This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article is heavily edited by an IP hopper who besides any pov issues doesn't understand or agree with WP:NOR as shown by their recent restoration of content I deleted. If you have time, I'd appreciate your putting it on your watchlist. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Coincidentally, I said this a few hours back with regards to Shivaji/Maratha related articles :) Abecedare (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@RegentsPark, Sitush, Dougweller, Fowler&fowler, and SpacemanSpiff:

This has gotta be the most brilliantly written article I have read on wikipedia. See the version I started with and note:

• the "Ethnicity" in the infobox and the cited sources;
• take a look at the two maps below the infobox; read and admire their captions.
• see how sentence "...a legal member (nyayadhisha) and a member for religious matters (pandit rao) completed the council." from EB has been transformed into

As the Empire's chief religious councilor, the role of Panditrao most closely resembled that of the Egyptian Theban High Priests of Amun, the High Priest of Israel prior to the destruction of the Second Temple (Kohen Gadol), and the Papacy of the Holy Roman Empire (Vicarius Iesu Christi). According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the religious ministry of the Panditrao should be distinguished from the secular ministry of the Nyayadhish (Chief Justice), which resolved the Empire's civil and criminal matters.

• and, then for the pièce-de-résistance take a gander down to the Legacy section. While reading it, keep in mind that the subject died in 1686.

And I am sure I have missed many such gems, which you are free to discover and claim. Abecedare (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean he wasn't really responsible for the Boston Tea Party? Who knew? Anyway, thanks very much for your work there. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't checked, but until the new account came along a couple of days ago, virtually all of the article was written by the same editor under 125 and 222 IP addresses editing from Chongqing. The first version before the IP is [1] dated January 4, 2012. This diff[2] shows the difference between the pre-IP edit and today's version after you edited it. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thinking to make a page of Shiva, where i will present his all or most popular names, like there's list of Krishna's names, there should be Shiva's too. Then the notable similarities or spread of Shiva worship in different countries whether in Asia or outside, different forms, as per academics/scholars, then the current details of his popularity, festivals, cultural(movies, novels), etc.

But thinking, what would be a good title for such page? "Legacy of Shiva"? Or "Historicity of Shiva" like this page? Let me know your view. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have never come across any claims that Shiva was a "historic figure" (in the sense of being a real-live individual human who walked the earth), so the last one is not an option. How about simply List of names of Shiva ? It may be better to start it off in userspace. That way you don't have to worry about someone proposing deletion or merger immediately after creation. (I assume you have checked that such an article does not already exists). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Will make 2 pages then. One List of names of Shiva, and other would be with different title covering rest of the information that i mentioned above. Good idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a look List of titles and names of Shiva. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You should add a source for the information, but otherwise the article looks good. Nice work! Abecedare (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, gonna bring many more sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Gave him a 3RR warning, you're the only one of us not at 2RR, I told Fowler & Fowler I'm loathe to go to 3 right now but might later if no one else reverts the IP. If this person continues to edit war we can ask for semi-protection. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hindu iconography
Thank you, returned user, for starting here with quality contributions to Hinduism, for articles such as Hindu iconography and The Jaguar Smile, for keeping articles "clean", for daring to love the trolls, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think you should consider these :- 2 edit. 1. Harrappan civilization is (2600 BC - 1900 BC).. Should be corrected. 2. Line "earliest evidence for prehistoric religion in India that may have left its traces in Hinduism", the word "may" should be removed, because the last line of the same section already talks about remaining disputes(linked with deities). Bladesmulti (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Did I get the dates wrong? It is possible since Harappan culture, with and without "Mature", can refer to different time segments in history and sometimes the terms are used loosely. I'll recheck the source.
2. I think the may is needed in the first sentence, otherwise we will be making contradictory statements at the beginning and at the end of the paragraph. More generally: The many mays, probably's etc in that section are needed to reflect the extent to which the conclusions are tentative or disputed but I'll review it once more to see if the section can be made to read smoother without being inaccurate.

Abecedare (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Follow up: The source (see last paragraph on page 153) does say "Mature Harappan" specifically (which is typically dated to the 2600-1900BCE period). Also note that the Pashupati Seal and other relevant artifacts are from Mohenjo-daro, which dates to the same Mature period. So the dates seem correct to me. Abecedare (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Finally realized what you meant: corrected. Abecedare (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you may need to re-write it a bit, "probably", "possibly" can be used too. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll revisit it in a day or two when I can see it with fresh eyes. Abecedare (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare. Do you know the sfn reference tags? It's even shorter than harvcolmb. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I have been using it more recently, at least for the more developed article with a separate notes and reference sections. At Samkhya, I stuck with ((harvnb)) only because I saw it being used already in other sections. Ironically, it was that shift from sfn->harvnb that caused me to make the error corrected here. :) Abecedare (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciated your reasoning in your support of the Cerebellum RFA, where you said his willingness to listen was more than whether you both agree on a particular policy. Nicely done.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  18:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

On 31 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rani Sati, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Rani Sati, a legendary figure from Rajasthan, is worshiped for committing sati on her husband's death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rani Sati. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only about the dating, but also the influence one, what was wrong about it? I removed the leading line of the section "influence" because it was written like essay, and not really needed either. Plus 2 sources were added for the information. About dating, more sources:-

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-11-08/india/27204982_1_lord-ram-shri-ram-solar-eclipse

http://books.google.com/books?id=39tW7k_0MI4C&pg=PA16&dq=5114+BCE+rama&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1R11UseDAoizrgfQ9oDgBQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA http://books.google.com/books?id=ROePWIBgyv8C&pg=PA122&dq=5114+BCE+rama&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1R11UseDAoizrgfQ9oDgBQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg

Bladesmulti (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• The influence edit was lost in an edit-conflist and was not an intentional revert. Feel free to redo that. (Try to cite complete bibliographical data for the work cited though, including publisher and year)
• A ~5000BCE date for a historical Rama is complete WP:FRINGE irrespective of how many astrologers we and the media can cite. Feel free to discuss it on the article talk page if you wish. But frankly it is a waste of our time. Abecedare (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Best would be, to just remove whole "historical period" for now.. Correct? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would we want to do that? 5114 BCE may well be the date that corresponds to the stellar arrangement described in Ramayana (though we need a source for that). The problem is with attributing that as a date for a historical Rama. Read the chapter here (not related to Rama per se) to understand why this is an error; one famously made by Tilak and some other writers in the 19th century.

Coincidentally, I reviewed the MK Agrawal book you list above at RSN recently; see there for why it should never be used as a source on wikipedia. Also, please re-read my advice to you here, since that will both save time and help improve content and sourcing of article you edit. Abecedare (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Historical" can be changed to something else, Astrological or simply "dating", instead of "historical period". Bladesmulti (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the "historicity" of Rama is relevant to the content of the article and can be described in a couple of sentences (not necessarily in a section of its own. I'll try to address it over the next day or so. Abecedare (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what Xjt***** did on Bose, but even after your revert, is shows death date unknown. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed I think. I haven't read the complete article and can imagine arguments that alternate theories of his death should be briefly mentioned/linked (as a sociological and political phenomenon, if nothing else), but the recent edits by XrieJetInfo were clearly not the way to go. And Disappearance of Subhas Chandra Bose needs considerable clean-up (and possible rename) since, per my spot check, it doesn't even accurately represent the sources it does cite. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A user has deleted the majority of the content of the article Anuj Dhar citing notability issues, without discussing the issues on the Talk page. I have reverted the changes and asked him to discuss it in the Talk page. Would be nice if you could look into it. Thanks. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the article needs o be deleted to stubbed but there are large problems with this set of Anuj Dhar related articles. For example, large sections of the India's Biggest Cover-up appear to be copyright violations, or at least plagiarized, from the cited newspapers. The articles also seem to be largely being used to repeat the allegations and claims made by the author, rather than reporting what has been written about the author and book. In my opinion, these articles need to be merged and cleaned-up, but for now I don't intend to edit them directly since I'm (as often happens) am already spread thin on wikipedia. You should also take a look at this India noticeboard thread where I and others have expressed concern about some of these articles.

