User talk:Rudra79

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:


 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|23px]]  Introduction
 * 5     The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * [[Image:Crystal package utilities.png|23px]]  How to edit a page
 * [[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]]  Help
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|23px]]  Tips
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px|]]  How to write a great article
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app kedit.svg|23px]]  Manual of Style
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps konquest.svg|23px]]  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of 'This is a minor edit'
You may want to take a look at Wikipedia's policy in the minor edit flag. Some of the changes that you have made to various articles have been marked minor, but really should not be according to the edit policy. The 'minor edit' flag is primarily for superficial changes, such as formatting, grammar and spelling corrections, or other maintenance-type activities. Adding or removing content from an article should typically be treated as a non-minor edit. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Arishadvargas"
A page you created, Arishadvargas, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is nonsense or gibberish.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Wysprgr2005 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Rudra79 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)I don't know why you seem to think that this is gibberish. This is probably one of the key concepts of Hindu theology. It is found throughout the sacred literature of the Hindus, especially the 18 puranas.It is found in Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, (albeit with names changed), but why should it be taken as 'nonsense' when it as accepted as 'wisdom' in Sikh religion, Buddhism etc ?

Your edit
Could you please explain this edit:. Mitsube (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rudra79 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)I changed it, because it made the unverified claim that parts of Brihadanaranyak was composed much later. However, it is not so, because the entire Brihadaranyak follows one pattern, and the linguistic characteristics are also the same throughout. Please read the Brihadaranyak in original sanskrit, and not in mere translations. You will understand that the claim that was made that parts of it was composed later cannot be supported.


 * Please read the wikipedia policies WP:V and WP:RS. It is not relevant what your opinions are. The rule is "verifiability, not truth". It is only statements in reliable sources that matter. Mitsube (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rudra79 (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)It is not my opinion. You read the Brihadaranyak Upanishad in sanskrit. Brihadaranyak Upanishad is not an English novel. It is a sanskrit work. Read it first. Without reading it how can you verify ? You are saying without reading it. If you do not know sanskrit, then why are you commenting on this issue ? And if you know sanskrit read it please.

Rudra79 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Fine. You want to write something incorrect here. That's Ok by me. All I wanted was to put it in that some scholars may say that some parts of this Upanishad was composed later on, but there is another point of view which views it as being a monolithic whole and not a hotch-potch. And you can easily verify it by reading the original book itself, instead of relying on other people's opinion. You don't want to do it. ok. transmit incorrect knowledge.

Rudra79 (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC) If you do become open minded. Please read Brihadaranyak Upanishad in original sanskrit. I don't understand how you are commenting on a text which you have not read in original. Anyway I can give you another reference of a fine book, if you care to read it."The philosophy of the Upanishads" by Suresh Chandra Chakravarti (Calcutta University Press : 1979 edition)