User talk:Nakashchit

April 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=717675563 your edit] to Sutra may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * above aphoristic rules and sentences hanging together like threads, though the term sūtra may possibly indicate not so much a line or series of

Charvaka etymology
Hi, I saw your edit on the Charvaka article. I thought you may find it interesting to know what the quoted source actually says (which is not what is in the article). Please feel free to use this to update the article. The source (Bhattacharya pages 165–167) has:


 * "A nāstika, according to Hemacandra, is one who thinks that there is no virtue and vice, nāsti puṇyaṃ pāpam iti matirasya nāstikaḥ. The word, cārvāka, is derived from the root carva, “to chew”. A Cārvāka chews the self (carvatyātmānaṃ cārvākaḥ). He refers to his own grammatical work, Uṇādisūtra 37, which runs as follows: mavāka-śyāmāka-vārtāka-jyontāka-gūvāka-bhadrākādayaḥ. Each of these words ends with the āka suffix and is formed irregularly (ete ākapratyayāntā nipātyante). Although the word, cārvāka, does not occur in the sūtra itself, the auto-commentary mentions it along with some other words of which cārvāka is one (...svonāka-cārvāka parākādayo bhavanti)."


 * "Hemacandra’s derivation of cārvāka has not been universally accepted. Other authorities speak of another irregular formation: cāru + vāc > cārvāc, cārvāka. In this case too it is not definitely known whether the word cāru is to be taken as an adjective (meaning agreeable, pleasant, etc.) or as a noun (which is another name of Bṛhaspati). All the derivations proposed are plausible in so far as the formation of the word is admitted to be irregular. As to the āka suffix, even though the word, śyāmāka is cited by Rāyamukuṭa as an instance of ākaḥ ending, he refers to another suffix, makan and mentions Halāyudha as his authority. Guṇaratna, another Jain writer, however, follows Hemacandra but instead of carvayātmānam he opts for the following explanation: carvanti bhakṣayanti tattvato na manyante puṇyapāpādikaṃ parokṣajātam iti cārvākāḥ, “The Cārvāka-s chew up, eat up, i.e. do not consider as realities a host of entities such as virtue, vice, etc. which are imperceptible.”"

Based on these I don't think the source is highly questionable; rather what is highly questionable is what is written currently in the Wikipedia article as attributed to that source. Please feel free to fix. Shreevatsa (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shreevatsa, Thanks for that. I actually rather expected that and my edit was designed to elicit the response that you have provided.

This makes much more sense than the current content of the article, though interestingly the extract incorrectly gives carva as the root. The dictionaries give carv, which is consistent with the conjugation, carvati. This must be an error by Bhattacharya, as it cannot possibly be from Hemacandra, if even someone with as little knowledge as I have can immediately see this inconsistency.

Actually, having researched the source, you should do the edit, particularly as I struggle with how to deal with this in the edit. Ideally the article should reference Hemacandra, and ignore Bhattacharya, who has lost his right to be referenced by this error, but for this one would need to have access to the original work. Do you have access to it?

Also, am I responding to you correctly to you on this page? Can you tell me how to insert my name when writing on an iPad? Thank you in advance.

Nakashchit

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swastika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Swastika check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Swastika?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

September 2019
Hello, I'm Mathglot. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sanskrit, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Sanskrit
I was only objecting to the inclusion of "Tocharian", which had been reverted before, at least twice. If that wasn't part of your edit, I apologize. Sometimes the edits stack up and it's difficult to sort them out. I will leave your current change for someone else to review.WQUlrich (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , reviewed, and reverted. See next section, and article talk page. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Leave an edit summary with every revert
Nakashchit, please leave an edit summary with every revert explaining the reason why you are reverting the edit, with the possible exception of when you revert obvious vandalism. If you revert an edit without leaving an edit summary, the assumption is that the removed content was vandalism, and you are merely restoring the status quo ante.

However, in the case of this revert of yours at Sanskrit, you undid this edit (itself a revert) which was not vandalism. Please don't do that; the safest strategy is to *always* leave an edit summary when you revert; if it's vandalism, say so (you can abbreviate to just rv v if you want).

Furthermore: since your revert was not about removing vandalism, but rather is a content dispute about inclusion of 'Tocharian' in a list, it should be discussed on the article Talk page. Per WP:BRD, you opened a discussion at the Talk page, exactly as you should have, so bravo for that. But unfortunately, you went ahead and reverted anyway. I've reverted the article back to the way it was, and added a reply to your comment at the Talk page. We can now all continue to discuss, to see if there's a consensus supporting your desired change to the page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced edits
Hi, Nakashchit. You appear to have knowledge of grammatical inflections in ancient languages, which can be really helpful to the encyclopedia. However, it's a core principle of Wikipedia that all content in articles must be verifiable. In these four edits to the article Name of Iran, you added information about inflections in Avestan. This material was unsourced, and I have removed it.

There were some other problems with those edits. I don't know if you just weren't paying attention, but one second you're talking calmly about the genitive plural in Avestan, and the next, you're going on about "Indonesia-Iranian languages". I have to assume that's an oversight, given your knowledge about language. Even if not for that slip-up, and even if it were sourced, I would have reverted anyway, or at least heavily edited your changes. There nothing so important about the fact that this was genitive case or stem or nominative case, that it needed to be placed in first sentence of the section on Etymology. Further down, perhaps. But it's highly undue to push this relatively minor information to the top of the section. If included at all, I'd probably place it in a footnote.