FWIW, I believe that you are motivated by genuine interest in the subject and not any COI. So content issues should be handle-able through discussion and regular wikipedia practices. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I do not have any direct interest in having these articles on Wikipedia, but as someone who has been following this issue for the last few years with keen interest, I see that there is a point in having these articles stay. Having said that, someone just recently modified the article Mission Netaji by editing the published mission of the organisation, by including original research/prejudice. The editor provided a link to the conspiracy theory article on Wiki. Is that fair? I will be glad if proven wrong, but I see that there is a collective effort to bias these articles. People claims notability issues and NPOV, but are these articles going really neutral now? -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think what you are seeing is the usual push-pull of wikipedia editing in which editors who believe that an article is biased in one direction edit to highlight the opposite viewpoint, and vice versa. Ideally, after much back and forth, the article ends up in better "neutral" shape. So the best way (for you and other editors involved) would be to relax and hash the issues out on the talk page, just as we are doing at Subhas Chandra Bose.

And as I said above and at WT:INB, my preferred solution would be to merge many of the Anuj Dhar related articles, so we can present a consolidated and summarized account of his work, claims, and actions along with the relevant background and media/scholarly response. But for now I myself would like to focus on the main Bose article, since the evaluation of sources there will also help me develop a better idea of the acceptance of these alternate theories and the possible relevance of WP:FRINGE guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that note. I shall definitely bring in more details regarding the alternate death theories. But as of now, as I said, I am running here and there to post things. I also think merging the articles will be good. I suggest we can have two articles - Anuj Dhar and Mission Netaji. All of Dhar's works can go with the main article. But Mission Netaji is not just Dhar but includes others and other activities too. It is good if it gets a separate existence. Dhar is the founder trustee of that org. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I know the rushed feeling when we are putting out multiple fires all over the place, and tend to forget that we are editing here as ahobby. So take your time at the Bose page (few days, weekend etc); I am in no real hurry. Cheers. Abecedare (talk)

Thanks. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Following on from Chaubey Mukta Prasad at WT:INB and AfD, take a look at Makers of Modern Lucknow, which looks like another coatrack job saying a lot about not a lot. I've removed the truly egregious unlinked stuff but, really, should this even be a separate article from Lucknow? The creator is as per the Prasad article. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I can half-see what the page creators intent was. But such subjective "significant contributors to a city" list necessarily needs source, not only for verifiability, but for in-text attribution. I'll prod the page for now, and see if anyone can come up with sources before it is deleted. Abecedare (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thinking. We'd need a reliable source that discusses the topic rather than reliable sources discussing individuals. I'm not even sure that the sources that are presented are reliable but the only other way to treat it would be to redirect to List of people associated with Lucknow or something similar. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought of simply redirecting to Lucknow, but "Makers of Modern Lucknow" is hardly a likely search term, so the redirect itself will serve little purpose. With the prod, hopefully the article will either end up being improved or deleted ... or, of course, it could all degenerate into a debate on why you and I hold such anti-Lucknavi biases. :-) Abecedare (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome :). But honestly speaking, I am just passing by. Life has become really busy these days. Hopefully will resume more active editing sometime soon. Cheers — Ramit^(talk) 17:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And even if you are too busy to edit regularly, do drop in at WP:PINQ once in a while. The more the merrier. Abecedare (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Mahajan, do drop by PINQ sometimes. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate if you could have a look at this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bhagwanji#Debate_in_high_court. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Will take a look in a short while. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The page is protected now. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't consider mahabharat story as myth.. it reveals history of ancient India,its geography, sociology and politics and those monarchy & kingdoms are not just myths of book but may be the real one.. witnessed in every part of nation.. Just removing history on the name of religion doesn't suits u n wiki.. book is just a source of information.. but are the one giving it a communal view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parik92 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:RNPOV on how wikipedia deals with religious texts, literature etc. As for Mahabharata in particular: while historical events may well have inspired aspects of the epic, claims that it is a literal historical account is fringe and not supported by any reputable scholar in the field. Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ärsha Vidya Sannyasi Disciples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - can't recall and busy, but naming names with no sources or evidence of notability of the disciples? Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that DGG (talk · contribs) had tried to clean it up, but the list was recreated. Do you think if it can be merged with Arsha Vidya Gurukulam with the name of a few disciples (eg from here) noted or will an AFD be needed ? Abecedare (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Proposed merger here. Lets see if there is any opposition. Abecedare (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller: See update regarding the merge proposal; taking the list to AFD instead. Abecedare (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seva (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) 09:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The word "hindu", is probably older than it's noted in various wiki pages. It has been considered that Chinese probably helped in generating that term.. 2 links, [3], and [4], both predates the arabic "al-hind".. More sources are available in internet/books if attempted. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Those sources are no good; and while I haven't looked, I expect the general sources available on the internet to be no better. By the way I don't know what various wikipedia articles currently say, but the origins of the terms is widely held to be Persian, not Arabic. If you want to research the topic of the origins of the word and how it gained currency in modern India, a good place to start would be: Sharma, Arvind, On Hindu, Hindustān, Hinduism and Hindutva, Numen, Vol. 49, Fasc. 1 (2002), pp. 1-36. Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, this source is even much more unreliable.. A lot mistakes in that page, and very 2nd hand too. Like i said, some sources actually held that "Hein-tu" is what Chinese referred to Indians by 100 BCE or 5th Century A.D. Harold Walter Bailey, a known scholar describes here.[5] Bladesmulti (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Blades, I am not sure what we are actually debating. To be clear: there is no doubt that Chinese used words akin to Hindu, as did Arabs. The only question is regarding the earliest documented used of similar terms, which is credited to the Persians roughly in the 6th century BC. If you read the Sharma paper I pointed to above, this is discussed in great detail along with how both the forms and meanings of the words evolved. Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In Hinduism#Etymology, I think, at 2nd paragraph, or first paragraph, the chinese record can be mentioned. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth adding at the Hinduism page, whose etymology section needs to be tightened rather than expanded. However, the Chinese use would be relevant to the Hindustan page, which is essentially an article about the term. Abecedare (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Had asked for your opinion in Talk:Vedas before, maybe you didn't had it's attention then. So yes, Jainism section should be removed from Vedas, as they are not officially associated with Vedas anyway, just like Islam. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Had missed your earlier comment. Have replied at the talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Could you and @RegentsPark:, please, pretty please, take a look at User_talk:Coffee#Emilie_Schenkl. I'm stressed trying to put out too many fires. My tone there is no reflection on your merge note, but I was surprised that it wasn't advertised on the Bose article or on WT:INDIA. You guys know the rules better. Could you please take care of it. I'm tired and need to take a nap! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Normally, AFDs are advertised to the relevant projects through the associated deletion sorting page (WP:DSI) and article alert page (WP:INAA), and a message is left at the the main project talk page only when an individual editor finds something of particular interest. This is done so as not to drown pages like WT:INDIA with "routine" AFD/PROD/SD/... messages. Procedurally I think everything was fine here and everyone, including the nominator and the closing admin User:Coffee, acted in good faith and reasonable (I further think that Coffee's close was the correct one, but would not have objected even if he had closed as keep since this was a borderline case).

Moving away from boring procedural questions: As I see it, the main question is whether we can write more than a two-three line biography on the subject? If not, then there is no loss in redirecting the reader to the Bose page, where the two-three lines about their meeting and marriage will need to be included in any case (ie, there is no information loss!) and we avoid having to maintain duplicate content and a permanent stub. However, if there turns out to more relevant content that can be added to the Emelie article (as Dwaipayan hinted at the AFD), then we can retain/demerge the article, possibly as Marriage of Subhas Chandra Bose if editors feel that Emelie doesn't pass the notability bar.

