User talk:LordSuryaofShropshire

talk:LordSuryaofShropshire archive 1 talk:LordSuryaofShropshire archive 2

Feel free to splatter your verbiage on the white wall that is "Editing User talk:LordSuryaofShropshire".

[Old and lame dialogues can be found in the archives]

Calcutta

This is about my deletions to the list of early nationalists. "Devi Choudhurani" was the heroine of Bankim Chandra's eponymous novel. Indira Devi was born years after its publication; and was not known for any nationalistic activity anyway; though she was a culturally accomplished aesthete.

Do you mean to refer to Sarala Devi (Indira Devi's aunt I think but not sure) who was involved in nationalistic endeavours?

Talk:Mother Goddess

See Mother Goddess and Shaktism as well. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 19:15, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

thanks. :D Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 19:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cinema of India

Dear LSS -- I'm afraid I must disagree with your edits to the Cinema of India.

I haven't SEEN Bimal Roy's Devdas -- but I've read about it in histories of Indian cinema. The historians, at least, think that it's a movie about arranged versus love marriages, and a man who fails in courage when it comes to standing against his family. Certainly that's what I saw in the latest, lavish Devdas. It's rather cavalier of you to dismiss the characterization with such utter contempt.

As for the objection to New Indian Cinema -- note capitalization. It's a technical term, as used in the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. It no more means "right now" than Dior's New Look means "contemporary". Anyone familiar with the history of Western fashion knows that the New Look was circa 1950.

Removing the term New Indian Cinema from the article leaves a mangled, nonsensical paragraph.

I want to cool down a bit before I do any counter-edits. I do want to restore New Indian Cinema. I might re-characterize Devdas, emphasizing the hero's failure and his consequent remorse. Would that satisfy you?

Zora 05:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re : Rama and supposed 'POV'

Apologies for the late response - I was away for a while. I quite agree with you that the entire 'perspective' section is POV and non-essential. The reason I removed the line that I removed, apart from the fact that it seemed POV to me, was that it made the section sound more like a sermon than an encyclopaedic article. However, I trust your judgement in reverting the edit - since you seem to have quite a bit of experience with religion-oid articles. Regards, [[User:AmarChandra|Amar | Talk]] 08:56, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Re: List of religions

Did you read the talk page before you re-added the geographic categorization to the dharmic religions? I ask this because I posted a comment on this in the talk:list of religions. Are we going to continue geographic categorization or are we going to go with a formative approach?

--metta, The Sunborn 21:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

please note my entry in Talk:Brahman -- Dbachmann 13:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indian society

I am thinking of nominating the India page as a featured article. The page looks great, but I would be happier if the main article on Indian society is filled up. Are you willing to shoulder on this task? I am very busy at the moment with regards to other articles. I will nominate the page a week later after adding some links to the India page. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:37, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

yoga and dharma

Yes maybe the removal of the yoga note was prolly not needed, however, it is under the wrong section. Yoga is not a denomination, sect or a religion. Yoga is by the definition given is the the primary focus of a Hindu's religious activities, being somewhere between meditation, prayer and healthful exercise. That means it belongs under the Nonsectarian and trans-sectarian religious movements and practices heading. Somewhere near prayer and meditiation.

Also, not to be hostile, but it is understood that the dharmic term includes the fact they came from India. Just because something is labeled an Abrahamic religion doesn't mean it didn't originate in the middle east. The new arrangement does away with geographical founding and more with internal characteristics. --[[User:Sunborn|]] 23:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alright, if yoga and vedanta are there the other 4 have to go there too. I am not an expert on Hinduism, my specialty is elsewhere. So, we might need a disabiguation page. We also need pages for the yoga school and the yoga practice because they are separate. So the one form should be up top and one should be with prayer and meditation. I think I finally understand. --[[User:Sunborn|]] 04:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just because the school is dead, doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the list. We have several dead religions and sects on the list as of now. The only caveat is that they must have been important when they did exist, either as a significantly different belief or a large following. But there should be a link to the schools that aren't listed ie, like buddhism and christianity. --[[User:Sunborn|]] 20:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dharmic religions

Well, to describe them as Indian subcontinental is true as far as their origins are concerned. I just think it's superfluous information. We don't have a note on Abrahamic religions saying (Middle Eastern). - Nat Kraus e 06:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. The Abrahamic religions were all founded in the Middle East and then Christianity, for example, further developed in the Middle East, Europe, North Africa, and America. The Dharmic religions were all founded in India and then Buddhism, for example, further developed in India, Afghanistan, China, Tibet, and Thailand. It's not so much that it's upsetting to call them Indic, just that this information is at odds with the rest of the layout of the page. - Nat Kraus e 07:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I accept "Indic" on the grounds of your argument that it will make it easier for the layman to understand what we are talking about. I did want to ask if you really believe that Tibet is part of "greater India". Really? - Nat Kraus e 07:37, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

heading for daoism and etc.

