Welcome!

Hello, Savitr108, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Talk:Mahāvākyas. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ed!^(talk) 03:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your changes to Mahavakyas. I noticed that some of the changes you did (HERE and HERE), by inserting an alternate (better) spelling, broke the link to the page Aham Brahmasmi. Therefore I created a redirect page (HERE), pointing back to the original page. An alternate way to preserve the link, of course, would have been to redo the text as: [[Aham Brahmasmi|aham brahmāsmi]]. I don't think it matters much which way is used, but I think it's important to preserve an unbroken link. Thanks again for your work. Best regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Savitr, thanks for your work on Kristubhagavatam. I edited the devanagari text you added to fit into the table at the appropriate place. But while doing that, I noticed that the romanized version of those two verses (XII 1 and 3), which I had entered myself a while back, was incorrect! Mostly the problem was putting ms and hs instead of anusvaras and visargas, though I also had misspelled krtva as krstva. So I was wondering if you could rerun the updated romanized text through your software, and generate some correspondingly updated devanagiri? (and perhaps insert it where the current devanagiri resides?) Many thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, HR, I put in the revised Devanagari. Doing that brought me to noticing some other oddities. Do please look at your KB text to make sure the Devanagari I put in matches it.

And yes, I did wonder about the word 'kRstvA', and I did expect 'kRtvA' there. I also found 'aca~nvalam' in what you'd entered, which I just now changed to 'aca~ncalam,' meaning 'unmoving' or 'not shaking.' I changed it in the Devanagari too. Presumably that is what you meant to enter there? Furthermore, I split up some of the words, using dash marks, in the transliteration. Why? Well, the only reason they are together in the Devanagari is due to a writing rule -- not even a sandhi rule, but a writing convention. I see no reason to complicate the readability on that account. Agree?

But again, please check it again against the original, and do revert my corrections if you find them faulty. And while you are considering that, take a look at the original word which you entered as 'tapattapaḥ'. I would expect some long vowels in that word, such as maybe 'tApat-tapaH' or 'tApAt-tapaH'.(and note that I am using a simplified iTRANS writing style, to save time here, rather than putting in the diacritics.) Savitr108 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Savitr, I've copied the above discussion to the article's talk page (Talk:Kristubhagavatam). We should have it be archived there with the article, so please let's continue any further discussion there. Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed your interest in Sanskrit literature, such as your edits to Kristubhagavatam. If you're around and get a chance, perhaps you'd be interested in spending 5-10 mins to review a DYK submission for Dhammapada (Easwaran translation)? (DYK="Did You Know" is a daily feature on Wikipedia's Main Page) I'm hoping it can run on Buddha's birthday, which is Tue May 17, but it's been listed at DYK for 4 days, and no-one's yet reviewed it, so time is getting shorter. If interested, you could see if it's still listed at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Dhammapada_.28Easwaran_translation.29. The instructions on that page should be pretty self-explanatory. Thanks! -- Health Researcher (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Well, HR, I am willing to do this or at least, give it a try. Let's hope for the best, since this is a new sort of wiki activity for me. Savitr108 (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm again... OK I was just out there, but so far can't find a way to 'review' the thing. And pardon my lack of expertise here. I can edit it; is that the same? Meanwhile, and whether or not reviewing and editing are the same on that page, I noticed this: "Reviewed (by nom): #Ludwig_von_Westphalen ([6])" . So has LvW reviewed it in time? Savitr108 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see this: "Symbol confirmed.svg -- Hook verified at Google books.[7] Well researched article, meets DYK criteria; The original is more apt, since ALT 1 loses some meaning. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)" So it's reviewed, right? and now ready to go? Savitr108 (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Savitr, thanks for trying. I can see how that page could be confusing if you've never visited it before. And it seems that just about the same time you were looking at it, someone else (TheMandarin) reviewed it - not one of the folks (including you) with whom I'd left a message requesting a review, but perhaps a "watcher" of one of their/your talk pages. With regard to your points of confusion about DYK, in case that's something you try again in the future: 1) Instructions about how to review are given at the very TOP of the DYK Template talk page - they give basic instructions, links to more complete versions of those instructions, plus templates for the decision "Symbols"; when you click on "edit section" (e.g. for a particular nomination, such as for the Dhammapada book) then most of that explanation is reproduced at the top of your "section edit" page. 2) With regard to the line about "reviewed by nom", it's a requirement that new nominators also review someone ELSE's hook - so that line was indicating what I had reviewed (which was an article ABOUT LvW, submitted by someone else). Although it's confusing at first, the DYK page is actually set up quite logically and conveniently, which I think you'll experience if you ever visit it again. Many thanks for your efforts. Health Researcher (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Savitr, you've known me before as "Health Researcher", but my name has been changed to "Presearch". Given your interest/skills with Devanagari, would you want to create some Devanagari verse text for the newly created page at Gita Dhyanam? I could potentially move it into a table, but for now we could just put it as a block quote. I've inserted transliterations, but if you're able to access a copy (I think the Besant link gives you something online), you might double-check that I've done the transliterations correctly. There's probably also more material online that could be used to expand the text, though I'm not quite sure when I'll have time. -- Presearch (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what you think. Look OK? Savitr108 (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Savitr, I've created a new WP article for a Buddhist scripture, the Vitakkasanthana Sutta. I've identified several English translations and have given alternate translations for such things as the nature of the 5 "things" described in the Sutta, and their purpose. But I'm not sure what the Pali words are that are being translated. You've helped with some indic language issues in the past. Any chance you'd have the time, interest, and expertise to help out here, by bringing in a few Pali words, and perhaps citing them to a Pali source (note: I found a Pali translation online, as part of an Amazon book). Thanks -- hope you are well -- Presearch (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KTC (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Savitr, I know you're not very active on Wikipedia, but I in the past you've shown interest and competence in different types of mysticism and mystical literature, and have sometimes contributed to such articles. This is probably a longshot, but I'm wondering if you'd like to contribute to a book article that I'm drafting about W. T. Stace's classic book, Mysticism and Philosophy (Scribd).

