• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

Hello, just wondering why the other languages were moved into another section, rather than keep them at the beginning which is somewhat standard practice. Also the removal of the migratory information of the bar-headed goose seems to lose information. I am referring to these three edits. Thanks for your help. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is only 'somewhat' standard practice, which exists primarily because many users want to see their native language at the top. It contradicts the other standard practice of only listing the term in the original source language (Sanskrit in this case) so as to give a source for the term. It is not appropriate to list all the other languages, since this goes against WP:LEAD, and even having them later in the article is questionable. The appropriate way is to have interlang links to the subject in other languages. Examples of how it should be are numerous; e.g. Christ; Democracy; et.c. Thanks, Imc (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have to say though that having the other languages, especially Thai, makes sense. I originally created a new article altogether a while ago then realized we are dealing with the same thing, though the English transcription from the Thai is different. I think it is much more valuable to have all of the languages there. Interlang would do something different than tell the English speaker that this word (in English) has the same referent as other language words. Would still like your comments on removing the bar-headed goose reference information. Thanks, --Jeffmcneill (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you say about the Thai term, but such matters do belong later in the article, not the lead. 'Names and etymology' paragraphs are probably more suitable for such. With regard to the migratory content, I believe I removed some information because it was based on unreliable sources and conjecture (e.g. stopping over in lake Manosarovara), and because the reliable information belongs in the corresponding goose article. Of course this is to some extent a matter of judgment, and other's judgments may differ. Imc (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! why was Dnyaneshwar Udyan moved to Jnaneshwar Udyan? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was at Dnyneshwar Udyan previously, not Dnyaneshwar Udyan. I could not find any English references to it under that spelling. I therefore transliterated ज्ञानेश्वर to the standard simplified format, which gives Jnaneshwar. (See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) for the meaning of simplified transliteration.) Your question implies it should be Dnyaneshwar Udyan, if you have reliable references to this name, that would be useful I only found travel promotion websites which cannot be considered reliable. Incidentally, I would appreciate knowing if 'dny' is a better rendition of the Marathi ज्ञ than 'jn', or if it is just convention. Thanks. Imc (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see! No probs. This site is Govt Of Maharashtra's tourism site. It uses Dnyaneshwar. Also Dnyaneshwar uses the same spelling. The Garden is named after him. Opposed to whatever the Naming convention sayes, Indian boards on roads & everywhere will have this very spelling. There has been a lot of discussion on validity of this convention. After all its a dumb software. For fun, & as we are here, you would like this article. Ghoti. Enjoy! & do change it to a much proper spelling. You can also discuss it on a suitable forum for more views if needed. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Imc! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

I have changed it as per sanskrit wikipedia. Please see the title in sa:महाभारतम्. --Vssun (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I believe that sa:महाभारतम् is incorrect and uses the Hindi name, even ending the name with a virama which is not present in hi:महाभारत to ensure the Hindi pronunciation, and uses the Malayalam name Mahabharatam. In addition it then also incorrectly gives the Hindi pronunciation Mahabharat in Latin script. Imc (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a note unrelated to the above - thanks for the change on this page in regard to just war. Many thanks. 71.173.163.252 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Mageia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magic (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) 10:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with your edits on things like "Epicenter"; at least one of your edits was to quoted material, turning it into a misquotation. Please confirm the edits you've made are appropriate. TJRC (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare wp:PBUH. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your changes to the foxglove article, and I think your changes are well taken. I guess I am a little older than many of the Wikipedians, and digitalis (or maybe it was digitalin) is pretty well known as an important heart drug. I was rather surprised that there was no separate article on it; I set up Digitalis (medicine) pointing to the Medicine section of Digitalis, but maybe it should point instead to digoxin? Shocking Blue (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page. Imc (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; that is the way to go. By the way, "digitalis" is apparently also a reference to the drug; see Digitalis Drugs. Shocking Blue (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited InScript keyboard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keyboard (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) 13:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently comment on a RM on the article 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. The discussion was closed and the article moved to the previous title by another editor per WP:RM/TR. A new RM has been initiated and can be found here Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check my page moves let me know if they are appropriate. Nagarjuna198 (talk)