At present you should feel free to work on and expand the article as you see fit. If someone does come by insisting that the page be merged immediately (very, very unlikely) then we can simply move the draft to userspace and when it is ready, open a "demerge" discussion at Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose. Let me know if I can be of any help. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a million Abededare!! I know every time I interact with you or RP, why you guys are excellent choices of admins (and thank you, in turn, Nichalp!) and I'd be an awful one. I was worried that 8 years of article history (the article was begun in 2005) was about to be destroyed by some bot! In fact, I was about to remove that AfD banner on the page, unilaterally, fearing that the deletion might happen tonight, before my better judgment made me check your talk page. Also, I needed sleep. I've now had a longish late afternoon nap, and am feeling calmer! Thanks again, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Anton Pelinka a reliable fellow? I found his book when I was looking for Schenkl, and soon after, saw your post on the TalK:Bose page which mentions him and makes an interesting point. Having read the relevant portions of Romain Hayes book, which is well written, and Sugata Bose's book, which, especially on Schenkl (except in one or two instances) and Bose's years in Germany, reads like a cover up job, I found some remarks in Pelinka about Schenkl to be interesting. Sarmila Bose has some stuff about Schenkl as does Mihir Bose; his is a little gossipy though. What is amazing to me, though, is the desperately secret nature of the relationship. According to reliable sources, Schenkl met Bose in Austria in 1934, fell in love with him and he with her, likely had sexual relations with him in pre-war Europe, perhaps got married (the sources are all over the place on this one), lived openly with him in Berlin in 1941 and 1942, gave birth to their daughter, born Anita Schenkl (and raised Anita Schenkl), not Anita Bose, in November 1942. Schenkl later said it was a secret Hindu marriage in 1937, but there was no civil record. Bose, meanwhile, had been planning to leave Germany for Asia during Schenkl's pregnancy. Schenkl and daughter survived the war, and in 1948 were met, apparently with affection, by some of Bose's extended family, but in Vienna. She never made it to India, even though she died in 1996, and the fact of her "marriage" was not acknowledged publicly by the extended Bose family until fairly late in the day (1993?). Bose left a wife and child behind in wartime Europe in 1943 with no support. Sarmila Bose, interestingly, in the EPW article says something about this, though not enough. I wish Anita Pfaff, Bose and Schenkl's daughter, would write a book on her mother. She might she says in this The Hindu interview. She says she has written an article, but I can't seem to find it. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

PS Anita Pfaff does believe that Bose died in Taihoku in the plane crash. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

PPS The Hindu seems to have some interesting interviews with Anita Pfaff. This one speaks to her very private nature and also difficult life. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's amazing how novelistic Bose and Emelie's life (and his death) turn out to be. Abecedare (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As I indicated in the AfD, I am certain that I have read articles on Emelie and Bose in Bengali language. However, those were in 1990s, and Bengali newspapers do not have online archives from 1990s. I can't remember who were the authors, but probably the author(s) had some credentials. Anyway, those won't help as those are not readily retrievable. Thanks Fowler for digging up at least some material. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dwaipayan. I have a feeling, though, that Anita Pfaff's article might have been written in German; I can't be sure though. Abedecare, how do you mean novelistic? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant that Bose's shifting political posts/fortunes (Congress president -> INA leader), murky alliances of convenience, posthumous life, and secret romance with Emelie... all happening under the shadow of world-shaping events (WWII and IIM)... seem right out of something one of the Russian Greats (or John le Carre!) would have plotted. From this perspective, conventional success or a happier ending would just be incongruous. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is certainly true, and a very good point, and well put too. I'll have to think about that more. Thanks. Another thing I'm a little mystified about is Bose's source of income. Much is made of how he ranked 4th in the ICS exam but walked away from the job to dedicate himself to India's freedom. But people don't just walk away from the ICS unless they have an alternative means of support. (He was Calcutta's mayor for some years, but still ...). Similarly in the 1930s, at the drop of a hat, Bose would turn up in expensive health resorts in Austria (of all places). I'm assuming there was family money (like Nehru's), but the sources don't seem to state this with clarity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

PS I found an explanation in Sugata Bose's book: "With Sarat languishing in jail as well, it fell upon Bivabati to express concerns to the authorities about her brother-in-law's illness in detention. Eventually, the government agreed to allow him to travel at his own expense to Europe for treatment. Subhas usually depended on Sarat for financial support. Now family friends came forward with loans to Sarat, to meet both his family's needs in Calcutta and Subhas's expenses in Europe. These benefactors included luminaries within Calcutta's legal fraternity, including Nripendra Nath Sircar, Provas Chandra Basu, and Nripendra Chandra Mitra, as well as Debendra Lal Khan, a nationalist leader from Midnapur district. Sarat would repay these loans once he returned to his practice in 1936." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, and looking up "Sarat" I noticed that Sarat Chandra Bose also needs clean up. Never-ending, ain't it ? :) Abecedare (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we positively state that they were married as the Emilie article does? Likely seems more appropriate (unless Hayes has uncovered a marriage certificate?). --regentspark (comment) 15:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have only read Sisir Kumar Bose and Sugata Bose on the topic, and they both treat the marriage as a fact. But frankly they aren't the most unbiased of sources, so F&f will be better able to comment on how other, more independent, sources talk about the marriage/"marriage". Abecedare (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

For example, this source (Gordon) in 2006 says "involved with and likely married" [6]. Whereas this source, published one year earlier, says that she (Schenkl) told Gordon that she "secretly" married Bose. Gordon, apparently did not take that as verifiably factual. Whatever the truth, the statement does need some sort of qualification since it appears to rest on Schenkl's statements rather than independent proof or even support from Bose.Unless something turns up in Bhagwanji's papers :) --regentspark (comment) 17:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Abecedare: Haha. Never ending is right. Besides these two bros, there are 12 other siblings, including Suresh Chandra Bose, the lone dissenting member on the Shah Nawaz committee who in the mid-1960s announced that SCB was going to return at 9 AM on a Saturday morning (or words to that effect). Speaking of Bose's return, if he is still alive at 116, he's likely at Bad Gastein his favorite resort in Austria. See caption of the photo in the SCB article in which he is alighting from a plane (and the quotes in the footnotes therein). Sugata Bose's book, whose true virtues I'm discovering are in the realm of (unintended) comedy, prefaces the material about Bose's one and a half month vacation at Bad Gastein with Emilie, with, "Gandhi suggested to Bose that he take a vacation in Europe before assuming the presidency of the Congress." The poor Mahatma, whose only trip abroad after returning to India in 1915 was to the Round Table Conference in 1931, undertaken by boat in a cramped cabin] and with a goat in tow, would be saying just that.

RP, I made a the same mistake as you. What Gordon means by "likely married" is not that their marriage was in doubt, but at that they were most likely married at that time (which he is referring to in the text). I'm waiting for Gordon's book to arrive, but I'm assuming he too believes in the fact of the marriage, ie. the secret marriage. That means that most reliable sources: Hayes, Gordon, Fay, Lebra (in both her books), Anton Pelinka, and the Boses (Sugata, in his book, and Sarmila, in her EPW article), all refer to a secret marriage and to Schenkl as wife. So we don't really have any other choice. The only one who seems to cast some doubt on the marriage is Mihir Bose, but his book is too gossipy and there are no footnotes.

