User talk:Kanchanamala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! — Lost(talk) 08:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My friend, I was so overwhelmed by your welcome that I did not thank you. Sorry about that. Better late than never, thank you, and wish you a very happy new year.Kanchanamala 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kanchanamala, wish you a very happy new year too. And welcome to the WP:India assessment department. We really need helping hands. Do let me know if I can help you get started — Lost(talk) 14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a try. Thanks indeed.Kanchanamala 06:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kanchanmala

Kanchanmala,

Abecedare has moved the current discussion to WT:HNB. I am not challenging you, I am just trying to explain you. When you claim the translation of Griffith is erroneous, you should give one or two examples. I am not versed with the subject or Mr.Griffith. I take your comments for his being a schlorly good human. It would be in everyone's good if you explain errors in translation. If, other editors discuss this, you also would get other inputs. Sanskrut was not my subject so I won't understand a bit. I am just appealing you. In all probabilities, you could be right and your explanation could be of immense help to other Sanskrut knowing editors. Your present stand might create mis-understanding about you. swadhyayee 08:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Swadhyayee, I value your concern. Let me invite you to follow my response on WT:HNB. Those who do know Sanskrit ('Sanskrut' in Marathi), my humble submissions should be easy to follow.Kanchanamala 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Kanchanmala, You have said "Ok" to Aupmanyav in response to his message but I would still request you to explain. I apprehend that you will now wait for Aupmanyav to contact his friend and the discussion will die down.

Grammatical differences were being explained by Pandurang Shashtri and it used to logically convince everyone so my request to you to explain still stays. I am awaiting for your explanation. I am sure either it will be accepted by Aupmanyav or debated. This will help everyone understand the right thing.

The word "Sanskrut" is not only in Marathi, it is almost in every Indian language. "Sanskrit" is gift of Westerns who are keen to change our words and our "Bhakti" for Gora Sahebs does not allow us to use right spellings for our words - the way they are pronounced. swadhyayee 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for the Sanskrit professor to confirm (or deny) that in some vedic 'sukta's, all the mantras do not have the same 'devataa' or 'devataa's: some mantras have one particular 'devataa', and some other mantra(s) have a different 'devataa'. That information is provided right at the beginning of every 'sukta'.Kanchanamala 04:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


PS: Swadhyayee, I am being persuaded by your sincerity. Let me therefore share something about translations of Sanskrit texts by non-Indian scholars. Rosalind Lefeber, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at McMaster University in Canada has translated, in 1994, the Kishkindha Kanda of the Baroda edition of Valmiki's Ramayana. She uses her own logic to say that the Sanskrit word 'riksha' does not mean a bear, and in her translation she says that Jambavan is a 'vaanara' like Vali, Sugriva and Hanuman, and not a bear. And English readers who do not know Sanskrit will treat her wise-ass determination as definitive.Kanchanamala 10:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

Links for Wikipedians interested in Hindu content

--D-Boy 06:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, D-Boy, I appreciate. Happy New Year!Kanchanamala 04:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English

Hanji, bolne me saddi punjabi kamzor hain, main agrezee or hindi bolne me zyaada acchcha hoon magar main computer pe hindi nahee liksakta, aadat nahee pari, isleeye maine userpage pe likha hain ki main 'native speaker of english' hoon. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On another note, could you keep an eye on pages like Punjab (Pakistan) and Punjabi language, some users have been referring to Indian Punjab as Khalistan for some odd reason. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kanchan, that is not much of an introduction. Aupmanyav 06:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I do want to be known by my comments and edits. Thanks anyway.Kanchanamala 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Are you knowleageable on Kalayavan and Muchukunda? T*E*H Kingrom 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Kingrom, what are we talking about?Kanchanamala 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was asking you if you know about these legendary figures (I noticed you seem to know a bit on Hindu pauraniks and stuff. On the Vish aiyengar thing, is it not better to have a more familiar Hindu figure define "Who is a Hindu"? T*E*H Kingrom 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Kingrom, one should desist from reverting any entry in the article on Hindu if the merit of the subject matter is not apparent. Dr. Vish Ayengar has been held in high esteem by scholars including in the United States.