Yes, those are inappropriate! More details at WT:INB. Follow WP:RM --Tito Dutta (contact) 11:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello lmc,

I have responded to your comments on Talk page of Sagara, Karnataka. Do have a look at the response. What is mentioned on the websites of town councils is incorrect. The staff at town councils themselves do not know how to edit the spelling mistakes committed by NIC Bangalore.

Regards,PuttuHegde 03:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuttuHegde (talk • contribs)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Birdsfoot trefoil. Since you had some involvement with the Birdsfoot trefoil redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello imc, Saying that Government of India spellings are not official is a part of schizophrenic propaganda. If you do not agree with the spellings used by Govt of India for places, then start a movement to get them changed with the Govt instead of spreading an alternate spelling on Wikipedia. Also noticed that you had changed spellings of a few places on Wikipedia on your own. You will have to make such changes only after the Government officially approves the new spelling, otherwise that will be treated as vandalism. PuttuHegde 15:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuttuHegde (talk • contribs)

Hi. After failing in his attempt to rename the article Sagara, Karnataka to Sagar, Karnataka, user PuttuHegde has started renaming other articles on the same lines. Seems like he did not understand that what applied to Sagara also applies to Bankapura, Kirshnapura and so on, because the renaming is for the same reason. Please stop him from continuing this before he hits hundreds of articles.

Hello imc, I reversed your changes to Bankapur and Sankeshwar. Please do not replace "pur" with "pura" for towns in Karnataka. You cannot stereotype all names alike because a particular town near your native uses similar spelling. PuttuHegde pdh 22:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Imc, I am writing this in response to the message you left on my talk page. I agree that discussions were not initiated while moving some articles to the names used by the Government. You and a few other editors have declined to consider Government agencies as the authentic agencies for names of places. Whether somebody agrees or not India Post is the only Government Agency in India for the authenticity of spelling of a town. People without this information end up using their own spelling as per their understanding. It looks like you have decided to disagree with me on all accounts. If you carefully notice my edits, I have moved only those pages that do not have the right spelling as per India Post. Moreover, I belong to the region and have spent considerable time in each of those places in the past to know those places for sure. You and Mayasandra want to name places as they are pronounced in Kannada, which is hard to get acceptance from the majority of editors unless a few editors with excessive obsession of the local language try to achieve this by teaming up. We need to discuss this in an appropriate forum to decide the authenticity of a subject when a team of editors is determined to disagree and disregard official information published on their websites. After looking at the way things are moving in Wikipedia, I am of the opinion that majority opinion may not be the right opinion always, especially when a coordinated team of editors is working to push an agenda. Thanks. Pdheg (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this user User:Dattaputra doing edits similar to the ones Puttuhegde was doing. BTW, what happened to that discussion on "notice board"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.179 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the Indian noticeboard is [here] Although it reached a consensus to revert his undiscussed moves pending a discussion, Puttuhegde / Pdheg showed that he was not prepared to abide by this discussion and consensus, by reverting the attempts to go back to the original position. This noticeboard discussion cannot be considered binding however, it is just one of the preferred means of reaching consensus. I raised a following discussion about his attitude at [ANI]. This brought a string of reasons for him for his changes. As I suggested at the beginning, the admins felt it was a content dispute and each side’s position has to be justified for each article.

So the situation is that each case has to be justified with reliable references, and those interested have to seek these references and make a case and then have them accepted or otherwise, e.g. as happened at Sagara. The name changes by Dattatreya at Sagara, given the context of the binding discussion on that page, are now wrong and incorrect and should be reverted. For the other cases, each one should be decided in its own context.

