User talk:Khamgatam

Talk:Sribhargavaraghaviyam
Message for you on the talk. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ashtavakra: Thanks for making it consistent. About IAST, there is no concurrent policy. However, Naming conventions (Dharmic) exists, which is no more part of official policy. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In Sribhargavaraghaviyam, the verses are important as you are discussing poetic nuances. Ganesha is a WP:Featured Article (FA) ("Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors", check the link to find more about how articles become FAs), can be identified by a golden star on top right. Hanuman et al are not FAs and may not be WP:Peer Reviewed. In articles about epic characters, deities; it is the meaning of the verse that matters, not the exact words. There is no ban of using IAST. The words like Sanskrit, Prakrit, avatar are English words, no more just Sanskrit words that need IAST. For non-experts (someone who has never heard of IAST), Rāma is Rama with fancy marks, but how many non-experts are going to know Saṃskṛta is Sanskrit, Śiva is Shiva (standardized English spelling for the deity), Lakṣmaṇa is Lakshmana? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Message for you on Talk:Sribhargavaraghaviyam.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bhaṭṭikāvya uses IAST, but not for words like Sanskrit, Prakrit. See Talk:Sribhargavaraghaviyam. If you want to add the verse, it is best to put the translation in the article and the original Devanagari in a footnote with the reference. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My opening comments at Talk:Jagadguru Rāmabhadrācārya. Please see Ahalya as well. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on Ahalya.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on Ahalya. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Message for you on Talk:Ahalya. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on Ahalya.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gitaramayanam