As a general comment, I am struck more and more by two things. 1) Bose's amorality (or arrogance), which made him above the law or beyond the rules to which other people feel bound. When Hirohito surrendered, Bose's senior INA officers, being army men, said that the honorable thing to do would be to "surrender with dignity," which they all did, and were put on trial later by the British. Similarly the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters (IGHQ) denied Bose's request for a flight to Manchuria, recommending that he surrender with the rest of them, especially after all the help he received from them. But Bose still managed to milk the sympathy of General Terauki and/or General Isoda (both of whom surrendered) and get two seats on that ill-fated flight. 2) The cost borne by Germany and Japan to support Bose's effort. Not only money, equipment, buildings, and arms, but, in the case of Japan, also lives. I am wondering if the Japanese would have bothered to attack India (especially that late in the war) were it not for Bose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

PS As for marriage vs. "marriage," I don't know on which side Bose's "secret marriage" comes down. When it is said VS Naipaul and Pat Hale were secretly married in 1955, what is meant is that they didn't inform their families right away, but that they were married legally with two witnesses. But, in Bose's case, according to another source, when Schenkl was pushed by Leonard Gordon in the interview, she said she and Bose exchanged garlands, but there was no Hindu priest and no witnesses and certainly no civil ceremony or record. That kind of marriage is a tricky one. All we can do on Wikipedia is to state that they were secretly married and (if there are reliable sources) add that there was no Hindu priest, witnesses or civil record. I shall ascertain this latter bit when Gordon's book arrives. (As an aside, I have to say Bose had some nerve: he was writing letters to Schenkl on "President of Indian National Congress" letterhead; the letters were being read (and red lined) by British censors. What his long term game plan was is anybody's guess. Had he survived the war and returned to a leadership position in Indian politics, how and when was this self-described "married only to India's freedom" revolutionary planning to break the news of Emilie and Anita to India's masses? I'm beginning to wonder if he was hypomanic, and I say that with sympathy for him, not facetiously.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Abecedare. You are probably familiar with the issues going on with the Karna article involving the article length. The thing is, and this is knowing that you seem to believe that the article should be shorter, I am having a hard time communicating with Dharmadhyaksha. While I have been, in my edits, trying to incorporate his viewpoints, he's been simply reverting all my edits to his preferred form, and in the process, violating several Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, he's engaged in personal attacks and has basically said that he does not want to discuss these issues. With that, I think the proper thing to do is simply revert his edits. If he isn't willing to discuss the merits of his edits, I don't think they should be kept. I don't want to get into an edit war. I'd be happy to discuss issues involving the length of the article with you or others, and I already can see ways to reduce the length. What do you think? Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw that Dharmadhyaksha was trimming the article (which I support in principle) but haven't really reviewed the specific bits he was removing. I'll take a look at it in a few hours, and post my comments on the talk page, along with some suggestions on how to improve the article (ie what the article is missing). Can you hold on for 8-12 hours since back-and-forth reverts are rarely helpful? Best for all of us to de-personalize the discussion and focus on the article content and presentation. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted Dharma's edits per our agreement/conclusion in the talk page. It looks like you hold the same stance as him and just wish to delete referenced data that you find disagreeable. I highly encourage you to generate consensus, THEN delete referenced, verified, content. Don't delete content just because you think it is wrong. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Best to continue this conversation on the article talk page, where I notice Mdebellis too has posted some useful tips. Abecedare (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Karna's talk page". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare, Thank you for your editing some of my Wiki posts. I am not a scholar and am new to doing this (it is my first time!). Is it possible to discuss with you the posts in question so that my contribution could be made acceptable from a wiki point of view? I know this would take up some of your time for which I apologise. With very best wishes Shyam Mehta ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyam Mehta (talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. We can continue the conversation there. Abecedare (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare, I hope you are well. I have written a book, Yoga Philosophy and Practice. I wondered whether you would like to comment on the book, if you give me your email, I will send it to you. With best wishes Shyam Mehta (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. But my on-wiki (and off-wiki!) reading list is already too long for me to be able to read and comment on your book. Abecedare (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I on the wrong track here? I find it difficult to believe that it would not be a controversial move. - Sitush (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The move does look dubious given that (1) it is not clear that the Finnish company is known as "Varma"; (2) even granting 1, that that is the primary use of the term (doubtful imo); and (3) even granting both 1 and 2, that this should have been handled by creating a disamb page instead of a simple hatnote. Pinging @RegentsPark: to see if the move can be reversed and then (if needed) a discussion started. Abecedare (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Trivia Q: Are there more persons named Varma than persons insured by Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company ? :-) Abecedare (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The company gives some numbers here. I've no idea how to assess the population of name bearers. but it is going to be a big number. The company gets the top two slots on GWeb but thereafter ... - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, the smalltext was a "big fish in small pond" kind of joke! Don't let the caste-warriors run away with your sense of humour :-) ← This be a joke too. Abecedare (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that. But I'm still curious: how could one substantiate the population of name-holders? Btw, it isn't caste that I'm mithered about at the moment, it's India Against Corruption. I keep dabbling with the two articles relating to the 2011/2012 protests and they will end up being merged, but the IAC article itself has been particularly tricky and I'm convinced that it is a naming issue. Doubtless, there'll be a merge with Team Anna but, again, it ain't going to happen any time soon. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary Indian (and other) politics articles are a pain because with the plethora of "news" sources available, motivated editors can find backing for almost any claim. At least when dealing with other POV magnets (history, religion etc) we can demand academic sources. I don't know enough about India Against Corruption to be able to tell whether the claims made by AcorruptionfreeIndia (who certainly is wrong about wikipedia policies), nevertheless happen to be true. Can't regular editors at AAP etc weigh in? Abecedare (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I will reply here like always.

This book :- http://books.google.com/books?id=RwP--c7OV4cC is reliable? It reads that Einstein read the Gita, regularly. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That book is a NRM reader, ie a collection of in house literature produced by different New Religious Movements like the Brahma Kumaris, Unification Church etc. The text on page 326 comes from ISKCON. As such the source is only reliable as evidence that ISKCON has made an "Einstein ♥ Gita" claim, and not a reliable source for what Einstein actually said, thought, or did. I wouldn't be surprised if Einstein (or Obama, Churchill, or even some pope) had said nice things about the Gita or Hinduism at some point, but mining for such isolated pro forma quotes is more appropriate for propaganda than an encyclopedia. Contrast with Gita's influence on MKG, or the Upanishad's influence on Salinger which are indeed noteworthy. Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

@Dharmadhyaksha:

In reply to your email: Apparently back in Nov 2006, I created Manjeera, which was not only an unsourced stub with external links possibly violating WP:ELNO, but also completely redundant as article Manjira already existed at that point of time. Perhaps I should excise this embarrassment from my userpage "credit list", but on second thought better to leave it there as a useful personal reminder not to bite new editors.

Anyway, it does seem (even from my Nov 2006 article text) that Manjeera = Manjira = Taal (instrument), so a merge would be appropriate. Since I haven't looked at sources yet, do you know offhand if Taal would be the most common name for the instrument? Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I see! I didn't check the history of that redirect. About the most suitable name, am not sure. Marathi and Assamese seem to call it Taal, although am guessing they might actually be pronounced differently. Hindi and Gujarati (probably Rajasthani and other northern states) seem to call it Manjira. Don't know what South Indian languages call it. And then comes the deciding question of what Americans and Europeans and Brits call it even if they actually don't even have to call it anything. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

At least one source suggests that there is a technical difference between Taal and Manjira, with the former being a bit larger. But given the vagueness of this claim, I still think a merger would be sensible. And since searching for "Manjira cymbal" on Google Books gives more hits than searching for "Taal cymbal", perhaps the former name is preferable, especially since it avoids the need for disambiguation. But obviously I have no strong feelings/evidence about this. Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! Had been busy in Tendulkar on-wiki and real life off-wiki. Will reply on this topic tomm or so. About the new user you are educating, last section below and their talk page, if you think they are promising then you may direct them to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Or even better formalize your current teaches through this and formally become a Adopter yourself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh. If only I had remembered about WP:ADOPT (hate that paternalistic name), it would have saved me considerable time. Well, now the editor better turn out to be a FA producing machine :) Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied at the merger discussion. FA! Just be thankful even if he continues editing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if you noticed, but i had started a discussion about mergers at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Merge_articles_to_be_regulated. General comment is such that there is no point in waiting for merger discussions to get good quorum. I will merge all these three article next when i get time. Meanwhile, is ANI the only way out of this now? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: I hadn't seen the VPT discussion (will read it later today; in a bit of a rush at the moment). In any case, if you could do the merger, that would be most welcome. Else, I'll take on the task in the next day or so.

