User talk:Rajachandra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Links for Wikipedians interested in India content

Register: Indian Wikipedians | Network: Noticeboard | Discussionboard Browse: India | Open tasks | Deletions
Contribute content: Collaboration Dashboard - India WikiProject - Wikiportal India - Indian current events - Category adoptions



I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 09:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] You deserve a barnstar!! :)

The Original Barnstar
Hi :) We havent met before but I have been following your invaluable contributions on Wodeyar related articles. You have done a great job bringing out the splendor of Mysooru and the Wodeyars on Wikipedia. Please accept this token of appreciation from me. Thanks. Sarvagnya 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

namaskAra mattu vaMdanegaLu saravagnya avare

[edit] Odeyar

OK...

Now if "Odeyar", "Wadiyar" or "Wodeyar" all there word will lead to the same page.

Thanks for the comment. I am new to wiki.

Sorry, If I messed up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mahesh b s (talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Rajendra, I put my opinion on Talk:Wodeyar too, A persons name must be spelt the way they spelt it in their lifetime. If this Odeyar spelling is retained, would lead to confusion. Wikipedia would perhaps be part of a minority of sources that would use that spelling. I think the spelling must be restored to the way they were in Revision as of 13:15, 5 January 2007 -- Hgkamath 17:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [Kaveri dispute]

Rajachandra avare, tumba sorry. I was starting another round of cpedit of the article and also cleaning up the references. So 'sadhyakke' tegdiraNa aMta tegede. I always meant to bring it back. I wanted to leave a note saying this when I removed it, but I forgot. Very sorry about that. Also, there are few concerns about those contents. You will find them here. Please add your comments when you find time. Once I finish another round of copyedit and clean up the refs, we can surely bring it back. Sorry once again that I forgot to leave a note. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you provide references?

Thank you for your interest in the article on the Sritattvanidhi. Can you add any book references for the material you have added? We are trying to upgrade the quality of references on many of the Hinduism articles, which are often without citations now. Also, the picture you added has no associated documentation on file explaining where it is from or what the connection is. Can you help with that? I would also love to find an ISBN or book supplier for reproduction of the work that may still be available. It is a classic that needs wider attention. Buddhipriya 18:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In order to keep conversations in one place on Wikipedia, I will transfer a copy of your remarks here. Thank you so much for replying! If you could upload pictures of all 32 forms showing the text it would be a great contribution. These pictures often appear in degraded forms in devotee publications, often with incorrect identification as to which form is which. If you read the script, could you upload the pictures and also doocument exactly which form appears in each picture, as you did with Mahaganapati? Having the original pictures on file with a systematic documentation of the names of the forms as given in the text would be invaluable to researchers, whc generally cannot obtain access to the source text directly. We could then work together to get the 32 forms integrated into the article. Please reply to this here, on your talk page, to keep the discussion in one place. I will add this page to my watchlist. Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~ which will add your name and a link to here in all your submissions. It saves time for the readers.

Repost of reply: You can get the book from: Director prasaranga University of Mysore Manasagangothri Mysore-570006


you can also get the books from online sources like https://www.dkagencies.com/doc/Home.html and serch for mummadi.

I also feel the title srittavanidi for your post on ganapati is not right.

If you need any more info ot if you feel i should post all the 32 paintings along with the original kannada texts, kindly let me know. raja


Buddhipriya 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

i have since corected a bit of your post:

1. Maharaja died on 28 march 1868. 2. The first page, the author states thus: May the work sri tattvanidi, which is illustrated and contains secrets of mantras and which is authored by king sri krishna raja, be written without any abstacle. Salutation to Lord ganapati and goddess chamundambika...

Hence we cannot today doubt the authorship and say it was done at his command !

Rajachandra 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

i have added two pictures today. i will upload a new pic of mahaganapati later. i will also transliterate the kannada texts as i progress.

Rajachandra 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are doing great work, thank you. Regarding changing statements that are in published sources, if you have a source that gives a different version, as in the case with authorship, rather than change a cited sentence please add an additional reference with the other point of view, or raise the subject on the talk page so we can work together to get both in. The citation to Martin-Dubost would be considered a reliable source and thus should not be removed. Also, I recommend that we continue further dialog about this on the talk page for the article rather than here, to make it easier for other editors to find these remarks. I will copy this entire thread to there now to preserve some of the good points you have made. Buddhipriya 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sritattvanidhi

Thanks for your continued work on Sritattvanidhi. Can you please reply on the talk page regarding some questions I posted about references? Also, I would like to standardize the use of IAST so please reply on the talk page for the article. Buddhipriya 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

i think i have answered all the questions ! if still there are any outstanding issues let me know. thanks for your encouragement and support

Rajachandra 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with image licensing

