User talk:Redtigerxyz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal 128 kuser.png
Feather 150 transparent.png
New message
Updated DYK query.svg
In the news
Original Barnstar.png

Peer reviews having minimal or no feedback at all:
April 20The Dark Fields
April 22Translational glycobiology
May 2Gill Sans
If your review is not present in the main unanswered list, add it here.
view listupdate


What a pleasure to read this article! Well-deserved golden star! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Adi Parashakti[edit]

I came to this courtesy of a COI spam mess from the creator and his socks (that problem is obviously not there in this one), but I was left wondering why this should be separate from Shakti. Can you take a look please? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Spaceman, Adi Parashakti or Adi Shakti or Mahadevi denotes the Supreme Goddess in Shaktism. Though Devi or Shakti may also denote the Supreme Godddess, they are used as common nouns also. Shakti is power; it may refer to various shaktis (female powers) of gods e.g. Matrikas (The matrika Maheshwari as shakti of Shiva) or consorts e.g. Parvati (though also given the epithet Maheshwari; she is different from the matrika) as shakti of Shiva; similarly Varahi v/s Bhudevi as shakti of Varaha. Shakti also denotes kundalini-shakti or ichha-shakti etc.Redtigerxyz Talk 12:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, there seems to be a lot of overlap within the three articles leading to confusion for the reader -- Shakti (while I understand your point on the common noun, it seems more focused on the proper), Adi Parashakti, and Mahadevi. Anyways, I'll leave it be for subject matter experts to handle. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
beauty of Hindu mythology
... you were recipient
no. 131 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chhinnamasta 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{clear}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chhinnamasta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chandika (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Satyanarayan puja[edit]

Hello Red Tiger, I would appreciate it if you can have look at this article Satyanarayan Puja. I recently added sourced information that said that in Bengal Satya Narayan and Satya Pir puja were related. Another editor reverted that edit citing that the reference I had used was from a book published 100 years ago. Let me know you thoughts on the matter. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


why have you reverted the changes made by me in Rishyasringa . what do you know about rishis of Hinduism. I just removed one of the irrelevant and fake picture depicting rishi shringi. put back the changes made by me or give reasons why you reverted the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranaharra (talkcontribs) 17:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha in hinduism[edit]

Hello, why you removed "Deferences Between Gautama Buddha And Buddha" Created by me? Do you say what is the reason? Because my references are from Bhagwata Purana Book By Geetapress. If you have any problems then say to me please if possible then I will change. --~AbHi Chat Me!! 📥 14:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Replied on article talk.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations question for Kali article[edit]

Hi Redtigerxyz, I'm looking at overhauling the citations for the Kali article and wondering what format to use. It's been many years since I brought an article to GA status, and I'm wondering what is the best approach here to save the GA status for the article. I know many ways are acceptable. Would you recommend Harvard, or another? Ease of use is a consideration. Is there a tool that will create a Harvard formatted reference? Is there a newer approach that I'm not aware of? thanks, First Light (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

First Light; Generally in GAs, I use in the format "Apte (2004),? p. 720" in plain text (without templates). However, in the article I am working on currently - Chhinnamasta, I used {{harvtxt}}, but for FA hopes. I do not know of a tool for easy referencing.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm thinking of going with Harvard, as I've used that before. And thanks for the improvements to the article, including digging up that long-lost verifiable (and very good) material in the etymology section. First Light (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Barbarika and Khatushyamji[edit]

Aren't they essentially one and the same? Vensatry (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Vensatry, Yes. They are the same. However I think two articles are needed: 1. about the deity Barbarika - integrate everything about Khatushyamji's local legend here 2. about his chief temple at Khatu/Khatushayamji; part of this info is available in Khatushyamji. --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The Barbarika tale comes from a folklore; there's no mention about him in the unabridged version of the epic. Given that Khatushyamji is a manifestation of him, can't we have both under one roof? Vensatry (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Vensatry, Barbarika comes from Skanda Purana; while Khatushyamji tale, which is similar to the Purana in some aspects, is folklore. I suggest a model like Iravan; where most of the current Khatushyamji is merged in Barbarika; however an article about Khatushyamji's chief temple (which is also covered in the current Khatushyamji article) needs to be retained.--Redtigerxyz Talk 09:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
That'll do! Vensatry (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


In the movie Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb, Robin Williams gave the voice for Garuda artifact.