About Karna: See my edits to the page,talk page. Also left a message at Pinkfloyds talk page. Hopefully won't have take this up to ANI and get him blocked etc.

Secondly, the two PhD theses I listed on the article talk page are available for download (legally) online! Just google, or I'll add links in a few hours. I don't think we need to rely much on the "original research" part of the theses for our article, but their literature survey and summary sections should be useful sources, and they may even suggest how the article can be organized and potential sections. Abecedare (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm in need of some regarding Tarun Tejpal who has currently intense media attention. I've read WP:BLPN#Tarun Tejpal and I'm not quite sure how to proceed. It's regarding these three related articles: Tarun Tejpal, Shoma Chaudhury and Tehelka—which I've been doing some major expansion and that's how I've got involved in this.

If you have time, could you check whether the controversy's mention in all of three is fine? These past days, I'm in two minds, whether to expand it because of it's almost global coverage or decrease it on account of WP:BLPCRIME. Moreover, two of these articles protection are about to expire and I'm not quite sure how tackle over enthusiastic IPs interested in adding all the possible details. Please help/advise. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick glance indicates that you and others have done a good job keeping the articles balanced given the amount of media attention this has got! Page protection is a no-brainer for at least the first two article, and if/when the current semi expires, renewing it should be a breeze. I'll add the articles to my watchlist and weight in after I have checked the sections and the sources in more detail. Abecedare (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! any help here is much appreciated. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I took a look and edited the sections a bit. But even the previous version seemed well within wikipedia's policies (thanks, no doubt, to your and other regular editors' efforts). Will keep an eeye on future edits. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please help. I added some information (The Mystery) with reliable published source backing. But other editors just don't allow to keep those information there. Alternate theories about Bose's death is not a minority view that can be discarded. I am afraid, effectively others are not presenting a balanced view. -- Xrie (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. At a high level, I think the problem is mainly that scholarly sources don't accord "alternate theories" about Bose's death any credibility, and we cannot use perfunctory news accounts to "balance" such a consensus. Of course, as we discussed here, if you find any equally high quality sources that say otherwise, we can revisit the issue. Abecedare (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have some other doubt too which I have posted there. I plan to collect scholarly sources. The problem is that the revelation about the secret files the Indian government has been holding about Bose since the 1950s is that they were known to the public only very recently. In simple terms, other than news references, there may not be much available in written books as this information is relatively new. But I shall bring in book references about the alternate theories of death though. -- Xrie (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

See [7] - historical or mythological? The article doesn't seem clear on this. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Karna is definitely a mythological/literary figure (as usual there is always the possibility of the character being based upon some unknown historical figure(s), but there is no attested evidence for this I saw the Karnal-Karna link mentioned on the latter page and sourced to the city website, which may be okay for a "it is said" type of claim. User:Dharmadhyaksha is currently cleaning up the Karna article with me helping around the edges. So if if we come up with better sources supporting/refuting such a claim, we'll update the Karnal page too. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare. I've provided a diff at Talk:Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan#Lead of where the tone changed from neutral to slightly overheated. I was expecting that this change was made by this specific editor. The editor in question, Langdell, is still active, as far as I can see, as an IP: 81.106.127.14. Before he seems to have edited using 81.107.150.246, 81.109.10.218 and 81.109.11.33. All IP's are in Brighton, England. All have the same range of topics; all IP's, and Langdell have the same attitude; see Talk:Dharma/Archive 1#Can you help?, Talk:Spirituality/Archive 1#Requesting third opinions on lead and definition and Talk:Zen/Archive 4#sources. As 81.109.11.33 he was suspected of being Langdell in 2008. diff. I've posted an SPI, but they find it "impossible to be sure". Nevertheless, given the discussion we're having, and the tone and style of editing of this person, it seems relevant to me to inform you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and sorry for the delay at my end. Real life "intrudes" at the moment, so can I get back to you in another 24-30 hours when I'll be albe to look at the diffs, article and sources in greater detail? I am hopeful/confident that we can discuss the issues (and learn more about the topic ourselves) at the SR page, just as we have done before at other pages. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I've been working further on the SR page; it's really interesting, taking him out of the' museum of spirituality', and putting him in the context of India's history and the struggle against colonialism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

PS Direct IP-links can also be found at [8]. Have also a look at the history of the various user talk-pages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Karna's talk page". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise to you if you mistook my generalisation of foreign sources being used to cite things on Wikipedia. As I wrote in the Talk page, I have seen in the talk pages of many articles that some editors insist on using only foreign sources (read books by US or European authors). Hope you do not take it targeted. And it wasn't diversionary too. Sorry again. -- Xrie (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Lets move on, and focus on the article subject itsewlf; I'll post my thoughts on the article talk page in a short while. Abecedare (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned in the reference provided the content was appended then why it has to be deleted? If reference is provided then the edit should be included. We don't see any reason to the line to be excluded. The following is the text:
The Sanskrit version of Mahabharata does not mention the existence of Aravan Ref: Wilder Theodore ELMORE, Dravidian Gods in Modern Hinduism p.18 FN 6, Vol I
Wikiusergroup (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The reasons I reverted your edit were:

1. The resultant sentence was self-contradictory, and incomplete ("The Mahabharata portrays Iravan as dying a heroic death in the 18-day Kurukshetra War (Mahabharata war), the epic's main subject although the Sanskrit version of Mahabharata does not mention the existence of Aravan but in Tamil version").
2. More importantly, it is not true that the Sanskrit Mahabharata does not mention Iravan/Aravan. It's just that he is a minor character in the Sanskrit version compared to the role he plays in the Tamil version. As the cited source says, "There is a tradition concerning [Aravan] which is found in the Tamil version of the Mahabharata, but not in the Sanskrit original, that Aravan was a man who offered his life as a sacrifice to assist the Pandavas when they were in despair because their enemies had offered a white elephant." (emphasis added) The wikipedia article already explains this quite well.

I hope that makes it clearer. If you have any further questions about the issue, feel free to ask them here or at Talk:Iravan. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Abecedare... You had went off for a while? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. All quite on the wiki-front, I assume ? :-) Abecedare (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What's "wiki-front"? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a flippant reference to wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, you should look at these two pages, these two pages have some un-solved issues. One Human sacrifice, I mentioned you there at talk pages, 2nd is Vedas(the jain reference), since it's still not agreed by anyone that we should add jain views to the page, so I find it easy to remove anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Will try and take a look, but may be a few days before I get through my pending to-do list (and whatever new distractions wikipedia throws up in the interim). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Same way, judaism's influence(on other religions) is mentioned in the page Judaism, influence of Hinduism can be mentioned on it's main page? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Indian religions, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc are already mentioned on the page, and I am not sure that a distinct section would be useful. Did you have something specific in mind? Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism has been notable for influencing religions, such as Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and others.

Influence is also notable among the sects of Islam, such as Ahmadiyya, sects of Christianity, such as Catharism[9]. During the British colonization of India, number of scholars regarded Hinduism to have been prevalent around the world, and influencing different cultures of the world, not only in form of religion, but influential in science, arts, etc, in this regard, Jean Sylvain Bailly said that :-

The movement of stars which was calculated by Hindus 4,500 years ago, does not differ even by a minute from the tables which we are using today. The Hindu systems of astronomy are much more ancient than those of the Egyptians - even the Jews derived from the Hindus their knowledge.

Ella Wheeler Wilcox acknowledge that the Hindu texts remains influential for many aspects, she writes:-

India - the land of Vedas, the remarkable works contains not only religious ideas for a perfect life, but also facts which science has proved true. Electricity, radium, electronics, airship, all are known to the seers who founded the Vedas.