Another editor has identified a problem with the documentation for the images that have been uploaded from the Sritattvanidhi, noting that they lack exact source information. Unless this problem is corrected, the images could be subject to deletion. The problem should be easy to fix by adding text such as "Scan of page from Sritattvanidhi, originally published in 18??" to each of the image pages. Note that the issue here is which publication the scans are actually from. Are they from the orignal copies of the work, which would date to some publication date in 18??, or are they from a reproduction of later date? The complete citation data for the work from which they were scanned is needed. Please reply on the talk page for the Sritattvanidhi, where I have raised this issue. Buddhipriya 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sritattvanidhi

I am sorry if my actions have hurt you. But the issue of slokas (in non-standard notation - not IAST) included is of utmost importance. So I have started a discussoion at the Wikiproject Hinduism talk page.I promise you that the slokas will remain until a concensus is reached on that talk page.--Redtigerxyz 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have offered to convert the material to IAST and was in the process of doing that conversion at the time the material was removed. Buddhipriya 21:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Rajachandra avare, your contributions to wikipedia truly have been invaluable. I request you not to lose heart at what was only a simple case of vandalism. You should really simply have reverted the vandalism instead of losing heart. I have restored all the shlokas and will also add the kannada transliterations in due course. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rajacchandra, I second/third the sentiment expressed in the above posts and sincerely hope that you will resume editing here and contributing to Sritattvanidhi and other articles. Editing on wikipedia can sometimes be a exhausting experience, but in my view worth the effort. So I do hope you'll join in the discussion and not let a single unpleasant experience drive you away. Regards Abecedare 23:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the WP:IN too as there have no comments on Wikiproject Hinduism. Please participate in the discussion there--Redtigerxyz 13:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i am overwhelmed by your collective response. Thanks. Redtigerxyz, sorry if i sounded a bit harsh. But no offense meant.

I will get back ASAP! Regards Rajachandra 19:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:BAlagaNapati1.bmp.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:BAlagaNapati1.bmp.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lotlil 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:KRWIII.JPG

A tag has been placed on Image:KRWIII.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

  • state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
  • add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tiptoety 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Musicians of Mysore Kingdom

Hi. I noticed you were adding links in the middle of this article. Please avoid this. Links should be put in the external links or reference section. I authored this article after lots of research and would like to maintain wiki guidelines.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The links you are adding must be in the see also section actually, unless they have already been linked to in the main article.Dineshkannambadi 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I own a book published by Dr Meera Rajaram Pranesh and any published book can be referenced, so long as the citations prove that the credit for the information goes to the author, in this case Dr. Meera. This is a wiki guideline. I dont need explicit permission from the author, or wikipedia would not exist. Also, being a summary style article, all info on every king is difficult to provide and infact discouraged. I appreciate your individual articles on the respective kings. Better yet, you could link the kings name with Jayachamaraja Wodeyar kind of name link in the main article, if you dont like the "see also" section. The Kingdom of Mysore is a featured article now after a 2 month long research. Hope you enjoy it.thanksDineshkannambadi 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have converted your image link to a displayed image in Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar. Please see how it is done (syntactically) so you may use the same syntax in the future.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that article. I feel the origin theory of Mysore Kings is insufficient. some well know scholars feel that the dynasty originated from the Tonnur Hoysala clan or by persons from the Vijayanagara court. The theory that the Wodeyars were immigrants from Dawarka may well be a myth, considering how royal families concocted dazzling connections to royal families in North India, during medieal times. However, being an encyclopedia, all popular theories need to be furnished.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rajachandra, I did not write that sub-article.Dineshkannambadi 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope I did not seem assertive in any way. If I did, sorry about that. If you have valuable published sources that can add value, we should discuss it along with the Karnataka work group here in wiki and make all the additions. After all, an encyclopedia is meant to grow.cheersDineshkannambadi 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the origin theories, its best we dont decide which is reliable and which is not. Origin theroies were always controversial and hence left to the readers view point. This is the best we can do on wikipedia.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have mentioned that Hyder and Tipu were never officially coronated. This is why I use the term de facto. I have also mentioned the names of those kings that Haider served, though he was in control of the administraton. Nowhere have I mentioned that Haider and Tipu were the kings of Mysore. BTW, only 6 out of 135 citations are from a newspapers or a web page. yet you claim most of the citations are from newspapers. Are we looking at the same article?Dineshkannambadi 21:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wodeyars

Hello Rajachandra,
I have observed the discussion between you and Dinesh in Dinesh's talk page, and requested him to move that discussion to Wodeyar talk page. You can see the discussion in this page, talk:Wodeyar. I request you to continue involve in this discussion, and help resolve the issues. Thanks for all your contributions! - KNM Talk 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)