Order/Law don't cut it, in my opinion, and they're all Chinese philosophy; might as well say it out loud was the edit summary that was given. I fully believe in saying it out loud and not dulling things down. However, I was trying to avoid country names. It is one thing to make someone upset at a religion category it is quite another to incite nationalistic pride. I can live with the Indic if you really think it is useful. I just don't want it there because you are patriotic for the motherland. I hope you can understand my reasoning for not including country names. --[[User:Sunborn|]] 02:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But Buddhism arguably started in what is now Nepal. Should we then but Buddhism under Nepalese religions? And no, it is not part of "greater-India". Hinduism may have been up where the Buddha was but it would have been nothing more than a form of tribalism, nothing more than the note beside eqyptian mythology. There was nothing called "India" until thousands of years after the vedas were written.

tendency to act as if their is no such thing as cultural diversity in an effort to make everything 'equal,' 'neutral', benign. If you are not trying to make everything equal, and neutral, I don't know if this part of the wikipedia is for you. We must have a Neutral point of view. If you truely find nothing offensive, please continue. However, I mean that absolutely nothing offends you. Where I come from, we find patriotism more than a little shocking.

Besides, what if we wanted to open the category up, say, like into just philosophical religions? Diesm, which currently lacks a spot could easily fit up in there. --[[User:Sunborn|]] 03:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You sound like a fundamentalist. eeeew, that is one dirty comment.

Hinduism is a "name" referring to an entity, not the entity itself. I don't believe you, as a philosopher, you should know the value words carry.

Also, your bitterness is coming on strong. I haven't been bitter, maybe intense, but never bitter or angry.

You need a chill pill My current ones suffice.

Dude, what is wrong with you? oh some things, you know the ones behind the refrigerator?

Can you understand written English? Ummm, no.

I said that excessive political correctness often leads to blindness, just as excessive nationalism might. How about excessiveness without blindness? What would happen then? What if we knew where we were going?

"Where I come from, we find patriotism more than a little shocking." sound really childish. Maybe but the line is in a song by the Arrogant Worms. It was in my head at the time.

trying to strip everyone and everything of all cultural distinctions.I am not trying to strip everything, just the religion. Culture is not always a good thing, besides it changes.

My thanks for this arguement, I do love debating religions, not many can or will. Smile, you win. Good night. --[[User:Sunborn|]] 05:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All you succeeded in doing by your latest post is to convince me that you're not someone with whom reasonable debate can be carried on. I think I can say the same thing. Sunborn over and out.

Music of Bangladesh

Greetings! Many thanks for your work on South Asian music. Recently, you removed much of the information that was part of music of Bangladesh. I'm perfectly willing to assume that the removal was reasonable, but do you have a more appropriate place to locate the removed info at? I've been working on all the "Music of" articles, but there are few webpages with clear English descriptions, and I have not enough money to do much of my own research... Anyway, I'm just wondering if you have a vision for the artices on South Asian music. I'd like to help out as much as possible, just let me know what you're trying to do.

Sorry if the above is rambling. I'm actually a bit drunk, and decided to check my watchlist... That is often a bad idea. Tuf-Kat 06:38, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Your explanation makes sense, and I have moved the bit on the Bauls to Music of Bengal. Tuf-Kat 15:36, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

David Frawley

Ever heard of this guy David Frawley? His entry says he is one of the few westerners recognized in India as a teacher of ancient wisdom. I'm not even sure what that means. Any idea if this guy's claim to fame is at all legit? - Nat Kraus e 10:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Singapore