-Something like that? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The first two sentences are true, but pretty non-informative since, almost by definition, any two cultures/religions etc that have interacted for some time have "influenced" each other in some form or another. You are free to bring them up on the article talk page to see if other editors are interested in including them, although I'll probably be mildly opposed. The Bailly and Wilcox quotes, on the other hand, are outdated pseudo-scientific nonsense, and don't belong on wikipedia except specifically marked as such (per WP:FRINGE). Abecedare (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly the source cited for the second sentence itself says, "It does seem relatively easy to find a lot of common ground between any pair of value systems and this is crucial to communication between cultures", before giving the examples of the common grounds between Brahman Hinduism and Catholicism, Catholicism and Mormonism, Catharism and Hinduism etc. So the source is not only being misrepresented (by changing "common ground", which can be coincidental, to "influence"), but also seems to be making a point analogous to mine about the meaninglessness of simply mentioning the existence of such commonalities. Abecedare (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Might differ from real wikipedia, i agree, surely i wouldn't be adding those 2 quotes then. I think more should be added which could be related with the influence among societies instead. Might post in the talk page this time. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't added "originated from Hinduism", only added sources when one user asked for the citation today. The most obvious knowledge is, that Swastika is 2 most popular uses, one, in Hinduism, 2nd, it was by NAZI. It's commonly regarded that swastika originated from Hinduism, as per it's mention in Vedas. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I just left a comment on the article talk page explaining my removal. Note that the sources you added did not even support the claim they were appended to, so I am left wondering why you added them in the first place... please be more careful in the future since such false citations are misleading to both the readers and other editors. Abecedare (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Source said "the word swastika came from sanksrit", sanskrit being a language of Hindus, and Yes i read the talk page, didn't realized that this information was recently added. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The word swastika ≠ symbol swastika. In general, the origins of a object/concept/symbol are not defined by the origins of the word for it in the English language, else we would be making absurd claims like the Greeks "invented" philosophy (or, almost all fields of study); or that Hinduism originated in Persia etc. Abecedare (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Still busy? There is still a proposal waiting for the lead... Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Busy-ish, but will get to it this weekend. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A GLAM project is being planned at the National Museum in New Delhi. The Pasupati seal is in the collections and is almost certainly going to be one of the target articles for creation/improvement. Since you are interested in this artefact it would be a good time for taking credit for the work you have done by moving it to mainspace. Look forward to your collaboration on this and any other articles. Shyamal (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Shyamal: Thanks for the push to get back to the draft. Will try to get it "completed" by this Thursday and move it to mainspace. Will that be ok for the GLAM project timetable? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that should be fine as the workshop is from January 2 to 5, 2014, but do stay with it. We are going to look for more media and reference material at the museum on it. Shyamal (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: Thought I'd have time to work on the draft before today, but unfortunately didn't. Will be on a short wikibreak till the 24th but then should be able to devote some time to it and get it ready for mainspace this calendar year. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You were right that 2 of the sources did mention Asokasundari. However none of them mention anything about Parvati's curse to Asokasunari at time of Ganesha's beheading nor they say she is mentioned in vrat-kathas of Gujrat. I think the unsourced text should be removed from the article unless there are reliable sources to back up that information. MythoEditor (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muslim Students Organization of India MSO is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Students Organization of India MSO until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barmati Panth. We really need to sort Dhani Matang Dev as well - real or mythical or unknown? Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is great to see that you are back to wikipedia. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really back. Currently I don't have as much time to devote to wikipedia as I did in the past. So am essentially editing as a (logged in) "IP editor", ie making tweaks to pages that I happen to come across as a matter of general browsing, and not bothering to keep an eye on my watchlist or talk page discussions. Hopefully will manage to be be more active sometime in the indeterminate future.

Nice to see you around though. Hope you are doing well on and off-wiki. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Your contributions to wikipedia remains memorable! If I compare what I used to think before, and how I think now about history and other subjects, there is big difference. Credit also goes to you. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion of my use of my uploaded Commons photographs to augment architectural text detail in churches here. As a contributor to a previous 2009 discussion on the use of photographs I would value your input on the notice board. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abededare Thanks for highlighting the problems on linking it. The external link may have appeared as promotional since it was leading to an external commercial website. However, we thought that a nice article was created by the team and people should know about it.

Nevertheless we will take care.

With regards BrijeshBrijesh cp singh (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Abecedare, thank you for your message on my talk page. Indeed, the edits made by the anonymous user can be characterized as POV pushing. Academicians, such as Afroz Taj, present the topic of Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu like this. I would strongly recommend you filing a request for page protection as the anonymous user has not even attempted to discuss his/her edits. I would be happy to comment on your page protection request endorsing it. It seems that User:Dhtwiki has also noticed the POV pushing and may be able to assist too. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your information. I iam reading now Wikipedia guidelines and follow them in future. My edit to the page Mount Kailash was not a part of advertisement, but i wanted everyone to know about it. I Understand and in future i will make edits only if they are valids. Thanks Regards Josan420 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josan420 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you'd added a comment to the conversation I had onSituch's talk page regarding the article on Wiener's Cybernetics:_Or_Control_and_Communication_in_the_Animal_and_the_Machine. As you say it's an important book, and I'd expected that more editors would weigh in once I'd got the ball rolling there. Do you have any specific suggestions about the direction things should move in to improve it? Thanks DaveApter (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are some additional details I would personally be curious to know about a book like Cybernetics, and that an ideal article on the subject would include: Weiner's motivations for writing it; his intended audience; publication history; sales; contemporaneous reviews; modern reviews and impact (cf, wikipedia's article on On the origin of species).

Of course, we are limited by the depth of secondary literature on the topic, and I haven't searched for specific sources. Perhaps the proceedings (assuming they were produced) of this recent conference could provide some leads? I am not too active on wikipedia at the moment, but will try to contribute a bit to the article in the coming days. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. DaveApter (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Do visit the quiz at times.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. As soon as I optimize my Calcutta auction bidding strategy for PINQ contestants. :) Abecedare (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

hehe. Well, unless you are a pro gambler, that would be really difficult. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Consider this as a gift, I really appreciate your participation in most of the discussions I've watched. You deserve this. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ugog. Abecedare (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your correcting me and I agree the whole section of Yukteswar's heretic theory of the Yuga needs to be rewritten. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I'm quickly learning that it can't be quoted or trusted because its policies completely fall apart when it comes to religion, spirituality, and articles on noumenal subjects that have no scientific proof. After reading the terribly written "Mantra" and "Meditation" articles I've pretty much lost interest in Wankipedia and can't even be bothered trying anymore. And with my latest edit being quickly reverted (wtf is your definition of heretic?) it just feels like wasting time and effort, going around in circles and ending up with Wankipedia's western scientific atheistic bias. It suffers the same problem as democracy having leaders elected by the plebs... the blind leading the blind.

I'm so over wikipedia and I'm outa here. It's been. Samsbanned (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If you decide to come back, we can discuss some of pints you raise above, and more importantly, productive avenues for contributing to wikipdia articles you are interested in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies - my first insertion was just a test - I haven't added anything on Wikipedia in ages so sorry it looked like I was just doing some promo! I added more with a proper reference after this, which I think you've now seen, and I am putting together text for our page (which I'll send to an editor for checking!).

Essentially, we're trying to help fill out Kailash's profile so there is more information on his work on public sources due to the light thrown on him today because of the Nobel prize. I'd like to add this post but not sure if I'd be allowed to?