As for Kalayavan and Muchukunda, I shall get back to you. [Tamil]: "paarakare yannaa seya mudiyun".Kanchanamala 13:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Reverting Vish

Hi, thanks for the note. If you think my reverting was inappropriate, then by all means, revert it back to the version you like. The current semi-protection blocks only IP users and new accounts (upto 4 days old, if I am not mistaken), which means you are free to edit. But it seems to me there is some disagreement between regular editors there, so I cannot guarantee your edit will stay, for I am not one of those regular editors on Hindu. Please know that I have a deep respect for Hinduism, and don't hesitate to contact me if there is anything I can help. Thanks. --BorgQueen 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kanchanamala, I will revert any edits which I (and the concensus of other Wikipedia users) deem to be innapropriate. User:Maleabroad has persistently reverted the Hindu article to an older version which contains a number of bolded nationalistic POV statements, some badly sourced theories on the origin of the word Hindu and an entire section [beliefs] which is repeated (virtually word for word) twice on the page. I really do not see any logic in the constant reversions? As for the revert including a statement by Vish ([1]) this was made by another user and not myself. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gouranga, I greatly appreciate your response. We have the freedom to determine what is appropriate and what is not, and then use our ability to remove any part of the article just like that. Whenever vandalism is reverted, that makes sense. But what was wrong with Vish Ayengar's observation? It never bothered me because the culture of the Hindus allows it. Our good friend Aupmanyav questioned it as is wont with him. No editor has responded to his call. We should ask ourselves the question, did that observation help the article or hurt it? If it helped the article, why remove it? The article is not going to affect you or me personally. But if the article is there in the Wikipedia, with a lot of good observations, it will help a lot of readers. Let us guard the article against vandalism, but let us not censor learned opinions. That's my humble submission to you.Kanchanamala 05:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's been very difficult to do any meaningful editing of Hindu related articles lately, mainly because of the disruptive activities of Maleabroad. The problem is that minor, useful edits (or even slightly more major ones) get drowned out and lost in the continual reversion wars. I think that now the furor has died down to a degree, everyone can consider your ideas and others in a calm and rational fashion. This is the reason for the Wikipedia policies on civility and revert wars. Our friend Maleabroad may have thought he was helping get his Hindu message across, but all he really achieved was to hurt the case of the more reasonable and measured editors. Still, hopefully now is the opportunity to think more about your suggestions. Orpheus 07:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, I value your observation. Please do the best you can. I have thought it better to leave editing to more experienced editors. Thanks again.Kanchanamala 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashwamedha

I saw ur post on WP:HNB and perhaps you shuld contribute to the article. The main people there are User:Paul Barlow and User:Dbachmann who, I believe, are trying to portray Hindus in a negative light based on their own biases, trying to portray us as zoophiles to provoke disgust against Hindus. They self-translate the Rigveda to justify this. If you have more knowledge on this topic then please contribute to the article and Talk:Ashwamedha. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Good luck. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bangalore

Dear Kanchanamala,

might I suggest that if you you "want to be known by your comments as a discussant" you're not really going about it in the right way? I made some substantive points, and if you disagree then tell me why rather than resorting to insult. Who I think I am is hardly relevant to this. As Dravid would say "play the ball, not the man".

All the best,

Sikandarji Sikandarji 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Revert

Maleabroad has made many disruptive edits to Hindu related articles which have caused me and several other editors to revert him. Many of them were strong pov pushes (see WP:NPOV). The edit summaries he left also breached WP:CIVIL with his regular accusations of people being racists. See this report on AN/I for more details.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I shall respect it. By the way, if you were a guy, you would have been a Persian nightingale. Keep chirping.Kanchanamala 07:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bengalooru?

Hi Kanchanamala. Going by the heated discussion on the talk page of Bangalore, I was afraid that you'd kill me if I was not on the lookout for the official status of the name change. I thing I escaped by the skin of my teeth :-) -- WikiCheng | Talk 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, WikiCheng, I've always appreciated your help. Deccan Herald, unlike The Indian Express and The Hindu, is the native English daily of Bangalore owned by the Netkallappa family. I was delighted to read the report in that paper made available to us by you.Kanchanamala 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Kanchanamala. I AM on the lookout. Whenever I get an update, I'll inform you. But as I mentioned previously, I don't have any special source. I need to depend on the newspapers -- WikiCheng | Talk 12:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Vish Ayengar

Hello Kanchanamala - I have moved the reference regarding Dr. Vish Ayengar back into the Further usage section on the Hindu article in a way which makes sense with the rest of the paragraph. You are quite right that it is relevant there, I believe it had stood out before mostly because didn't read well alongside the other text. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 10:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi,

You seem to be interested in Karnataka related articles. Very nice! Please feel free to visit WP:KAR, the Karnataka Wiki Portal and continue your contributions wherever you can. Thanks, - KNM Talk 04:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baarhaspatyuva Samhita

Hello Kanchanamala

Thanks for your message, but I don't see any comment by you on the subject of the above heading? Have I missed something? Imc 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks, I should have looked for your last edit. Regards, Imc 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment

I honestly don't understand what part of my comments you read as prejudiced or sarcastic; since I thought all your questions on the Hindu page were asked with a spirit of genuine enquiry and in good faith and as such I tried my best to respond seriously, cheerfully and in considerable detail with appropriate links. You'll also note that I responded to your note on "Baarhaspatyua Samhita", researched the back-history that I was unaware of and deleted it just as you suggested [2], [3]. At the same time, I was clear in stating occasions when I didn't understand your point [4], or had a different editorial opinion [5] - anything less would be patronizing and hence disrespectful in my book.
To address specifically the SCI issue you mention in the latest posting: You'll note that I wrote earlier that you were correct that "Supreme Court of India" is a proper name for the august body (since it is the official name; just as "Supreme Court of the United States" is) - however I searched for and provided references to show that "Indian Supreme Court" is also an appropriate term ! By the way, I did realize in the last few minutes that I had forgotten to mention the page number for the Y.K. Sabharwal's quote as you asked: it is from Page 15.
Of course, it is your prerogative to choose whether or not to edit the Hindu page or interact with me. But I thought I'd drop a note to make my intentions clear. Regards.Abecedare 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC) I am posting this message on your talk page, rather than the Hindu talk page since it involves our wikipedia interaction and not the article cotent per se.

Kanchanamala, I have been attempting to understand your POV and present my arguments for preferring certain content over another for the Hindu article. You'll note that not once have I questioned your motivation for making any of the suggestions you made, since I take it is as a given that your aim, like mine, is to improve the Hindu article even though we may disagree on individual edits. Therefore I find the assumption of bad faith on your part and your guess of my motivation ("If you prefer to defend the article ..."), especially since this is not the first such incident, to be unhelpful to a mature and civic discussion. Abecedare 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

Dear Kanchanamala,

I was questionning the second part of the sentence, not the first. That second part contains a reference to modern political stuff about NAIT partisans that should not be placed at the beginning of an article about Hinduism. Don't you think ?

Cheers,

TwoHorned 07:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karnataka

Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, target is to make it an FA -- Amarrg 06:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanatan Singh Sabha

Dear Kanchanamala ji,

The version you have restored includes many things that are purely personal views. It contains many things that are objectionable to either one or the other side. Below I indent my comments.

For example:

Sanatan Singh Sabha is a Sikh organization formed by some hinduism-influenced Sikhs (called Sanatan Sikhs) in 1873.

"Hinduism-influenced Sikhs" is historically misleading. The people involved were leaders of the Sikh community, including direct descendants of Guru Nanak.

The Sanatan Singh Sabha regards Sikhs to be Hindus by the definition that a "Hindu" is someone who practices karma and bhakti (of God) in any way for the achievement of Moksha.

What is the source of this? Is it from a Sanatan Singh Sabha book?

Because of their view that Sikhs are Hindus, Sanatan Sikhs are largely considered to be heretics and blasphemers.[citation needed]

That is an objectionable view. No one has a right to call anyone "heretics and blasphemers" on Wikipedia.

According to Vish Ayengar, all the spiritual traditions of India are inspired by the Vedas.[1]

Vish Ayengar cannot speak for Sanatan Sikhs. It is true that Sanatan Sikhs accepted the Vedas.

Many Sikhs also worship in Hindu mandirs, and participate in Hindu rituals.

True. But many Sikhs today will disagree with this.

It is noteworthy to mention that Sikhism discourages Idol-worship and ritualism.

There are rituals in Sikhism. It is true that Sikhism discourages Idol-worship, however there were idols of the Gurus in the Golden temple. Please read the book by Harjot Oberoi .

Vedas do not have any religions significance in Sikhism.

This is controversial. I can quote Gurbani to support either views.

This is intended to be a historically accurate article, which does not take a specific side.

Let me say I understand and respect your perspective. Please visit and see User:Vikramsingh. I thank you for your contributions.

--Vikramsingh 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

You are on the brink of breaking the 3-revert rule on Bangalore. Please do not make more than 3 reverts on any one article within any period of 24 hours. -- Lonewolf BC 05:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment about my edits to Bangalore

I have replied to your comment on my talk page. CrazyChemGuy 18:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karnataka

Hi there!
, Karnataka article will be featured on Wikipedia mainpage as a Today's Featured Article on Nov 1st (Kannada Rajyothsava Day). Please do not forget to visit Wikipedia that day! Thanks, - KNM Talk 20:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Bot_Assisted_Assessment

FYI. Inviting Thoughts -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)