User talk:Imc

/Archive 1

(removed offensive entry)

Qing Dynasty empresses

I notice you have previously participated in discussions about the article titles for Qing empresses. I am interested in getting opinion on the correct location of the articles on Qing empresses which are almost all currently located at hideous violations of pinyin rules. I don't have opinions on the format or even the names themselves so I would like to get some consensus before proposing moves. (But please, no hyphens and no CamelCase.) The articles in question are every CamelCase or hyphenated name plus Empress Xiao Xian and Abahai at Category:Qing Dynasty empresses and Category:Qing Dynasty empress dowagers. If you are interested please discuss it here. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Krishna article

Hello Imc, Since you your were one of the main authors of the main page Krishna and since you are, as you say non religious - can you, please, propose a balancing statement for the second paragraph on the talk page, that will satisfy all the parties (Krishna-monotheistic and Vishnu-monothestic) and reflect the variety of the perspectives on Krishna without resulting to 'ad populus' argument. I think you will be the perfect editor for the NPOV writeup. Thanks. --Wikidās ॐ 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Darul Uloom

Thanks for your comment. What I added is the info I had got in those times from nonpartisan observers. I have no other reference. Wikipedians may contribute a Ref or delete my addition; it will be Ok with me bothways. Actually, lmc, my contributions are in the form of copy edits only and very rarely on points that I know about for sure. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Svayam Bhagavan and Krishna article

Imc, can you please help with the S.B. article. Please look at the edits of mine and wikidas's. Can you please help with the article. It appears there might be some friction between wikidas and myself again. I really would like to contest alot with what has been put on this article. Please Help.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Imc, please can you help in mediating between wikidas and myself. Please help with the Svayam Bhagavan article, he has been trying really hard to give a certain bias to it. Just look at the history and article for yourself. please help. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The link on Krishna

"THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE". Put the link back, when one can read it - it becomes alive. For all i know exotic.. sites are unavailable for a long time now.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Imc, You were recently contributing to articles that are in the scope of the new project WP:KRISHNA, I thought you may want to check the proposal of merger and cast your vote in relation of the additional section to article Krishna. Thanks. --Wikidās-ॐ 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope, update and voting Whats new at Krishna's project Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism - whats new and happening! Discussion on the scope of the project: Krishna-worship. First DYK of he project Radha Ramana 22nd May 2008 Pages under construction Radha Krishna, Bala Krishna, Krishnaism. Consensus is now reached on the proposal of merger of the new article Krishna Vasudeva into a separate section of Krishna here: Please note the results of the vote on the proposal of merging new article on early worship of Krishna Vasudeva to the main article dedicated to the Hindu deity Krishna. Krishna Vasudeva may have been worshiped in 4 century BC as a monotheistic deity. This article is to be incorporated in a separate section of Krishna article. Also, if you are ready to help with editing and assessment of the scope, please see the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. While the name of the project is WikiProject Krishnaism in common language many seems to prefer a wider term "Vaishnavism", which however appeared to relate to Vishnu. Krishnaism is more of an academic term. On the other hand even one of the first Indologists to use the term, Albrecht Weber was to consider that that the essence of Krishnaism, bhakti or the principle of "God is love", was pre-Christian. There were and are many traditions where Krishna is worshiped and His names revered. There was a discussion (and a heated one) on the scope of the project and the term here. Currently the scope is quite wide and aims at improving articles related to Radha-Krishna and associated traditions where they are worshiped: Manipuri Vaishnavas, Bhagavata, Gaudiya Vaishnava, Nimbarka sampradaya, Swaminarayana sampradaya, Vallabha sampradaya; If you see a need to widen or restrict the scope please voice your opinion - it is wanted! Just leave a few words here.

Indraprasth

Hey, How are you? I saw you completely reverted the changes I had made to the mis-spelled names and some derogatory misnomers in the Indraprasth wiki article [1] without specifying a valid reason as to why you did it? I don't think "Revert to edit of 27 June 2008." is a valid reason to justify why you will undo all my and other people's contributions. Instead of picking and choosing to undo the changes I did to which you do not agree to or to talk to me about it, you undid everything. It is not considered good wiki etiquette. I can understand and respect that you may be "non-religious" but that still doesn't absolve you to make claims like "material not attested in the Mahabharata." With all due respect have you read the holy scripture Mahabharat, it is has more than 74,000 verses, long prose passages, and about 1.8 million words in total all in Sanskrit. Because Mahabharat very much mentions that Pandav settled at Khandavprath (a barren land) where a city called Indraprasth was settled with the help of architect Vishwakarma[2][3]. So was also shown in a well researched Indian TV show Mahabharat's[4][5] episodes 37 to 40.

I had given the actual reasons as to why I changed the names from Mahabharata to Mahabharat, Pandava to Pandav, etc. It is British colonial hangover to put 'a' in the end of every Hindu god and names in English. If it is in fact Mahabharata, then why is written as महाभारत in Devanāgarī and not महाभारता? If it is in fact Pandava, then why is written as पाण्डव in Devanāgarī and not पाण्डवा? If it is in fact Indraprastha, then why is written as इन्‍द्रप्रस्‍थ in Devanāgarī and not इन्‍द्रप्रस्‍था? I don't see an extra 'aa' sound in the end of any of these names when pronounced or written in Sanskrit. Just because Britishers called River Ganga as Ganges because they couldn't pronounce it as former, should not stop us from us rectifying such misspellings and misnomers.

Also, I think it is very derogatory to call holy Hindu Scriptures as mythology (a collection of myths). Just like no one will call Bible, Quran, Guru Granth Sahib as mythology because no one has seen any of Jesus Christ, Proph. Mohd., etc. walking on the earth in contemporary world but we have no issues if anyone believes in them. We have to be neutral to all. It is a slap on the face of religious freedom, and sentiments of millions of devout Hindus (Sanatan Vedic Dharm Anuyayi).