Incidentally, any linguist’s discussions on this practice of writing names in the Hindi form would be of interest. Is this is a form of Sanskritization in language? i.e. in this case the low status of the Kannada language among many of its speakers causing them to use Hindi forms when speaking to outsiders, as people seek to move up the social scale? I have an impression that in the old state of Hyderabad this has been historically so, but of course there the direction would have historically been toward Urdu forms.

Imc (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like user PuttuHegde (a.k.a.Pdheg, Anand.Hedge) is venting his frustration on indic scripts appearing in Karnataka articles. You are right, the indic scripts rule applies only to the lead sentence of an article, not the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.115.98 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the proposal. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

== An observation ==

Hello Imc, I always wonder how users Gsingh and Mayasandra always reach discussion boards in supporting your views. It is enigmatic and I cannot make out how they know that you need support in discussions and they need to be there to express their views in your support. The power of internet and speed of electronic messaging cannot be neglected in today's world. Pdheg ^Talk 22:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back with a reasoned argument about a clear issue. Thanks. Imc (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will for sure...in an appropriate forum and at the right time. Pdheg ^Talk 18:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Imc,

Thanks for writing to me. I have concerns with reverts, and additions of only one editor on the Arjuna page. I raised my concerns with this individual in a polite and civil manner with this individual on his/her talk page. This individual responded by accusing me of stupidity and vandalism. Arjunkrishna90 appears to adding content to this page that are not in the compiled versions of the Mahabharata (between 400 BCE and 4 CE) that are generally accepted by scholars of the epic and taught in universities. Instead Arjunkrishna90 is adding information that he/she found on TV shows, folklore, comics, and recent fictional renditions of the Mahabharata. As a student of this great epic I find it very disturbing that this individual is allowed to add erroneous and misinterpreted content. I read through other editors comments on Arjunkrishna90 talk page and they have the same issues with this individual. As I stated earlier, I tried discussing my concerns with Arjunkrishna90 but he/she does not seem receptive to my concerns.

Thanks again, Thamaragirl (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Imc,

Arjunkrishna90 states that "all datas removed by thamaragirl is provided with references by other authors." To clarify, Arjunkrishna90's erroneous information is the only information I edited. This person has been accusing me of things I'm not guilty of. I suspect his/her intent is not to describe the character of Arjuna found in the Mahabharata but a version that suits this individual's preference of making Arjuna less important than he actually is in the great epic. For example, this individual added the following section: "Blasting of Arjuna's Chariot" on the page and as reference is citing this source: Philip Lutgendorf. "Hanuman's Tale: The Messages of a Divine Monkey". January 2007 ,ISBN 9780195309225, which is not part of the Mahabharata text. There is consensus among scholars and academics that the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune), which is a compilation of the various manuscripts of the epic by scholars at the Pune School, to be the most comprehensive an reliable of sources for the Mahabharata. This is what editors of this page should be referring to. I tried addressing this with Arjunkrishna90 but he/she became combative and started calling me names. If you and other editors of this website are concerned with the integrity and veracity of the information posted on this website, please address this issue. As for me, I feel a bit discouraged and disenchanted and will perhaps not concern myself with this issue anymore.

Thanks for your time.

Thamaragirl (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Imc and to the other editors on this page:

Thanks for your advice/input on this discussion. I’m sorry I couldn’t respond earlier as my work schedule didn’t allow me the time to sit down and write a proper response. I see above the editor Arjunkrishna90’s comments. Once again, he/she is rambling in a very unintelligible manner. This individual appears to be clumping his/her views with every other author’s/editor’s views in stating that “May be He/she is saying the truth or may be all other authors contributed on Arjuna article are telling lies???” Does this individual know the view point of every other author on this discussion page?

