As you have been involved in Salt Satyagraha and its talk page, I thought I'd invite your feedback on my suggestions about place names there. PMLawrence (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! I've answered on the article talk page. Priyanath ^talk 15:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Priyanth, thank you for your comments. They were helpful. The information I have added is well-known. The same information is also found in Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, by Swami Tapsyananda, although I don't have the book at hand. Please take a look at that book, http://www.vedanta.com/store/product75.html

The reference to Guna avatars is well known in Gaudiya theology. Links need not merely include books. A well-referenced web site can suffice in some cases. For example, historically, the information found in Western encylopedia sources such as Encarta have been weak. I have done the same with the article, Karma in Hinduism which is substantially my own because most Hindus mistakenly believe that karma is merely a law of cause and effect. So you can trust me.

Raj2004 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to support your views using reliable sources. Many of the sources you are providing are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Please brush up on WP:RS. I don't trust or mistrust you, since I don't know you. But if you begin using reliable sources, then your edits will be trusted, and survive over time. It's best for the discussion about specific sources in the Avatar article to continue there. Priyanath ^talk 16:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanth, some people believe that websites are inferior sources of information. This is not the always the case. Some well-respected encylopedias such as Encarta, have poor sections on Hinduism. Some websites such as those sponsored by Himalayan Academy and Vedanta Press are very good authoritative websites. Some people may be not be aware of Himaylan Academy but those who know know it to be a reliable source! Please judge the information source, rather than the type of medium. Also please don't let one's personal bias or lack of information cloud you. I am not a believer of Dvaita but I inserted their follower's viewpoints to counter the Shaivite point of view on Narasimha and Sharbha in the avatar section.

Raj2004 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what "some people" believe. We need to follow Wikipedia policy. Your sources do not meet Wikipedia policies for Reliable Sources. Regarding specific sources in the Avatar article, please discuss at Talk:Avatar thank you. Priyanath ^talk 16:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what some people believe either. You are following your own point of view too. These sources are well-respected. Satguru sivaya subramuniyaswami of the Himayalan Academy was a well-respected Saivite scholar.

Thank you.

Raj2004 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Avatar. Priyanath ^talk 20:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Priyanth for adding those academic resources. I knew that avatar is not central to Saivism. I don't have access to the academic sources as you guys have. Raj2004 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of good academic sources are available using the great Google Samhita, searching in "Books" and looking for those published by academic houses or written by reputable scholars. One great benefit of using 'bulletproof' reliable sources is that the referenced information tends to last very long in an article. Anyway, the article is certainly improving, in spite of all of us :-). Priyanath ^talk 21:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Priyanath,

Thanks for all your help and support in the year 2009. Wishing you a Wonderful, Prosperous New Year 2010.

Radiantenergy (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]