User talk:Redtigerxyz/Archive 3

Hello Redtigerxyz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. Its very important that you browse through the links below so as to become familier with how Wikipedia works. If you need help you ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and another Wikipedian will show up shortly. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia and plan on becoming a Wikipedian you might consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor, just paste {{Adoptme}} into your userpage and wait a few hours! Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! frummer 12:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

British Raj article

Your participation in removing bias from the current British Raj article is appreciated. A small group of people have overtaken this article to show British rule in India in a highly exaggerated positive light without any discussion of large scale atrocities, suppression of rights, racist policies, general looting of national wealth. See discussion at British Raj Neutrality Check DiscussionDesione (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dante's Cove delist discussion

Hey, thanks for the heads up on the discussion. I have some other articles I've gotten promoted, maybe you'd like to put them under discussion and not tell me about it too? Otto4711 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Hi Redtigerxyz. I currently have Kannada literature in PR. Kindly visit the article and provide your valuable thoughts how I could improve the article.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ayyappan Page

I don't know if it's appropriate to ask you this, but have you had a look at the article about Lord Ayyappa? I think it may be in need of some of your excellent attention. It appears to be more of a sort of online shrine, than a wikipedian article. There's a lot of information which appears to be the personal mystical experience of one author. I don't know the topic well enough myself to edit it properly, but it seems to be in a pitiable state. --AaronCarson (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON work group or subproject?

Hello. I see you have made contributions to ISKCON related articles. If you are interested, there is a discussion concerning an ISKCON subproject located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavism group

In fact, the Hinduism banner doesn't support the Vaishnavism group yet, although it could probably be changed fairly easily to do so. Can you suggest a specific public domain image to include for the Vaishnavism template? John Carter (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably go for the image of Vishnu myself, as the tilak image might be less than immediately understandable to a lot of editors. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter, the Vishnu image might be more identifiable. And, thank you Redtigerxyz for providing these images. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jodhaa Akbar

How have you been?? Long time...

Your recent message on Talk:Jodhaa Akbar was amazingly precise.

Please see Talk:Jodhaa Akbar#Jodha Bai history. I said the same. But this user was reverting my edits continuously. I tried to collaborate, but he wouldn't.

Also, I started a discussion on there.

The subject doesn't really interest me, and I don't really have a POV here, but the problem is that emphasis, misrepresentation, POV freak me out. And my analysis on the page clearly shows that this user was trying to emphasise his own POV. Regardless of what Akbar's wife's real name was, I think we have to present views fairly, not to make conclusions. I believe that the best way to present the matter is, "according to several historians, Jodhaa Bai was not the name of Akbar's wife" and not "Jodhaa Bai never existed". That's why I have written a new version of the text.

This user ignored my analysis. He tries to present his POV as a fact. I personally have no POV. Whether she was Jodhaa Bai or not -- I don't really care. I do care for the way it is written on the page. Historians' views cannot be considered as pure facts, especially considering they are just views and there isn't any concievable evidence to justify it.

But now your message supports my initial view that this info is completely irrelevant to this article. I still think it doesn't belong to this article. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavism work group

The Hinduism banner is set up for assessments for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism work group now. Please feel free to join the project if you are so interested. One option which might be open to you, if you were to so request it, would be to request at Wikipedia:Bot requests the automatic tagging for articles in one or more given categories for the new work group. If you were to want any help setting up such a list, please feel free to contact me. Unfortunately, what with various other things to occupy my time, I don't think I'll be able to do much personally with the group for a while yet. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Matrikas

Please let me know if you need any more images for that article. I may have some nice images of Sapta Matriaks in my collection.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Venkateswara discussion page

Dear Redtigerxyz, you wrote some time back the following on the discussion page of Venkateswara:

"The article at severe times says Venkateswara is "supreme god". This against the WP:NEUTRAL policy" According to the original principles of the Sri Sampradayam, to various supported puranic text and Sadhus; Venkateswara is the form of Vishnu for this age of kali as mention in many Sastras. Since He is Vishnu or Narayana...He is the "Supreme God", who is also mention in the original Vedas, main Upanishads, sattvic Puranas, the laws of Manu,by the original Vaishnava saints-the Alwars,by Ramanujacharya as the First and "Supreme God". That is Sastra, Sadhu and Dharma (Scriptures, holy men and tradition). That is what this article-writer is trying to say. In the philosophical context of the Religion; it is not against the WP:NEUTRALpolicy. I also see that you have helped with ISKON articles. And, I know that alot of ISKON people do not know about Venkatesha, because of the belief of Sri Krishna and Caitanya Maha-Prabhu. The awareness, knowledge and scripturally back premise that Venkateswara is God to be Worship by all in the kali yuga is unrefuted by the alwars, Yamunacharya, Ramanujacharya (who is suppose to be in the disciplic line of Gaudiya Sampradayam), Vedanta desika, and by Scripture, which is the most important. If you like, I can send you some websites and the names and email address of Sri Sampradayam Scholars that can prove what I said to be truth and absolute FACT.Zeuspitar Govinda Ramanuja dasa(talk) 19:41, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Redtigerxyz, Hey! every thing is cool! Actually, I hope and pray that I didnt come off too harsh or too fanatical. I was thinking about this all night. If I did, please, please forgive me. Actually, I better cool it on that too. I hope you have a good day. .Zeuspitar Govinda Ramanuja dasa(talk) 09:41, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

Avataras of Vishnu

Redtiger, I am from South India and I should know well. Balarama is considered an incarnation of Adi Sesha and not Sri Maha Vishnu. In some Puranas it was argued that Vishnu has 10 Avataras (Garuda Purana) and in some other like Bhagavatha Purana, He has about 21. But when Dasavataras are concerned, Balarama was not considered an Avatara of Sri Maha Vishnu. Legend has it that Sage Durvasa infuriated by King Ambarisha's lack of hospitality curses him to undergo further 10 lives. Ambarisha would then pray to Lord Vishnu and he was delivered from the curse and Lord Vishnu assumes the curse and takes birth as Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Prashurama, Sri Rama, Sri Krishna, Buddha, Kalki.

But in the later stage of evolution of Bhakti movement, especially the Chaitanya Maha Prabhu and Nimbarka Sampradayas, Balarama was considered an Avatara of Lord Vishnu, to downplay the growth of Buddhism and Jainism in India.

To quote you another example, after the Yadu Vamsha was annihilated by the curse of Gandhari, Sri Balarama attains niryana by going into the sea, sheds his mortal coil and becomes a white Maha Sesha. Refer to Mahabharata, Mausala Parva.

Just as mentioned in Vedas, "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahmasi", all this creation is a manifestation of Lord. We are not in a position to adjudge the number of Avataras of Lord. With all his innumerable forms and manifestations, He is always there and we are the least known beings in the Universe anything about Him.

Harishaluru (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Harish Aluru

Dasavataras of Vishnu

It is quite surprising you keep adding Balarama to the template despite the fact that you call this Dasa avataras. Dasa would mean 10 and with Balarama that would be eleven.

And check the example you quoted. That is said by some Mr. Jain et al... Do you really think Jain is a common last name in SOUTH India. I have seen your contributions and you seem to have done some really good work on Hinduism related articles (Kudos!!!). But please check before you make any corrections.

Even (though incorrect!) just buy your idea for a second that Balarama is considered one of 10 avataras in South India. But Wikipedia is meant to be a platform of majority opinion, not a whimsical anthology of a few guys from that hypothetical South India.

Harishaluru (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Harish Aluru

Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion

Hello Redtigerxyz. I have added the above discussion discussion to the Vaishnavism Wikiproject talk page at, Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion. Please feel free to add any comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Chamunda

On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chamunda, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional section to Bhakti yoga article

I would like to put the Sri Sampradayam description of Bhakti yoga. From the time of Ramanujacharya and before, Bhakti yoga was the practise of regular Ashtanga yoga...but, Lovenly meditate on Vishnu/Narayana. Doing dharana and dhyanam on Vishnu/Narayana is still a basic,every day part of the sadhana of a Sri Sampradayam Vaishnava. This was the standard and practise from Ramanujacharya and before. I think and feel that it should be included on this article. The conception of Bhakti yoga on this article is very tinged with a ISKON understanding and slant. I think it would be fair to add the original Sri Sampradayam standard to this article Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)