Regarding my reversion at Singapore (only once so far), I did it basically because of User:Ran's comments at Talk:Singapore. I don't know enough to have an opinion of my own, but he made a case that the edits were questionable at best. Ran made a good faith effort to discuss on the talk page, but the anon continually reverted. Ran didn't want to violate the three revert rule, so he stopped and I did instead some twenty minutes later. (It appears the anon has moved on now) Since Ran is willing to discuss on talk, I assume the anon is refusing to do so. In addition, I think it's important to support Ran for following the three revert rule even though it left the article in bad shape (or so he apparently thought), by showing that one need not begin an edit war... Anyway, sorry if that's complicated -- it has little or nothing to do with the merits of the individual edit, but rather the refusal to discuss on the talk page. Tuf-Kat 07:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

India revert

I responded to your comment on my talk page over at User talk:Tempshill. Tempshill 23:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

British India

I just discovered British India. I am proposing that we use that for stuff that happened under that geo-political entity. What say?--iFaqeer 04:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Bhutto Edit

Liked and agree with your clarification. Copy-edited it a wee. In fact, isn't mine closer to the view that "it used to be India and is now Pakistan"? :D--iFaqeer 20:12, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Question--and checking in

I am going to add the classic pre-independence poets and things like Urdu and Urdu literature to categories like Category:Pakistani culture and so on. Hope you don't disagree. I think they should be listed in both that and in Category:Indian culture.

PS: Hope all is well with you. Haven't run into you in a day or two.--iFaqeer 01:35, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Tantra / Tantras

I agree, however the content of those pages at the time appeared to be the same to me.

About the 'Hindu Mythology', I can understand feeling that way, however, I would have, infact, called it 'Christian Mytholgy' as well. Firinel 14:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am, infact, thinking of ancient statues in temples, many small statues are still produced today out of wood and various stones, and are clearly identified by the artisans creating them and the webpages selling them to the public as Sarasvati. Regardless of what is considered socially acceptable, or what is the "norm", there are infact representations that people can easily find which depict Sarasvati in some manner of undress. I feel that to not include that information would be remiss.

And actually yes, that's exactly what you're being. The page was lacking when I got to it, and regardless of the things which you feel I'm "wrong" about, if it was something that bothered you that greatly you were certainly free to have done it yourself prior to my contribution. You've been incredibly rude, I won't be contributing any more to the English Wikipedia directly because of you.

Firinel 16:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're making assumptions about "my in touchness" and my self-delusions of how much about Indian culture I know all the while knowing nothing about me and pocessing the same self-delusions yourself. You didn't ADD "in days of old she was depicted thusly, or that the practice is continued by some smaller artisans". you complete erased that portion of the article. you didn't write proportionally these representatiosn are not nearly as popular as the standard sari in the article, but in my talk page. Had you ammended the article to correct the information I'd not have "harumphed" one bit. You removed something I found to be important to include, when I mentioned this you spoke down to me as if I were an ignorant child, and continue to act as if you are an expect and I should be blessed by your presence.

Aurobindo

I was enormously relieved when I got your notice; I coudn't believe my eyes when I saw you as the author of the "Evo. Philo." in its history. Mikkalai 03:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dakini

Hey, when you get a chance, can you take a quick look the dakini article, and see if you can confirm or straighten out the information it contains with regard to your areas of knowledge? I have no idea what this article is talking about. - Nat Kraus e 11:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Brahmam

Have you ever seen this article? Looks dicey to me, but what do I know? Hmmm ... maybe I should create a tagged for LordSurya's attention template ... - Nat Kraus e 14:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brahman From your comment on Brahman in the ISKCON discussion, you are correct in that Brahman is more than God but for practical purposes is God. Nirguna Brahman is God without form while Saguna Brahman is God with form symbolized as Vishnu or Shiva.

No, my friend. I disagree. First of all, saguna brahman and nirguna brahman is a differentiation only really encountered, today, with Advaitists (nondualists). Vaishnavs (like ISKCON) and dualist Shaivaites (largely influenced by Dvaita/dualist and Vishishtadvaita/Modified schools) would discount the idea of nirguna, or attributeless, brahman as false. You need to recognize that there are several different schools. Thus, it is not true that for 'practical purposes' Brahman is God. It depends on context. For Advaitists, Brahman is NOT God. For Dvaitists, Brahman IS God. We cannot fall into the trap of simplifying and thereby completely confusing important distinctions which cannot be glossed over without giving someone major illusions about what Hinduism is. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:35, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Not true my friend, I respectfully disagree. Adi Sankara said the Nirguna Brahman or the Ultimate Reality is without attributes, Saguna Brahman is God with attributes. The Vaishnvaities disagreed with Sankara about the Ultimate Reality being attributeless. Please read Swami Sivanda's book, All about Hinduism and the following section on Advaita for a helpful understanding of Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. So for Advaitans, Brahman is God. It becomes a personal God through Maya. It is the whole basis of Smartism.