During his time as GCE President millions of public engaged in global campaigns for youth and adult literacy, girls’ education, access to quality education and the increase of trained teachers among others during its Global Action Week.^[2][3][4] In 2010, Kailash led GCE during its successful 1GOAL: Education For All campaign, which saw 19 million people worldwide lobby for increased financing and access to quality education, culminating in the announcement of AUS$ 5 billion by the Australian Government at the 1GOAL closing event during the 2010 UN General Assembly, hosted by Kailash on behalf of GCE.^[5]

Is this okay? Thanks for your help! SherryGCE (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Two quick notes:

• It would be best to propose additions to the Kailash Satyarthi article at the related talk-page, which you can find at Talk:Kailash Satyarthi. That way, any and all interested editors can weigh in on the suitability of the content.
• I have created a new article on Global Campaign for Education, since the organization is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article of its own. As of present, it is just a two-line placeholder, but hopefully it will grow in the coming days, weeks, ... Since you are associated with the organization, it would be best if you didn't edit the page yourself, but instead proposed additions/corrections on the article talk page that is located at Talk:Global Campaign for Education. As you surely appreciate, the wikipedia article is not meant to duplicate content from GCE's own website or promote the organization or its cause (noble, as it may be) but ideally should be based on what other reliable and neutral sources have said about GCE.

Thanks for your cooperation and understanding, and welcome to wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - will do both now! SherryGCE (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hindu iconography
Thank you, returned user, for starting here with quality contributions to Hinduism, for articles such as Hindu iconography and The Jaguar Smile, for keeping articles "clean", for daring to love the trolls, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 635th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, although yo-yoing user may be a more apt description than "returned". Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and thanks for the Tip.

I would like to ask you about point 1 in the article though...

It states : 1. The Supreme God is called by various names such as Shiva, Rudra, etc. From this feature one might assume it was a Shaiva Upanishad, but such an assumption would be incorrect because, at the time of this Upanishad, Shaiva Agamas were not there. Also, at that time the Saguna Brahman, (God with attributes), used to be called by different names, each indicating a particular manifestation of Brahman. Just as the names Shiva or Rudra are used to refer to Brahman, names such as Vayu, Aditya or Agni are also used for same purpose in this Upanishad, rather than referring to the demigods of those names. Moreover, if this Upanishad is indeed a Shaiva Upanishad, other sects of Hinduism such as Vaishnavas wouldn't have quoted its verses/mantras as authority in their respective treatises.

1.Where are the references to "facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites" for this statement?. (shouldn't it be removed then?)

2.Don't you think that words such as Demigods are too misleading? Refer to the Wiki article on Agni and you would know what I mean.

3.Isnt the last sentence of that paragraph an assumption or opinion?

Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminati6 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Illuminati6: See my note here. The discussion can be continued on the article talk page, where others interested in the subject can join in. And, if you have sources that would help expand the article, that would be even better.Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

All necessary citations have been given on this page once again. It has become a ritual since last 6 years that somebody overhauls the entire page removing vital information from the page once a year and I have to put citations again and again. The tag at the top needs to be removed now. Please do the needful.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sudhir, I looked at the references you added recently and unfortunately they all are either to primary sources (eg Akbarnama), or to unreliable sources (eg, the community bio. by Hem Chandra Vikramaditya Dhusar (Bhargava) Trust (Regd)). Frankly the additions should be reverted, but since I am not currently involved with the article I'll ping @Cpt.a.haddock: who was doing some excellent work cleaning the article recently. (I also remembered that I had intended to add specific inline citations to the Early Life section, which I'll do in the next day or so) Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If Akbarnama or publications from Hem Chandra's community trust are primary sources, then which reliable sources are you expecting ? I can't expect any other reliable sources on his childhood and early life apart from community publications. Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources for Hemu's early life were analyzed in quite some detail here. Some of those are already used as references in the article, and it would be useful if the remaining (eg, Quanungo, Kohli etc) could be looked up. Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sudhir messaged me as well.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sudhirkbhargava: These "community sources" are neither primary sources nor reliable sources. They should not be used in the article at all.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When Colonial era scholar is mentioned it is in regard to the scholars who were colonialists, not the native scholars of that time. The colonial scholars had an agenda, to rationalize the European colonization and subjugation of India and to convert its natives to Christianity. Chandraputra (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chandraputra:I have responded on the article talk page. Also, any more of this, and I will report you to be blocked. Abecedare (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Abecedare. Thank you for your contributions to the project. In particular I appreciate your contributions at Talk:Ayurveda. I appreciate your attempt to depolarize a controversy, always helpful in contentious situations. I am particularly impressed at your balanced expression of the variety of opinions and the deft splitting of two intertwined subjects. I hope the input you receive is adequate for you to execute your proposal as an edit. I also appreciate your improvement of the reference and explanation thereof. References are one of my principle activities on WP and accuracy is important to me. BTW I have access to a number of databases through the WP Library, I do research assistance upon request on my talk page. Let me know if there is something I can be of help with. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and work finding all the references. I looked up almost all of the works you quoted on the talkpage, and cited some of them in the draft I composed. If I have difficulty accessing any of the citations being discussed, I will surely ask. Thanks for the offer. Abecedare (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your certainly welcome. My initial research was based on ayurveda and pseudoscience, after posting the above message I used my access to Oxford Bibliographies Online and found a good bibliography entitled, "Indian Medicine". If you are interested in doing more work on the ayurveda article I can send you (a single copy for the purpose of academic research to improve Wikipedia, not to be distributed) either a list of references (I have that in WP ref format) via wikipedia mail or a PDF of the article (would require you providing me with an email that accepts attachments). I would expect you to respect the privacy of my email, from which I would be sending. I would of course do likewise (or you could use a throwaway anonymous email, not my first choice but up to you). I was going to just wikimail you the formatted refs but an acknowledgement that you would use only for improving WP and not distribute before I sent would maintain the terms of WP Library and Oxford. It is a pretty long set of refs, the article provides context that would be useful. I have no special access to any of the refs on the list, but would of course do what I could to help with access. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@MrBill3:Are you referring to this article by Wujastyk? I had seen it a few days back, when i had first posted a link to the book co-edited by Dominik Wujastyk's wife on the Ayurveda talk page. The rich academic literature on Ayurveda is not well-represented in the wikipedia article which currently presents a somewhat cartoonish overview (eg, the oft-cited but false 5,000 BCE dating), but I don't know how much time I can devote to general improvement of the article, since it is not a subject I am much interested in. Interestingly, Dominik Wujastyk is himself an editor on wikipedia, but I assume he would rather work on real-world publications than argue with Randys on wikipedia about a subject he is an expert in (I myself don't go near fields that I really know about on wikipedia partly for that reason, and mainly because researching new subjects is half the fun) Abecedare (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Minor fixes. Abecedare (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Why yes, that is the article I was referring to. I see you have some research skills and am again impressed with your thoughtful consideration of the subject of an article. I agree that the article needs substantial improvement. I am more of a source finder than prose writer and I too have limited interest in wading to deep into this particular subject. I hope you are willing to do some work on the article, your prose skills and neutrality would lead to significant improvement. I share your interest in delving into new subjects and hope you edit extensively with great enjoyment. I am going to approach Wujastyk on the off chance he is willing. I fortunately have found when I edit in areas where I have knowledge it isn't too bad, my knowledge base runs in critical care medicine and MEDRS rules pretty tightly in that arena. I meet more people who can teach me something more often than Randy. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Would be great if Wujastyk participates in editing the article, or even weighs in on the talk page. Abecedare (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There was some discussion about the dating, and 5000 BCE seemed appropriate. It is usually accepted for Ayurveda. During that time, I had searched for other alternative datings, I had also found 6000 BCE to be in common.[10]-[11]-[12] They are referring to Oral tradition and traces, not the established formation, and until 2nd millennium BCE, when Atharvaveda was written. Ayurveda transformed during 1st millennium BCE as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Blades, the 5000BCE-6000 BCE dates are indeed very commonly cited by Ayurvedic practitioners (who of course don't have any specialist knowledge/training in history, but pick up the folk-history of Ayurveda in med-school), and by casual secondary sources, including ones published by Government of India. But those plucked-from-the-air dates, predating even IVC by 2000 years (!), are laughably off and "oral tradition", which surely existed before the classic texts were laid down ca. 500 BCE, doesn't magically add 4000 years to Ayurveda's antiquity. We may as well claim that the tradition of tending to wounds surely existed right since the emergence of homo sapiens (and even long before!), and so Ayurveda, or any other traditional system of medicine, traces its roots to 60,000... 100,000... 1,000,000 BCE! At some point it becomes meaningless.

