User talk:Abecedare: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:45, 27 April 2008

Archives

Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by .

.

Ramayana

Sorry, it was just an edit conflict. I am fixing your corrections. David G Brault (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Ah, I see untangling this will take some time. I will have to dust off my copies of Gavin Flood and R&M and start checking citations. Have left a suitably worded suggestion on FTN, will follow-up in a bit. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal

Hi Abece, I came here to just let you know that I find your proposal mostly acceptable. We'll deal with the details when we get to it. For now, please continue to work on your proposal. I thought I'd say this on the article talk page itself, but I noticed that Fowler's already laid waste to that thread with his signature off-topic babble. Sarvagnya 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am using Mugali, Narsimhacharya, Pollock, EIL etc for my night-time reading nowadays. I should have the first draft ready by late Wednesday/ early Thursday UTC. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your efforts Abece. What are you planning to draft first, the lead or the section on early witings.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section. The lede should be just a 2 sentence summary of the section anyway. Abecedare (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing citations and messing up FA article

Is there a way to stop some editors from removing citations and messing up FA articles, say like locking up the page? I hate to see any page locked up, but at times it seems needed. Please see Tamil language and Chola dynasty, two of the FAs being messed up by a group of editors. Can you help?--Aadal (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your refert on Krishna page

As you have suggested I wanted to discuss your revert on [1]. Maybe you can spell it out for us please. Not that I insist that it should be there, but its a valid addition of the meaning of the word. In Sanskrit word very often taken apart when meaning is described. Wikidās ॐ 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell the issue is as follows:

The etymology of a word is a matter, not of faith, but of language, which is handled by dictionaries. Standard Sanskrit dictionaries include Apte, Monier Williams etc; some of which are even available online.
While it is true that Sanskrit allows extensive conjugation of morphemes to form longer words, this process is governed by strict rules and is not random or arbitrary. In particular the breaking of the word kṛṣṇa into its syllables and assigning them independent power (not meaning!) is a matter of an esoteric tradition (i.e. interpretation) and not linguistics (i.e. translation). Even your citation says as much, right before the part you referenced.
That said, it is certainly valid to discuss these traditional interpretations in their proper context. In this case, mentioning the innumerable interpretations of Krishna's various names is simply undue in the Krishna article. Feel free to add the information to the Shuddhadvaita page, which needs to be rewritten anyway so that it is about the sampradaya instead of the founder Vallabha Acharya. Make sure that you cite the source correctly!

Let me know if you have any questions. Abecedare (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post and follow-ups at Krishna talk page so that the conversation is not duplicated any further. Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Reviewing FACs

Thank you for the wonderful suggestion. I agree that reviewing featured article candidates would certainly help, and I would love to do so as soon as I get a chance. Cheers. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Hello there. The article 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra is undergoing a peer review. Can you give your views on it? Here is the link to its peer review. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

If you keep reverting my edits or interupting my edits you will be reported to authority.

and Image:Brahmana.jpg is my photo. if i notice you keep gonig through my edits you will be informed. even if you think its copied please provide accurate investagation.

--PadmaDharma101 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to take the issue to WP:ANI cause im an Admin. Abecedare (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:44, 27 April 2008 edit Abecedare (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 33,222 edits →Images: provide link ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:45, 27 April 2008 edit undo PadmaDharma101 (talk \| contribs) 138 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 52:		Line 52:

	--[[User:PadmaDharma101\|PadmaDharma101]] ([[User talk:PadmaDharma101\|talk]]) 06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)		--[[User:PadmaDharma101\|PadmaDharma101]] ([[User talk:PadmaDharma101\|talk]]) 06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	: You are welcome to take the issue to [[WP:ANI]]. [[User:Abecedare\|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare#top\|talk]]) 06:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)		: You are welcome to take the issue to [[WP:ANI]] cause im an Admin. [[User:Abecedare\|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare#top\|talk]]) 06:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)