Let me preface my response to Arjunkrishna90’s comments by stating that I can’t really understand this individual’s writing. It isn’t coherent and seems more like rambling/random thoughts. Please excuse me, I don’t mean to be insulting and I understand everyone has different writing styles and command of the English language but it’s hard to have a purposeful discussion in this case. I’ll try my best to respond to this individual’s comments:

1. ArjunKrishna90 stated: “He/She is continuously deleting data in the Arjuna article claiming that all data provided with references by other authors are comics/folk-fare. She persistently argue that she read a version of Mahabharata book - "the Pune school's compilation of the Sanskrit Mahabharata" and only that version is correct and all other data contributed by other authors all these yeas with references are comics/folk-fare.” My response: Firstly, I didn’t continuously delete all data provided with references by other authors. I edited, what in my opinion, was erroneous information – some un-sourced and others using sources such as regional folklore/interpretations of this great epic, or recent fictionalized versions, or TV shows. And I strongly suspect that these additions were made by Arjunkrishna90. For example, I deleted a section that stated during the deciding battle Arjuna was saved from certain death by Karna because the sun set and Karna chose not to fire his arrows. This is a complete made up scene from the BR Chopra’s TV show on the great epic and is not to be found in the Sanskrit version of the epic. When I tried to clarify this point with Arjunkrishna90, this individual instead of discussing the matter, began accusing me of stupidity and vandalism. I referenced the Pune school’s compilation of the epic because there is a consensus among scholars, academics and theologians of the epic that this compilation of the SANSKRIT Mahabharata is the most comprehensive and truest to the original version (if there is one to found). This is an immense an ongoing undertaking. There are several translations of this version and I recommended that Arjunkrishna90 read it.

2. ArjunKrishna90 stated: “The other point i particularly like to point out that there are many versions of Mahabharata, its like many schools of Buddhism. it tells the same story in different way by different authors.How can ANYONE ARGUE that only their version is correct??" The most popular reference in this page is provided by sacred-texts website by which a version written of mahabaratha by A K Ganguly. You may be aware of it, but Ganguli's translation itself is only of one version of the Mahabhartha. That too, not even the stone tablets discovered (originated in 900 BC) or the ones originated in 300 BC. There are multiple, multiple versions ranging from 2000 to 4000 years old, and Ganguli translated one of them. He called it "Vyasa's Mahabhartha" but it isn't like Vyasa actually wrote it.” My response: I am well aware of the many version of the Mahabharata. I studied the great epic in University and I know that over the centuries, different regional translations and interpretations of the epic has been written or become part of folklore and that is why I recommended that the authors in Wikipedia stick to the Sanskrit version or translations of this version in discussing this topic. I have also read Ganguly’s translation and have no problem whatsoever with the author quoting from this text and DID NOT edit it because the information was from this source. Arjunkrishna90’s SELECTIVE ADDITIONS from the Ganguly version is what I had an issue with and I discussed this matter with this individual. He/she was adamant on stating that Krishna tells Arjuna that Karna is his superior. But the exact statement of Krishna from the Ganguly version is thus:

”'Vasudeva said, "O wielder of Gandiva, save thee there exists no other man that could vanquish those whom thou hast vanquished with this bow of thine. We have seen many heroes, who, endued with prowess like that Sakra, have attained to the highest regions, encountering thy heroic self in battle! Who else, O puissant one, that is not equal to thee, would be safe and sound after encountering Drona and Bhishma and Bhagadatta, O sire, and Vinda and Anuvinda of Avanti and Sudakshina, the chief of the Kambojas and Srutayudha of mighty energy and Acyutayudha as well? Thou hast celestial weapons, and lightness of hand and might, and thou art never stupefied in battle! Thou hast also that humility which is due to knowledge! Thou canst strike with effect! Thou hast sureness of aim, and presence of mind as regards the selection of means, O Arjuna! Thou art competent to destroy all mobile and immobile creatures including the very gods with the Gandharvas! On earth, O Partha, there is no human warrior who is equal to thee in battle. Amongst all Kshatriyas, invincible in battle, that wield the bow, amongst the very gods, I have not seen or heard of even one that is equal to thee. The Creator of all beings, viz., Brahma himself created the great bow Gandiva with which thou fightest, O Partha! For this reason there is no one that is equal to thee. I must, however, O son of Pandu, say that which is beneficial to thee. Do not. O mighty-armed one, disregard Karna, that ornament of battle! Karna is possessed of might. He is proud and accomplished in weapons. He is a maharatha. He is accomplished (in the ways of battle) and conversant with all modes of warfare. He is also well-acquainted with all that suits place and time. What need is there of saying much? Hear in brief, O son of Pandu! I regard the mighty car-warrior Karna as thy equal, or perhaps, thy superior! With the greatest care and resolution shouldst thou slay him in great battle.”