Also, it is neutral to say that "There have been many new settlements where Indraprasth was located after the Dvapar Yug (Mahabharat epoch) was over and almost all the settlements have left their influences." rather than communalizing it by giving significance to only one kind of settler’s influence by saying "Although this cannot be said for certain as there are theories around the etymology of Delhi that suggest Persian influences." There have been six other settlements also at the location where Indraprasth was, let them have some credit too.

As you can see I had presented reasons as to why these changes were justified rather than just undoing others changes with a bias. We have to be neutral and follow some Wiki etiquettes. Please reply as soon as possible.

Seema429 (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Krishna

You are most welcome to correct errors, if any in the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lilys

I wanted to think you for your fix on the Lilium article. Your revert was correct. However, your edit summary was not. Angel Trumpets are of the Brugmansia and not Datura genus.

Again, it was my mistake in adding the reference; I made it because the study was referenced in a Lily context. However, I wonder if as a practical matter it would be wise to include a sentence, with the caveat that the Angel Trumpet is not actually apart of the Lilium genus, that the Angel Trumpet is not edible. For whatever reason, there is some popular confusion over this fact, and as a practical matter, people searching for information on this plant, for pets or children, might turn to this resource. If they do, it's important we have some reference to the dangerous nature of that plant.

I'm surprised that the Angel Trumpet does not have an article of its own. The top google search [6] is quite explicit about their toxicity.

I'll wait to hear what you think on the matter. LH (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Your recent edit removed content from Platanus orientalis. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove sourced content.

TheSuave 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Crikey, on re-reading, it turns out this is my second welcome to Wikipedia message! With some basic advice, no less, (added, that was me, Imc (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Iridaceae

Thank you very much for so many corrections in the article! --EnCASF (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous addition to user page

Below comment by user at 118.94.58.157, moved from user page.

Do Know anything about Hinduism..I mean Atleast of ABC..hehee

Question

Why did you remove my "offensive" entry. If you were truly comfortable in your own skin with a healthy feeling of cultural superiority as all great civilisations and peoples must possess, you'd just laugh it off safe in the knowledge of your own pre-eminence. This is what most whites do when confronted with "anti-white racism". However, the overhang from colonial times is that none of the 3rd world ex-emire countries, not even your elites, feel truly comfortable with the concept of their own cultural superiority. Except perhaps the mighty Chinese who were never truly colonised.

That maks me lol at your national insecurities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.121.99 (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Mahabharata

I am seeing conflicting data,its mentioned about statement " Hermann Oldenberg (1922)..." but the Hermann itself died in 1920. Also please provide me any link where i can verify the Winternitz Statements.Alokprasad (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree now, on closer examination, that there is some confusion or conflict. With regard to the first reference (Oldenberg), a work can well be published or reprinted after the author's death, so there is not necessarily a conflict. However, my statement on it looking like a reliable reference was based partly on it having been there a long time. I see that it does not actually name a source work. I have therefore removed a misplaced 'ref' tag, and added a citation notice. Removing the 'ref' tag moves the Winternitz statement up from the references section. This statement is also potentially unreliable, since it quotes a German title, but quotes English language text (Moritz Winternitz - Geschichte der indischen Literatur 1909) considered that "only unpoetical theologists and clumsy scribes". This might best be raised in the article talk page, since the text has been there for years and has not been challenged before. Finally, I separated out the first line of the paragraph Research on the Mahabharata has put an enormous effort into recognizing and dating various layers within the text. which I believe is true, but needs a reference, which should be relatively easy to find, and if no one else does, I will find in the next few days.

Regarding a link where you can verify the Winternitz statement, there does not have to be one. If it refers to a print work, then that should be as good a reference here as anywhere else. It places the onus on anyone questioning it to find a copy of the work and read it. Though of course an edition, a chapter, page number et.c. would also be as useful here as anywhere else, and it might be considered unreasonable not to do so for a major work (see the comments at [Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Citing_the_Mahabharata]. Imc (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Telangana

Thanks for your help! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Imc, I just read one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that an editor who has been contributing articles since 2003 hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 18:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

8800 verse claim in "jaya"

i request you to remove 8800 verses claim of jaya,because it it neither mention in mahabharata and many reknowned scholars have been contradicting this claim or not refering as a initial readtion. see Jhon Brockington contradicts it in his article,in this whole topic is disscused that how some scholars misinterpeted 8800 verse as a sepereate 8800 verse version as "jaya".I think it is enough for now,because this source cleary shows 8800 verses as a misinterpetation by some poor indian scholars.I hope now it will not a problem to delete this misinterpeted information. U can also see EPIC UNDERTAKINGS By Muneo Tokunaga,where he simply support Brockington statement.and also research done by these two is new,while source provided by u is of 1966.So finally we have atleast five scholars who contradicts 8800 verse claim,they are

• 1.Jhon Brockington in his article
• 2.Muneo Tokunaga in his book EPIC UNDERTAKINGS
• 3.fitzgerald in his article
• 4.The Mahabharata - A Criticism By C. V. Vaidya also support 24000 verse as a first redaction.
• 5.South Asian folklore: an encyclopedia by

Peter J. Claus, Sarah Diamond, Margaret Ann Mills also mention 24000 verse as a first redaction

• 6.this type of verse is not present in mahabharata itself,MB itself recognise it as a 24000 core portion

So all these respectable author have rejected 8800 verse as a first redaction. I think its enough facts to remove 8800 verse claim from wikipedia,which doesnot believe in folk stories --Mayurasia 14:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)