The article Gitaramayanam has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Looks more like an advert than an article. Notability is questionable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahalya
Hi. It's my pleasure to inform you that Ahalya is now a WP:Good article. I would think to make it a WP:Featured article. Do you think any facets of Ahalya are missing from the article? Do have any literature that shows these facets? Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work, appreciate your efforts. I will take a look sometime on the weekend. Thanks. Nmisra (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstart :) -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Alternate suggestion as "Swami Rambhadracharya"  Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ramakrishna Article
On your response in Swami Vivekananda article, I think you can start a discussion about Ramakrishna article to move it to Ramakrishna Paramhansha. Ping me in my talk page if necessary. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Raj Rajaratnam
Hello. I have undone your revision of TeaPartyFreedom76's edits to Raj Rajaratnam. Although the information he supplied radically changed the article, he did cite his sources, and I feel that this means a revision should at least be discussed on the talk page before being hastily undid. Please consider this in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RubleTuesday (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rambhadracharya bibliography
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Red link in Bhupen Hazarika
Hi, red links are not a bad thing, they motivate users to start pages. Linking to a foreign language wiki won't help readers who don't speak the specific language. Regards Hekerui (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahalya
I am trying to move the article to FA status and have initiated a peer review. Your critic would be appreciated at Peer review/Ahalya/archive1 or on Talk:Ahalya. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would really love to but I am afraid this will have to wait - would be quite busy at work and with family for the next couple of months which means I would not be spending much time on Wikipedia. Will do it in 2012 if it is still not an FA. Apologies. Nmisra (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Can you please add the ISBN of Ahalyoddhāra in Ahalya? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is none, like books from many Indian publishers. :) Nmisra (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Rajiv Gandhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page McKenzie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Rambhadracharya
Hi. Thanks for attending to what looked like some overlink in this article. Actually, I wonder if you knew that Manual of Style/Linking has recently changed to allow the first occurrence of something after the lede to be linked? I'm not going to revert you, though, as I slightly agree with your way. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ekal Vidyalaya
Hi Nmisra. I know that you disagree with me on the emphasis that should be placed on different aspects and opinions in this article, but I believe you will agree that factual information from credible sources that say "he said that" should not be deleted. Whether you or I agree with what he said, he said it. May I ask that if you see material like this being deleted from the article, you help by restoring it? I am getting weary of undoing edits that attempt to deny reality. It would be a relief to have another editor help maintain a balanced representation of the divergent views about this subject. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can help with undoing edits like removal of sourced content. Requesting to protect the page may also help. Nmisra (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The page has been protected at various times in the past, but compared to topics like global warming, creationism or Balkan politics this one only suffers from minor vandalism.  It just needs watching and sourced material restored when deleted.  Thanks again,  Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Christian Today which describes itself as "trans-denominational Christian newspaper" (part of christiantoday.com more info [reference]), The Milli Gazette which describes itself as "Indian Muslims' Leading English Newspaper" (more info [here]), credible sources for Ekal Vidyalaya topic?
 * Just trying to understand how.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति  Humour Thisthat2011 14:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to comment... A source can be acceptable even if it is not sympathetic to the subject of an article. Unfriendly sources may help to give a balanced view. To take an extreme example, many of the sources for the article on Nazi Germany are hostile to the subject.  If all these sources were removed the article would be less than complete.  What matters is that the source may be assumed to be reliable.  When Christian Today reports a statement by John Dayal there is good reason to suppose that he made that statement.  When Milli Gazette publishes an article on the suspension of government funds, we can assume that they have checked their facts and the government did indeed suspend funding. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say an editorial from Christian Today (CT) or Milli Gazette (MG) may be biased, but in this particular article the two sources are cited primarily for quotes and facts. CT is cited at three places for (1) some authors criticizing Ekal (2) prominent people on board of directors (3) quote from Dayal - which are all true - one can disagree on whether the weight given to CT's article is undue as per WP:UNDUE, but I do not see any issue in citing CT per se at the three places. MG is cited for the stopping of government funds, for which we have another source (The Hindu), so the citation may be removed since a news source like The Hindu is sufficient and citing MG is not required. I have to add that to make the article better, we need to expand other sections apart from controversy - there is much more to Ekal Vidyalayas than controversy - coverage in mainstream English media is low so less popular news sources like CT, MG or India Currents, India Journal are cited. However, coverage of EVF in Hindi and regional languages of India is much more intensive and also focussed on actual activites and events rather than the controversy aspect. Irrespective of the side of the argument we are on, we should try to make the article better by expanding other sections - maybe add some photographs, et cetera. Nmisra (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Another question is are the two sources considered reliable? If you want to add some content, add from neutral sources.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति  Humour Thisthat2011 10:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not add the sources. But as pointed above, I think Milli Gazette can be removed. CT may be removed but unless you find another source for the same quote, you would face opposition from some other editors who will insists that it stays. BTW some more sources in the article (NRI Today, etc) may also be considered to be unreliable. See my edits on this article and others as well before concluding that I added the sources. You are I are more likely on the same side of the debate. Vande Mataram. Nmisra (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is just one side here, the Wikipedia side. If the sources are unreliable, then the sources should be removed that is the policy.
 * According to me, sources Christian Today is an unreliable source. Milli Gazette is also an unreliable source. I would remove contents from these sources. Controversial views better be cemented with reliable sources which I think is standard Wikipedia policy.ईती ईतीUAनेती नेती  Humour Thisthat2011 13:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Be my guest, you will meet opposition though. Not from me. Nmisra (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to gauge the reliability of sources in general (unless it's obvious that it's user-generated), which is why I usually ask at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Nightscream (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I have put forth the query at above location. The link is [here].

Dispute notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Ekal Vidyalaya". Thank you. --Aymatth2 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on reliable sources
Hello,

Any idea where the discussion on reliable sources is going [here]?

Per me it is going in circles, the circles being François Gautier or John Dayal or VHP, etc. ie anything but topic of discussion viz sources!

It is weird that no one wants to just replace the sources with neutral sources for the same content. Perhaps I will do it myself if this discussion becomes pointless.इति इतिUAनेति नेति  Humour Thisthat2011 20:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussions on Wikipedia are a colossal waste of time, I have indulged in some and realized that I would rather keep on improving articles of my own accord than try to convince others. Nmisra (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears the same - the discussion on reliable sources is the most weird of all. Different authors give different meaning to it. Though the discussion above has given me some more clarity.इति इतिUAनेति नेति  Humour Thisthat2011 08:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board. Thanks. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pointers to uploading images
Hello,

Could you mention a few things about uploading images onto Wikipedia.

Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति  Humour Thisthat2011 09:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. When you recently edited Tulsi Peeth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ghaziabad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tulsi Peeth
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:JagadguruRamabhadracharya001.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:JagadguruRamabhadracharya001.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Tulsidas
As the primary contributor, why don't you nominate it to WP:GA? After GA, hopefully FA :) -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

neuter gender in sanskrit asana names




Can you explain what you mean in your edit summary?Curb Chain (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ashtavakra and Janaka.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ashtavakra and Janaka.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)