This is Ganguly’s interpretation of the text. Now Arjunkrishna90 is using this one statement from the entire epic to make his/her point and state on the Wikipedia page that Karna is a superior warrior than Arjuna and could defeat Arjuna. Krishna DOES NOT state that Karna is superior but instead states clearly PERHAPS THY SUPERIOR which is vastly different from SUPERIOR. AND NO WHERE IN THE EPIC DOES HE STATE THAT KARNA IS ABLE TO DEFEAT ARJUNA which is what Arjunkrishna90 added to the Wikipedia page which is a complete misinterpretation/fabrication of the text. Additionally, Arjuna is called the best of warriors and undefeatable in battle on several occasions not only by Krishna but by Bhishma, Drona, and the Lord Brahma himself states:

“In consequence of his greatness, Partha [Arjuna] transgresses destiny itself, whether favourable or unfavourable, and when he does so, a great destruction of creatures takes place. When the two Krishnas [Krishna and Arjuna] are excited with wrath, they show regard for nothing. These two bulls among beings are the Creators of all real and unreal things. These two are Nara and Narayana, the two ancient and best of Rishis. There is none to rule over them. They are rulers over all, perfectly fearless, they are scorchers of all foes. In heaven or among human beings, there is none equal to either of them. The three worlds with the celestial Rishis and the Charanas are behind these two. All the gods and all creatures walk behind them. The entire universe exists in consequence of the power of these two.”

I can give several instances by several individuals in the Mahabharata where Arjuna is named the greatest warrior of the time. By the same token, others like Bhishma, Drona, etc are also given that honorific. We must remember that this was written as poetry in that age and glorifying the past and present heroes was part of the motive. So to conclude, to take one instance and misinterpret it to serve your purpose, legitimate or not, goes completely against literary integrity.

3. “I believe all these problems now happening now,bcoz in India a popular TV channel is airing a version of Mahabarath, which is widely criticized for massively diluting the story from original.So people who are not aware of the original story line as available in popular books or versions," MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO WIKIPEDIA AFTER WATCHING FALSE STORIES IN TV SERIAL". If you notice the wikipedia, one can see massive edits are coming in almost all characters of hindu epic Mahabaratha in recent few months. The reason is the on i told above. One can see terrible edit or edit wars are going on certain pages like Karna ,Arjuna etc... Several times many editors pointed out these factors. In popular social media like Facebook severe edit wars or whatever you call it is going on over this version of serial. Its between people who read the original acceptable versions of Mahabaratha and the new gen people who watch stupid TV serials and fight over it.” My response: To this point, I’d like to say that I have seen the recent TV version of the Mahabharata and I am NOT influenced by it. Arjunkrishna90 has an issue with people being influenced by this show when this individual himself/herself was citing information from the pervious TV version of the epic. Arjunkrishna90, judging by his/her remarks, appears to take the issue of KARNA’S OR ARJUNA’s SUPERIORITY PERSONALLY AND SEEMS TO VISIT SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER SUCH VENUES TO MAKE HIS/HER VIEW CENTRAL AND CARES LITTLE FOR DEBATE AND THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PAGE.