The subject looks interesting. Can you help to take Garuda to GA and then FA level? --Rainbow Archer (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC

Rainbow Archer, I can help; but can not take the lead in this.--Redtigerxyz Talk 08:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


Glad to see you are active again. I found this article created by a newcomer and thought of expanding it. I am seeing some book references; like the ref 1 & 2 used in article, that mention Kalanemi as a minor character in some war between suras and asuras. He was then killed by Vishnu. But I can't figure out what war this was? Was it the one after the Sagarmanthan and before the Mohini avatar? They mention that Indra killed Bali in this war and Bali was later resurrected by Shuracharya.
Other books also say that Kalanemi later reincarnated as Kamsa, Krishn'a uncle and again got slayed by a Vishnu-avatar.
I have added info about a certan Kalanemi from Ramayana. But am not sure if they are linked or what. Can you sort out the article? Or at least guide me? Pinging @Nvvchar: as well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Welcome back Redtigerxyz. Dharmadhyaksha I am not doing much editing as I underwent cataract surgery ten days back. I am wearing temporary reading lens since yesterday and doctor has permitted me to work on the computer. This article has generated my interest and I have added some text. I will add more tomorrow. Thanks.Nvvchar. 14:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello, Redtigerxyz -- Although I have posted the GOCE template indicating that I have completed the copy-edit for Chhinnamasta, there are a few issues that need to be cleared up before the article can be considered to be in good shape.

The easy ones first:

1) I saw "goddess" and "goddesses" both capitalized and in lower-case. If there is no particular reason why it is capitalized in some places, I think these should be consistent, and I recommend lower-case. However, sometimes it was not clear to me whether these words were always referring to Chhinnamasta or to some other goddess. If there are some instances where the words refer to some other goddess, we've got to make sure it is clear to whom the words refer. Just let me know whether you approve of all lower-case or not, and I'll make the corrections.

2) I saw "mahavidha" and "mahavidyas" both capitalized and in lower-case. I think these should be consistent throughout the article. I don't know which is correct, but I suspect lower-case would be all right. Just let me know.

3) In the third paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins, you have a sentence that begins:

  • The scholar B. Bhattacharya studied various texts...

The tense of the verb (past tense) suggests that this was quite a while ago. If he studied the text in the last ten or fifteen years, and is still alive, we might decide to change "studied" to present perfect "has studied", which suggests fairly recent research, or research that continues up to fairly close to the present. If the research was quite a while ago, or the scholar is no longer living, then "studied" is correct, but it might help the reader to know in approximately what decades he studied the text, such as "In the 1920s..." or "In the 1970s and 1980s,..."

4) Whatever you decide about the verb study will affect the tense of the next two verbs, "found" and "are". If you stay with "studied", then "found" is correct, and to be really correct, "are" should be changed to "were" (even if still true). If you select "has studied", then "found" should be changed to "has found", and "are" can remain "The are".

5) The last sentence in the fourth paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins is:

  • Apart from Chinnamunda, Karel R. van Kooij also associates the iconography of Chhinnamasta to the Tantric goddesses Varahi and Chamunda.

I know it must be clear to you, but it may not be clear to your readers what "Apart from Chinnamunda" means. Take into account what is in the preceding sentence. That phrase, "Apart from Chinnamunda" appears to be a kind of transitional phrase making a bridge from one sentence to the next, but this bridge is not clear. Do you mean "In addition to Chinnamunda" (even that may not be clear)? Or "Regardless of what Benard says," or "Regardless of the connection between Chhinnamasta and Chinnamunda,"? Or something else? If you are not sure, then perhaps we can take out that phrase completely. The sentence about van Kooij would still make sense.

6) The first sentence of the fifth paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins is:

  • David Kinsley agrees with the Buddhist origin theory, but acknowledges other influences, too.

I'm wondering whether "acknowledges" is the best verb here. It kind of suggests that he is merely agreeing with another scholar rather than putting forth his own ideas. What do you think of using "recognizes", "sees", "has discovered", or "proposes"?

  • but recognizes other influences, too.
  • but sees other influences, too.
  • but has discovered other influences, too.
  • but proposes other influences, too.

I think I like "sees" or "proposes" the best.

7) The last sentence of that paragraph is:

  • The beheading and rejoining motif also appears in the tale of goddess Renuka.