The other issue, is that your changes at Sanskrit were very similar; pushing relatively minor issues of ancient language noun declension, into an excessively prominent position in the article, interrupting the flow in order to do it. I'm not sure what your goal is. It's pretty clear you're very knowledgeable about these linguistic distinctions, and that's a good thing; but you have to have some perspective about what's important in an article, how much of it is important, and where to place it in the article. Please have a look at WP:UNDUE. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I just reverted a recent edit of yours at Vedic Sanskrit, also for lack of sourcing. This is being discussed at Talk:Vedic Sanskrit. You are welcome to contribute your thoughts at that discussion. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edits to Sanskrit and other pages
Dear Nakashchit, I sincerely hope that your apparent high knowledge will henceforth be matched by a high standard of editing. Verifiablity with all that it takes (sources, full citations) is indispensable, both when adding material to a WP article, and when contributing to a discussion. It is not sufficient for encyclopedic verifiablity to refer to dictionaries and to tell other editors to look up for themselves. E.g. in the case of the native name of Sanskrit, you need to provide sources which explicitly mention in appropriate context that saṃskṛta is the native citation form for "Sanskrit". For the Sanskrit discussion, I have done the job (btw a ridiculously easy job), but for future edits I appeal to your collegial spirit to provide the full package of appropriate and complete sources by yourself. WP is a collective project, so with every edit you should simultanously provide all the necessary information in order to enable all other editors (and also readers) to immediately cross-check your edit. Although it may feel tedious at first, please take this as an encouragement. Finding the best sources for easy verifiability is a challenge, but eventually you will find that this very challenge actually increases the joy of WP editing. –Austronesier (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Austronesier, Thanks for your good offices and your kind words. I don’t edit Wikipedia much because my work gets thrown out by people who don’t understand the subject matter - even though they may be really, really good at editing Wikipedia. You apparently understand the general structure of Indo-European languages, so it is possible to discuss this with you.


 * On the matter of dictionary references, I imagine most students these days don’t own a single paper dictionary. I own several from pre-web days, but still refer to the online dictionaries at Cologne University, for convenience and completeness - a definition may be missing from one but found in another dictionary. There is no page number on the online dictionary.  All that you will find is a form to enter the word, which is then replaced by a results page. This page is authoritative!  Should we prefer an old-fashioned formal reference to a printed book to which few readers will have access?


 * Secondly, one could go looking for a quotation from another writer to the effect that the conventional dictionary citation form is the stem form of the word. Good luck. Alternatively, it is a fairly simple task to look in a dictionary and see for oneself, if one has even a rudimentary knowledge of the subject matter. If one’s knowledge is extremely limited the declension or conjugation can be checked at INRIA. I respectfully submit that those who don’t know enough Sanskrit to even do that should not be editing references to Sanskrit words and grammar.
 * One of the people on the talk page was counting instances of occurrence of different forms, without reference to context. Another person observes that संस्कृत is used as an adjective.  It is not!  It is a most basic principle that the adjective must agree with the noun that is modified.  He has seen a compound word in which संस्कृत is used uninflected, as is customary in Vedic and required in Sanskrit.  The compound word as a whole may then be used as an adjective, generally attributively.
 * I cannot start to teach Sanskrit and general Indo-European grammar to all these people; they really have to take a course. (There are a number of good self-study courses online.) And if I did try, I would get no thanks, only remarks about my lack of knowledge of editing conventions.


 * BTW, Sanskrit Wikipedia uses nominative forms in headings, though the citation form of the word as such is, of course, the stem form. The word कूर्मः, the turtle, is the title of the article, just as it is the title of the story ‘the turtle’ in the Panchatantra. But the dictionary entry is कूर्म. The definitions provided by M-W for the word are below.

4. m. a tortoise, turtle VS. TS. &c. (ifc. f(आ). MBh. iv, 2016) m. the earth considered as a tortoise swimming on the waters (see -विभाग) m. (hence) N. of the fourteenth Adhya1ya अध्याय of VarBr2S. VarYogay. ix, 4 m. a particular figure or intertwining of the fingers (मुद्रा) Tantras. m. one of the outer winds of the body (causing the closing of the eyes) Veda7ntas. m. N. of a deity Rasik. m. of a serpent or Ka1draveya काद्रवेय king MBh. i, 2549 m. of a R2ishi ऋषि (son of Gr2itsa-mada गृत्स-मद, author of RV. ii, 27-29) RAnukr. m. Vishn2u विष्णु 's second incarnation (descent in the form of a tortoise to support the mountain Mandara मन्दर at the churning of the ocean) NarasP. &c. f. ([cf. κλέμμυς, χέλυς, χελώνη .])
 * Only the first of these will be found in the article, which is about the turtle. The dictionary entry is about the meanings of the word ‘turtle’. I enjoyed working out this grammatical distinction, of which I was not conscious before.  I did not enjoy at all the talk page for Sanskritam.   I am afraid, Austronesier, that I will leave the field to the Wikipedia experts, intervening only when I see a particularly egregious error.  I would like to contribute but is just too off-putting.  I well understand why there are so many errors of Sanskrit in Wikipedia: others do as I do.  I have had the same experience editing physics. Nakashchit. (I have been unable to find where the tildas are on my iPad.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakashchit (talk • contribs) 04:28, October 5, 2019 (UTC)
 * Added indentation and style to previous post for clarity. (Technical WP:TPO violation) and supplying this missing ping: User:Austronesier. Mathglot (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)