unless they are of one your kinds. Any intelligent and dedicated person can become an expert without being a world expert - which means pushing oneself in a well known path of self promotion. I am not into it. My purpose is to promote World Harmony and Brotherhood and also to push the love of the Language by showing the connection between English and Sanskrit. You are just doing exactly as what very famous gate-keepers of knowledge have done - to shun the outsiders and judge by the man-made credentials. And I can point so many Wikipedia enteries where this what you state is not followed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilsrivastava ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

First, abadacare, do you have the authority to threaten me by barring me from editing? If not, let us contest it with every one else and Wikipedia! You dont have right to threaten some one, from editing. Are you an admin? No! All of us, especially you and me, must find resolution with Wikipedia. Then, if THEY say not to edit the Thelema section...I wouldnt. If they say it is ok, I am going to. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA ( talk) 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh ... please read the wikipedia policies that I have provided links for and gain a better understanding of what this project is about. Also you don't need to indent all your posts using :::. Abecedare ( talk) 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My question for you is, why are you asscribing this belief to Thelema when it is a Crowley belief? The two are seperate. I am open to your response and will wait hear back from you. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a valid question and I'll explain the reasoning in a few hours. I don't object to any discussion, and as you'll note I have responded to every previous objection others and you have raised to the Thelema section, including by shortening the quote in the section and adding a reference, and adding a secondary reference; but undiscussed deletion of sourced content and edit-warring as you and User:Zeuspitar have engaged in recently, doesn't reflect well on you. Abecedare ( talk) 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think Crowley's personal views on Krishna are relevant to the Krishna article. It has yet to be proved that the Thelema community itself holds views of Krishna as a deity. There are two sources: one passage of scripture and a book that has yet to be quoted from to discern its relevance as a reliable source. This is still unreliable and unverifiable information that should remain out of the article until it is confirmed. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above and on the Krishna talk page, I will clarify that in a few hours. Your claims of "unreliable" and "unverifiable" are simply incorrect and, I am sorry to say, tendentious.

A quick note about editing practices: :: I don't understand why you are discussing the same issues on multiple talk pages, and especially cutting and pasting other peoples remarks. The wikipedia etiquette is to (1) keep discussion centralized as far as possible, and (2) if you copy-and-paste other people's comments from one page to another (as I noticed you have done on the Vaishnava project talk page), you should leave an accompanying note which says so; something like

These commenst have been copied from Talk:Krishna#Romance Abecedare ( talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

blah, blah blah ...

I hope that helps. Abecedare ( talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that does help. I apologise for the poor etiquette, I will cite you correctly in the future. Also, I am open to your comments and will wait to hear and discuss them. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note before I log-off: The above note about wikipedia practice was intended as a sincere pointer and not an admonishment. Abecedare ( talk) 16:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ism, I guess the question about the Aleister Crowley- Thelema connection is moot given the current version of the article. Right ? Abecedare ( talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare. I agree, it is a moot point about Thelema. I hope I did not come across as fanatical, and if I did I apologise. I am going to hang back for a while and let other editors have their say on the Krishna talk page. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare, I think that the current changes are a good compromise. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA ( talk) 04:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that. In fact I think we can expand the Others section to 4-5 sentences briefly mentioning that Krishna worship has also been adopted by Theosophists, followers of Perennial philosophy, Crowley etc. That way a more rounded picture will be presented and Crowley will not, seemingly, stick out as a sore thumb. I am currently gathering good references for the section and we can work out the details on the article talk page over the next few days. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 04:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that we are finally beginning to reach a peaceful compromise on the subject, as opposed to the potential edit wars and blocks I had feared. Honestly, this edit war wasted too much of our energy on such a trivial topic! -- Shruti14 ^{t c s} 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, the only edits that I truly object to in this whole debate are the repeated attempts earlier today to delete the section without discussion; but fortunately that stopped soon enough and no one needed to be blocked from editing.