I read about "recreation" in the section Chhinnamasta#Destruction, Transformation and Recreation (I'm not sure "transformation" and "recreation" should be capitalized), but I don't recall reading about a "rejoining" motif, or anything about "rejoining". I assume this means the rejoining of the head and the body. If this is something special to the tale of the goddess Renuka, then this sentence needs to be slightly re-worded, something like:

  • The beheading motif, accompanied by a unique rejoining motif, also appears in the tale of the goddess Renuka.

8) In the lede, you say, " one of the Mahavidyas, ten Tantric goddesses and a ferocious aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother." The first sentence of the section Chhinnamasta#Legends and textual references is:

  • Chhinnamasta is often named as the fifth or sixth Mahavidya in the group, with hymns identifying her as a fierce aspect of the goddess.

The reader might scratch his or her head at "in the group"? (Which group?) I think the sentence would read fine if you omitted "in the group". Also, if Chhinnamasta is an "aspect" of a goddess, then "goddess" cannot really be referring to Chhinnamasta, and the reader will wonder "What goddess is this?" Is it Devi? Can we say "identifying her as a fierce aspect of Devi"?

9) I am puzzled by the clause that comes shortly after this:

  • though Chhinnamasta barely has an independent existence outside the group.

You've got a long, detailed article on Chhinnamasta, mentioning traditions, temples, etc., in several parts of India and Nepal. Not all of that is discussed in connection with the Mahavidyas. I would either omit this or explain what you mean.

10) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Legends and textual references is:

  • In a story from the Shakta Maha-Bhagavata Purana and the Brihaddharma Purana, which narrates the creation of all Mahavidyas including Chhinnamasta, Sati, the daughter of Daksha and the first wife of the god Shiva, feels insulted that she and Shiva are not invited to Daksha's yagna ("fire sacrifice") and insists on going there, despite Shiva's protests.

This sentence is not clear. It's kind of clear up to "including Chhinnamasta". After that, you lose me. It appears that "the first wife of the god Shiva" does not have a name and gave birth to a daughter by a man (god?) other than her husband Shiva – quite confusing.

11) Shortly after that is the following sentence:

  • Similar legends replace Sati with Parvati, the second wife of Shiva and reincarnation of Sati or Kali, the chief Mahavidya, as the wife of Shiva and origin of the other Mahavidyas.

This sentence is totally unclear.

  • Who is the "chief Mahavidya" – only Kali, or Sati or Kali, and why "or"? Is it two names for the same goddess or two different goddesses, and (a) the chief Mahavidya can be either one, or (b) it's Sati in some places and Kali in others, or (c) it's not clear which one it is. (You wanted an editor who doesn't know anything about Hinduism.)
  • You mention right after Parvati, "the second wife of Shiva", so why do you have to follow "replace Sati with Parvati" with "as the wife of Shiva" later in the sentence?

Also, I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.

12) The next sentence is also unclear:

  • While Parvati uses the Mahavidyas to stop Shiva from leaving her father's house, Kali enlightens him and stops him, who was tired of living with her, from leaving her.
  • In "who was tired of living with her", who is "her"? If "her" is Parvati, why were she and Shiva living in her father's house?
  • Is Kali's action of enlightening and stopping Shiva what is meant by Parvati using the Mahavidyas? If so, I would not use the "While...." construction. I would write:
  • Parvati uses the Mahavidyas to stop Shiva, who was tired of living with her, from leaving her father's house; Kali enlightens Shiva and stops him from leaving.

Also, I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.

13) The next sentence, the last sentence in the paragraph is:

  • The Devi Bhagavata Purana also mentions the Mahavidyas as war-companions and forms of the goddess Shakambhari.

I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.

14) I'm wondering if it would help readers if you separated written textual references and oral legends somehow. You could either make two sections on the same level as the "Legends and textual references" section heading is now, or you could make two sub-headings within that larger section. Late in that section you refer to the first oral legend and then the second oral legend. It might be easier for a reader to look back and find the first and the second oral legends if they were in their own section or sub-section. Just a suggestion.

15) In the section Chhinnamasta#Control over or embodiment of sexual desire, particularly in the first two paragraphs, you present two very different interpretations of Chhinnamasta. I am a little puzzled by how you seem to present them as equally valid interpretations, even though the two interpretations are almost opposite. I'm wondering if you could explain whether these contrasting interpretations are considered both true and valid at the same time, or whether among scholars one interpretation is more favored than the other, or if one interpretation is more prevalent in certain places and the other interpretation more prevalent in others, or at different times in history.

This goddess is a very multi-faceted and complex goddess, and you have covered it all quite well.  – Corinne (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)