http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_95 Also note sivananda's statement: "Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are not two different Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view. Nirguna Brahman is the higher Brahman, the Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint (Paramarthika); Saguna Brahman is the lower Brahman, the Brahman from the relative viewpoint (Vyavaharika)." If it is not the same, how can Nirguna Brahman not be equivalent to God?

Please also see definition of Brahman, Nirguna and Saguna, under this web site, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/lexicon/b.html

And would ironically Shankara be a great theist?, writing the famous Bhaja Govindam and writing commentaries on Gita and Vishnu sahasranama? Yes, he was accused of being a Buddhist. But perhaps he had to couch such language to sway the masses who were under the influence of Buddhism.

Here is how I see it: Sankara-partly a reaction against Buddhism Ramunja-partly a reaction against Advaita Madhva-against both and resurgence of Islam and Christianity to a minor extent

see http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/ac-vedic.html, http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html; http://www.dvaita.org/docs/srv_faq.html;

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2004/4-6/37-52_ten_questions.shtml

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2003/10-12/44-49_four_sects.shtml

Thank you.

user: 67.106.157.231

Thank me for what? Listening to you explaining things to me that I am already quite aware of? You have said nothing that contradicts anything I said. Brahman is not the equivalent of God, especially since God is used in monotheist conceptions. Advaita is patently not monotheist, but rather monist, notwithstanding Adi Shankaracharya's songs, one of which (Bhaj Govindam) I know by heart. As for Nirguna and Saguna, the former is the true state. I don't need to read Sivananda's book because I'm already quite familiar with the religion and the philosophies as enumerated by Radhakrishnan, who thankfully does not come from the standpoint of one tradition or other of Indian philosophy (as does Sivananda, who is Advaitist). Equating BRahman with God is and acting as if Hinduism doesn't have hugely differing philosophical schools is doing the religion a disservice. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. Advaita may be monist but not the other philosophies. Yes, Sivananda is a Advaitin. But Chapter 12 of the Bhagavad Gita states the distinctions between Nirguna Brahman (the Unmanifested one) and Saguna Brahman. In any event, I feel that the equation of Brahman is not God is a minority viewpoint.

user: 67.106.157.231

Persecution of Hindus

I am suprised that there is no discussion of persecution of Hindus in religious intolerance section. I think wikpedia should draft an article.

I appreciate that, but I'm not really to interested in that. What I mean is that I'm more interested in persecution (of ANY group) as it relates to the overall culture or society of a given country/area; I don't want to focus on persecution alone. But if something comes to mind I won't refrain from writing something. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:24, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I see that an attempt had been made but was taken off due to possible copywrite infringment. The original article and site was written and designed by Sushama Londhe who lives in Pensylvania. It would be quite easy to contact her and ask her permission. The overal site is amazing and focuses more on the arts, music, painting, theater and sculpture of ancient India. She is also a painter as well and puts some of her work up on the same site.

Regarding Surya, the persecution of Hindus is nearly at the level of the persecution of Jews in Europe before the Holocaust. It is predominently ignored compared to other cultures not only because Hindus are in actuality a very small minority in the overall size of the world's population but also because many Hindus are themselves tend to be very passive compared to other cultures around the world who are willing to fight to get their voice heard. As history has proved over and over again, this silence never works in the reality of politics and survival.

reply to surya and the other gentlemen: I don't think Hindus being one billion are a small minority but I agree with Hindus being passive.

Image protection

I'm sorry, but I can't do that. It would constitute a conflict of interet and violate our protection policy. Reagrds, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality ( hopefully!)]] 02:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Indian Literature

Hello LordSuryaofShropshire. You've removed the Hindustani section from Indian literature, saying that Amir Khusro and Munshi Premchand didn't use Hindustani. But I disagree. Please see Talk:Indian literature.