4. “I believe if we can maintain a " moderate stand" keep the page" as it is now", bcoz most editors are satisfied with it except few. As we know we cannot satisfy everyone, but we can try to satisfy the majority.” My response: In asking to keep the page as is, you can clearly see Arjunkrishna90 has no intent in providing facts but his/her views and interpretation. And might I ask how Arjunakrishna90 knows what the other editors/authors of this page feel. This individual seems to very arrogantly believe, without any proof, that the contributors on this page subscribe to her/his views.

I wrote a longer post than I intended. As a person who often visits Wikipedia’s website to glean information on topics, I strongly believe and subscribe to the integrity of the information provided on this website. I understand and appreciate that people’s views are biased (myself included) but that must not prevent us from being able to state facts objectively. This page is dedicated to Arjuna, a mythical hero and will be widely open to interpretations. There are countless interpretations and versions of the Mahabharata but I myself prefer to go by the Sanskrit version or its translations. This page I assume is meant to describe the hero Arjuna and not to vilify him or make him seem less superior to Karna. And in my opinion, Arjunkrishna90 is attempting to do just that. He/she appears motivated by a misplaced need to show Karna as the superior warrior and is using misinterpretations and unrecognized sources to get his/her view across. I myself have stopped editing the page because I do not have the time or energy to be arguing/discussing (whatever you wish to call it) with people like Arjunkrishna90 whose motives are not to maintain the integrity of the information posted on this website but to spread some distorted views they hold.

Note: I posted this on the Arjuna page's Talk section as well

Thamaragirl (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Imc. And yes, I fully agree with you that The Critical Edition of the Mahabharata (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, a/k/a the Pune School) is what should be sourced on this page. But I also understand and appreciate that there aren't very many proper English translations of this text, perhaps the University of Chicago's (J.A.B. van Buitenen) translation being the most widely known. People source the Ganguly version I suppose because it is easily accessible on the internet. That being said, the Critical Edition is the most authoritative source, in my opinion, on the Mahabharata. And I completely agree with you as to this page being a concise summary/source on Arjuna and that is why I took issue with the editor, Arjunkrishna90 when this individual attempted to add his/her views on the whole juvenile argument of Arjuna/Karna superiority. As I mentioned earlier I tried reasoning and discussing these issues with Arjunkrishna90 is a civil manner but was unsuccessful. I hope this page's information will be maintained by all concerned in the manner that you described above.

Thamaragirl (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kodagu district page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you have noticed this. But Dattaputra is up to the same edits (moving articles unanimously) as Anand.Hegde. Looks quacky to me. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 17:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an SPI. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 05:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Because you have participated in the move discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you are being notified of the RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 7#Islamic State. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tamil Nadu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of the Tamil month ''Aadi'', which celebrates the rising of the water level in the river [Cauvery]]. Apart from the major festivals, in every village and town of Tamil Nadu, the inhabitants

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If you have time would you please take a look at this article: [1] and this discussion [2] and provide your input. There is a content dispute occurring and I feel fresh eyes would help because of your experience. [3].

Thank you

Swamiblue (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir, I saw on Wikipedia Murudeshwara page that you had earlier participated in a discussion about my hometown Murdeshwar. I request you to revisit the page and provide your expert comments about my new posting on the talk page of Murdeshwar. I am new to Wikipedia and do not know how to contact members for getting help. It is my earnest request to all experienced members of Wikipedia to help me in getting back the correct spelling of my home town. In my humble opinion, a mistake made by the first author should not be allowed to carry forward. Please take some time out of your busy schedule and help us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murudeshwara

Respected Sir/Madam, I have replied to your query on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murudeshwara

Please have a look and provide your guidance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.207.20 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have a draft of some content on Mahabharata stored at User:Imc/sandbox that you haven't edited in a while. I thought perhaps you might have forgotten it, and want to encourage you to incorporate it into Wikipedia articles so it can be appreciated by everyone. Happy editing! Daask (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]