Anyway, I hope the renewed attention on the article will help us improve and reference all its sections, and not only the short section on Krishna in other minor faiths - which frankly is perhaps the least important. Look forward to positive collaboration with you on this and other wikipedia articles! Abecedare ( talk) 06:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Why are you not allowing others to Contribute to that article. If you continue to revert my edits i will take it to the admins. -- Prapan ( talk) 06:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I reverted your edits was because (1) you added a spam link and (see WP:EL) (2) you changed sourced content (see WP:RS). If you wish to report it to the admins the link is WP:ANI, but I would recommend that you look at WP:5P instead. Abecedare ( talk) 06:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, nothing wrong with contributing to article. and watch your reverting because you dont seem to be looking well enough. -- Prapan ( talk) 06:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to help you can watch the article . and see if edits in place -- Prapan ( talk) 07:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not sure I understand. If you want to make an edit to the article, the first step would be to find a reliable publication to source it to. Since there is a lot of fringe, nonsensical material on the Bhavishya Purana online, I would recommend that you search within academic books or scholarly articles on the subject. You can discuss any proposed edit/refernce on the article talk page too. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 07:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for ur reply, In this perticular case the article Nandurbar and Nandurbar_District are exaclty same. Because I belong to this district only,I know this disctrict better. kindly suggest should I merge it or not?? KuwarOnline ( talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

replied on user's talk page to keep conversation in one place. Abecedare ( talk) 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Again Thank you so much for ur clarification and I have understood the meaning and let keep the both page on wiki. Thanks KuwarOnline ( talk) 12:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added the Nandurbar_district map, kindly suggest any new changes required to this article. Thanks KuwarOnline ( talk) 12:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Information used in Article is being used to work with. You can watch the article soon it will be different than what is was before -- DWhiskaZ ( talk) 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits will not make an difference. We have enough information to provide this article with proper information. -- DWhiskaZ ( talk) 00:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that is fine with me. Abecedare ( talk) 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your email doesn't seem to have come through:-( Could you try just a simple text reply first (i.e. no attachments)? There may be some filter in place that I'm not aware of, so this would be to verify that email gets through at all. Thanks! rudra ( talk) 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! rudra ( talk) 01:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The prose looks OK—I'd make a few minor changes, but they're not worth doing at the moment. They seem to have responded to your points. Tony (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I 've replied on the talk page, and on my personal talk page about the other matter. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's at least better than the last few comments on my user page! -- Blechnic ( talk) 02:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can verify all the details which i updated in nandurbar_district page from goverment portal [ [8]] and I will try to make lists into prose. Thanks KuwarOnline ( talk) 05:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

and please let me know if you need any clarification about my editing which i have done. KuwarOnline ( talk) 08:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added the website as a "general citation" for the page at presnt. Once the article is expanded and more sources are used, we can start using "inline citations" instead. (See WP:CITE for an explanation of the terms). Happy editing! Abecedare ( talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what do you call "unreliable source" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India please refer to this article which was created by me where I used only information from wikidia its very easy to count the number —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhomovru ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am little confused if you have 1+2+3=6, you say you cannot make a conclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhomovru ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.matt-sanchez.com/2008/03/wiki-woes.html

• I am a war correspondent, a fact editors on the board do not wish to accept despite overwhelming "reliable sources" supporting this fact.
• I was in Iraq and Afghanistan as a credentialed journalist or an "embedded journalist" as the military designates. I was not an "embedded blogger". That title doesn't even exist, but several desperate anonymous Wiki-editors are crossing their fingers and hoping the title will remain.
• Worldnetdaily does NOT syndicate Matt-Sanchez.com, it's the other way around. I get permission from WND to run the articles I exclusively write for them.
• I'm currently a political commentator, both here, in the United States and overseas, specifically in France, although I've made headways in Germany and parts of Latin America.
• My initial complaint Columbia officials wasn't for being called "stupid", as stated in the article. My initial complaint was for being called "cannon fodder" for being a Hispanic serving in the military by frustrated, liberal, wealthy white kids who felt they knew better what was good for me than I knew myself.
• A Marine Corps inquiry turned up nothing on allegations stemming from a veterans group and U-Haul over a measly $300.00 bucks. Nevertheless, the article refers to "accusations" and "charges", when there was only innuendo and allegations. The whole matter was summarily dismissed a fact Wiki-whiners refuse to acknowledge.
• There's a gratuitous reference to Don't Asked Don't Tell, an issue that has nothing to do with me or any inexistent "investigation".
• I produced two radio programs in Iraq and Afghanistan, "In their Own Voices" and "Hometown Heroes". Wiki even has a copy of one segment in their Wikimedia Commons sitedatabank, nevertheless this information is completely omitted in the Matt Sanchez article.
• Activist editors challenges that I do not own the rights to simple pictures that I took with my camera. It has become an exhausting process to jump through all the copyright release procedures.
• Citation #25 sources a message board and mistakingly cites an anonymous contributor as if they were me.
• A purposeful misquoting and correction of an earlier appearance on the Alan Colmes Show (linked HERE) still has not been acknowledged by Wiki-editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.87.251 ( talk) 04:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading your post I understand that you are frustrated by the wikipedia article on you and perhaps the wikipedia editiing process. Unfortunately I am only superficially involved with the article, in the sense that I presented an uninvolved outsider's view on one single point on the talk page; and do not intend to edit the page myself. May I suggest that you communicate your grievance on the article talk page, or the BLP noticeboard. You should also read this page, which offers some pointers to people having concerns about their biographical article. Hope that helps. Abecedare ( talk) 04:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm banned from contributing to the Matt Sanchez article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.87.251 ( talk) 12:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please use the OTRS email system. You can find the instructions here. Abecedare ( talk) 17:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you completely revert the edits "Sanskrit influence on Latin& English" & Sanskrit and African languages ? maybe they were partially wrong, but not completely... you could have improved them... simha is Sanskrit for "lion", in Swahili it is simba ( see the Walt Disney movie "Simba the lion"), it´s the same word in Tamil, too