Past teachings of Prem Rawat

user:Jossifresco asserts that it is common in Indian culture to say that the "Guru is greater than God". He also says that gurus are commonly called "Lord of the Universe". I disagree. Could you please take a look at Talk:Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#Deleted_your_addition Thanks in advance and thanks for your excellent work on Hinduism. Andries 18:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ayodhya

Hi, I am new to fascinating world of wiki. I joined as a result of the edits an anon was trying to make that includes political propaganda on certain India related topics eg India, Ayodhya, Babri Masjid, LK Advani, Uma Bharti. 81.1.118.107, 81.1.118.87, 81.1.120.221 - calls himself Lalit Shastri. I would be grateful if you can keep help me keep an eye on his politically opinionated changes. --The industrialist 10:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Penname

Since you were one of the two people on the Talk:Urdu poetry page: I've taken some of the info from the Urdu poetry page and a couple of other wiki-articles, and used it to add some info to the penname article, trying to make it less-exclusively European in outlook. Since I really don't know Urdu poetry, could you take a look at what I wrote to make sure that it makes sense. (The haiku/haiga stuff I also wrote, but I do know Japanese poetry). [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading Image:Kaali.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 00:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also;

Karma

Hi the Karma article is starting to become an interpretation of or Domininated by teachings of Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami? --Jondel 09:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Zain

Hi,

Remember me? Actualy when you contacted me I was so new that I was not sure how to contat you back. Didn't know that how wikipedia works. Now i am a little better. I'll like to be in contact with you. Today I was just looking at my user talk and thought it is not nice that, I am not in contact with the person who made the very first post on my page. Ofcourse then it was due to my lack of knowledge of wikipedia.

I'll like to be incontact with you soon.

Zain 10:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi!

Dude, where are you?!! I just saw your edit history and you have not been here for almost two months now. Two of the most prolific contributors to India - you and Nichalp are missing. This place has not been the same without you. --Ankur 04:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bangladesh

So you're apparently gone, at least for a time. I hope to see you back. Awhile ago you made some changes to music of Bangladesh and music of Bengal. An anon has recently added large amounts of content to both, but I think he may be conflating the two subjects... He's using Bangla as an adjective for both pages, which is probably inacurate, biased or confusing (or all three). Could you straighten this out? Or tell me how I should, and I'll do the grunt work? Thanks, and I hope to see you back! Tuf-Kat 05:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think the anon will be me. Hmm... the issue on use of Bangla as opposed to Bengali is discussed under Bengali language. As it is, Bengali is a misperceived and, hence, misused word to mean what should be Bangla. The distiction is like this:

Bangla - name of the language and associated with: language (duh!), culture, literature, songs, poems, writing

Bengali - name of the people and associated with: people (duh again!), society

In English, non-Bengalis use the word Bengali for both. While it is not entirely wrong to replace Bangla with Bengali in most cases, music is one of those cases in which a literal translation to Bangla makes no sense with the "wrong" word. To reduce confusion, I wouldn't mind wrongly using Bengali instead of Bangla, but I will do some research before carrying out this mass grunt work! A better solution might be to use Bangladeshi, but calling something like Rabindra sangeet Bangladeshi will be incomplete and will certainly enrage most people!!! Urnonav 08:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NRI

Hi. I was just wondering about what the status of the NPOV dispute on the NRI page is. You said you requested mediation - was there any feedback? Can you outline any of the specific issues, so that maybe we can clean the page up and get rid of the tag - it's been there for almost 4 months. Thanks Guettarda 23:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration of words in the Bengali language

Seeing an increasing level of inconsistency in terms of transliteration of Bengali words on Wikipedia, I initially proposed the creation of a standard scheme of transliteration for Bengali. Some initial work has stardard and seeing that you are involved with articles about Bengali, I thought you might be interested. Please visit the discussion page for more information. Best! -- Urnonav 08:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism past featured glory

Hello Lord Surya; I have been talking to Sam Spade about taking the Hinduism article back to its former glory. You are undoubtedly the father of the best version of it, and you probably agree that many chaotic "contribuitions" have made the article a fat mess. I think a bunch of good people could revert that, could we count on you for that? Furthermore, is the featured version stored anywhere else (as in Hinduism:featured) other than at the maze of the history log? I couldn't even find the appropriate one. Subramanian ^talk 01:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:LordSuryaofShropshire"