I've started drafting an article on my userpage HERE: User:Presearch/bnext5. Usually userpages are private, but if you think you might be interested in helping develop the article, even in a little way, I could tell you more about it, and invite you to edit it. At the moment I find that I'm too short on time to satisfactorily develop the article, especially its synopsis of what the book says. So I'm looking for a trusted collaborator such as yourself to help move it along. I hope this message reaches you. Please tell me if this could be of any interest. Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Presearch... Yes, I will follow that link and see what I can contribute.Savitr108 (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super! FYI, there is a style guide to Wikipedia pages about nonfiction books HERE: WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. I've mostly already set the page up in conformity with that style guide. One thing it says, however -- see the note at the very bottom of the style guide -- is that "Synopsis should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as being complicated." Thus, on nonfiction book articles that I'm writing, such as the Stace book, I try to keep my "Topics covered" section to under 700 words if possible, or at least under 900 words, even though it's sometimes hard to do for a really rich book, like the Stace book. So please just bear in mind that if we generate over 900 or 1000 words we'll probably want to cut it. I don't know if there's an official guideline, but I'd be inclined to EXCLUDE the table from the wordcount. Thus, at present, cutting and pasting into my MSWord wordcount function, I get only about 382 words in the "Topics section", so we've only used up about half of the available space. And some of the things already said can perhaps later be condensed. --Presearch (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An additional thought about how to write the article: Notice that there are several published book reviews. It's often nice when the "Topics covered" can be written in a way that makes the excerpts or paraphrases from the book reviews understandable to the reader. With available time, I'll hope to sporadically add the summaries or most interesting ideas from the 6 already-cited book reviews into the "Reception and influence" section. Possibly that will help guide you in what to target for the chapters that haven't yet been covered in the "topics covered" section, i.e., Chapter 3, and anything from Chapter 5 onwards. Or if we generate more than 900 words and need to cut, then seeing what the reviewers talk about will help guide us in what to keep, and what to cut. -- Presearch (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presearch: I started up a 'talk' page associated with this article you started, on the Stace book. Take a look over there. Savitr108 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Savitr, as I mentioned on my own talk page in response to your earlier comments, you might be interested in the article Unifying Hinduism. --Presearch (talk) 17:57, 10 June 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) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Savitr108. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Savitr108. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Savitr108. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]