deva, devi (god. gods) in Sanskrit is the source of divinity, divine as well as the greek Zeus, father of the gods

krta is the source of Latin cernere, from which discern and concern are derived (see the Hindi word karna "to make") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.139.215 ( talk) 09:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added the refs. Not that you'd guess it by reading them, but they're mostly the same in both versions. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! I'll add my 2 cents once I have read through the refs ... although I don't have immediate access to the Aranson article. Abecedare ( talk) 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied and pasted below. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Megavitamin and Orthomolecular Therapy

The popular use of nutritional supplements as treatments contrasts ironically with alternative medicine's simultaneous emphasis on “natural” foods and therapies. Some patients and alternative practitioners believe that large dosages of vitamins—typically hundreds of pills a day—or intravenous infusions of high-dose vitamin C can cure disease.

In 1968, Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling coined the term orthomolecular to describe the treatment of disease with large quantities of nutrients. His claims that massive doses of vitamin C could cure cancer were disproved in clinical trials,50,51 but megavitamin and orthomolecular therapy—the latter adds minerals and other nutrients—remain popular among cancer patients. Perhaps the simplicity of this approach and the fact that patients can prescribe and obtain their own over-the-counter therapy contributes to its appeal. There is no evidence that megavitamin or orthomolecular therapy is effective in treating any disease.

Some patients with treatable cancers turn to megavitamin therapy instead of mainstream care. A major US television news program aired a segment about one of its own producers, a young woman just diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, who opted for hundreds of vitamin and mineral pills daily instead of surgery. This program did not present a follow-up report of her death, thus leaving the public with the impression that alternatives to mainstream care—in this case, megavitamin therapy—are viable options for cancer patients.

Greatly appreciated! Abecedare ( talk) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I'm using a script and forgot to add it. Dusti ^{talk to me} 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing the error out!!! Dusti ^{talk to me} 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Disabling section edition ensures that I will always look at the one and the same place for messages - at the bottom - same place for the TOC. Wikidās ॐ 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it is a very bad idea. since people may be responding to different conversations in different sections (see above two sections on my talk page, which I am using to discuss other topics) and you can always check where the message was placed using the page history (like I did with before deleting your misplaced comment). It will just make it difficult for other editors to collaborate with you and hence make you less effective on wikipedia. But since its on your talk page, I' just drop the issue.

More importantly, can you explain why you are adding long, copyrighted quotes on the Talk:Satsvarupa dasa Goswami ? Please read the talk page guideline for proper use of these resources. Abecedare ( talk) 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,,,,I have just read the article at [9] as the forbes magazine has changed some of the ranking of indian companies. So I just wanted changes the ranking as per forbes magazine,,,,,can I???? Thanks KuwarOnline ( talk) 13:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! Feel free to update the table of the top 10 Indian companies; here is the link to the complete list. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the award! -- Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

-- Shruti14 ^{t c s} 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. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You are welcome. Look forward to more great contributions from you on Hinduism related and other articles. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The design was per request from the project when the banner was first created. I got similar requests from Indian cinema and Protected areas projects for the Indian banner. If you would like this changed on the Hinduism banner, it is best to post this on all project and taskforce talk pages and make sure there are no objections. After a few weeks, we can go ahead and make the change. Regards, Ganeshk ( talk) 11:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)