If you are personally interested in learning what genuine scholars on the topic think of the origins and other features of Ayurveda, do look up the citations in the Bibliography MrBill pointed to above. Those are excellent sources! For a easily accessible overview see this, which while not a quality citation on the history of Ayurveda per se gets the basics more-or-less right. Abecedare (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have read a few of these before, one of them suggested that not only Siddha medicine, but also Himalayan medicine was in use before Ayurveda. Of course they were, but Himalayan medicine is not as popular. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Abecedare thanks for making the article National Cyber Coordination Centre meaningful. Thanks for your efforts.

120.59.233.131 (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope you'll keep an eye on the article and update it (with sources) once the agency is formally established etc. Abecedare (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@abededare: I saw you deleted some of the citations provided. The citations provided were genuine. Ballad Divine: Bhagavad-Gita, Kernel of Vedic Truth: Bhagavata Purana and Bhakti Sutra are not meant to promote the author. They are all an authentic translations and have no bearing on promotion. If you still feel strong that they are being used for promotions, then there is nothing more to say. Dev Bhattacharyya (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Devb: Dev, unfortunately self-published works, such as the the ones who mention above, are not usable as sources on wikipedia (with very narrow exceptions that do not apply in this case); see wikipedia's policies on reliable sources for what kind of works can be used as sources. Additionally, adding the books to the reference list of a large number of articles for which it is not used as source (referred to as reference spamming in wiki-jargon) is frowned upon here. Finally, assuming that you are the author of these works, please also read wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and do not use wikipedia to promote your work in the future. Abecedare (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this page List of tourist attractions in Guntur. The page is about a city or a district. List of tourist attractions in Vijayawada is about city, so definitely the above page may be of city. But there is lot of district info. Can you have your opinion on its talk page.--Vin09 (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: I am not familiar enough with the geography of the Guntur city/district to be able to immediately judge which of the listed attractions are in or close to the city boundaries. So the issue may be best discussed on the article talk page with editors more knowledgeable about the subject. In any case, would the scope issue be resolved if the article was renamed List of tourist attractions in Guntur district? If so, that might be an easy way out. Abecedare (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanx mate.--Vin09 (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare, replied at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India#Cuisine_and_Tourism 14.139.229.35 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.

As I said earlier at Talk:India the issue is of due weight and covering details in the sub-articles instead of forcing them into the main page, so I don't find "what's the harm" or celebrity-weddings based arguments persuasive. But I'll let other interested editors to weigh in, and will add my comments if I have something new to say. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi bhai, we can leave the disputed origin of Taj Mahal in there (undo the undo you did of my work) and we can mention that SO FAR THIS IS CONSIDERED FRINGE ... rational for suggesting this is that several independent unconnected authors have raised valid questions/doubts about the origin of the Taj Mahal and it needs to be mentioned to fully inform the reader. Wiki may not be a source of primary research but a lot of people use this as a starting point. Wiki content should represent content based on PROMINENCE but we can not confuse prominence with MAJORITARIAN view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdhillon‎ (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vdhillon: Please see WP:FRINGE for why the approach you suggest is not acceptable on wikipedia.

Since Oak and Knapp's claims are not taken seriously by any reliable sources in the area, we don't provide them coverage at Taj Mahal either, except to briefly mention that such claims have been made and dismissed. You may also want to read Justice Bharucha's comments on Oak's credibility and "research" (if anyone had made those comments on-wiki they would be inviting a BLP block, but being the Chief Justice of India has its privileges, I guess). Abecedare (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Stephen Knapp sites more sources than just Oak. Not withstanding, people commenting on Oak's credibility on other matters, questions raised by the plethora of people about the disputed origin of the Taj Mahal (Rajput building remodeled as tomb, has many inconsistencies with the facts, none of the non-Islamic muslims scribes mentioned the construction specially the foreign visitors of agra, islamic/mughal scribes themselves mention taking over Rajput buildings for burying mumtaj, design and Islamic architecture of mosque and tomb and so forth) have not been refuted convincingly. Criteria we must apply is if the questions raised are valid and if the questions have been refuted (they have not been) regardless of who raised them (majoritarian (more popular) historians... lets face it history of India/wrld so far has Europe-centric and in case of India is is also islamic-centric (based on islamic scribes who did spin doctoring based on their paymasters)... independent sources are lent less prominence). Valid and rational doubts raised about the Taj's origin that have not be convincingly refuted and addressed, can not be discarded as less prominent based on who raised them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdhillon (talk • contribs) 03:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vdhillon: Again, Knapp is not a credible source on the topic as far as recognized scholarship in the area, and hence wikipedia, is concerned. You and I are of course free to believe whatever we wish irrespective of what scholars and courts say, but wikipedia talk pages are not the right forum for debating these personal beliefs. If you can produce a WP:HISTRS-compliant source that takes Knapp's or Oak's theory seriously, I'd be happy to resume the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for your help in finding File:1971 Instrument of Surrender.jpg and for being a productive, solution oriented member of the Wikipedia Community! Myopia123 (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Myopia123: Thanks. I didn't realize that images from the Navy website were released under a free license. Good to see that the discussion ended up improving wikipedia content. Btw, if you haven't already, do read A talent for war's description for the circumstances under which the picture was shot, and how "Flight Lieutenant Krishnamurthy was snapped clutching an outraged Gen Jacob and peering over his left shoulder" at such a solemn occasion.:) Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, hope you don't mind if I ask you for some advice regarding how to deal with such statements.

It occurs regularly when the subject is in the news for some controversy (like say, our politicians) and I'm still wondering what's right to do in such cases. Take the example of Asaram Bapu where someone recently someone tagged this statement, well, what's the solution to it? Do we remove it or mention the name of the source? Are such "X was criticised" statements unencyclopaedic? They are usually there in most criticism and controversy sections the plague articles. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

On wikipedia, such statements can be (and usually are) signs of editorializing, or of POV-pusher trying to sneak in personal, or narrowly held, opinions onto the page. So it is worth checking the sourcing when one comes across such passive constructs. And if the criticism (or praise!) is attributable to an identifiable individual or even group (say, religious leaders, women rights activists etc) the reader is better-off knowing that.

That said, there is nothing wrong with passive voice per se and it is the correct construct to use when 'what was done' to X is more important than 'by whom'. So, if an opinion is widely held and not restricted to any particular individual, group, or ideology then it is better to use passive voice rather than add meaningless faux-attribution (eg "People", "Critics", "Commentators", "Media and the public" etc).

In the particular case, Indian Express says, "...condemnation across the political spectrum and from women's bodies..."; The Diplomat says, "Asaram Bapu made headlines when..."; and even my memory of the incident is that the public condemnation was pretty universal and it would be trivial to find dozens of sources using the "drew criticism", "widely criticized" or equivalent language. So I think, in this instance, the addition of the ((whom)) tag was reflexive, and not justified. (Of course this can be discussed on the article talk page, if needed; also pinging @Bladesmulti:.)

Aside: Given the frequency with which comments like Asaram Bapu's are made (a small sampling), I suspect that there is a silent minority/majority that shares his views. That is strictly a personal impression not at all relevant to the Asaram Bapu article, but it would be interesting to see if there have been any systematic surveys or research on the topic, which can be added to Rape in India article. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have addressed only the issue of passive/active voice and attribution in my reply, and not touched upon issues of due-weight and BLP (since I think you are already well-versed in those policies). Let me know if I misjudged the focus of your question. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you've answered it spot-on. So these statements are valid in such special extreme cases, I shall remember that. I too used to add "Critics" a few instances here and there thinking that would solve to attribution problem--I see how meaningless it is now. Thank you very much for this. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I replied here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India#Devnagri 14.139.229.35 (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Four Yugas is one Kalpa

Yuga also known as Kalpa has different and short timeline. Time is a loop, with one endlessly repeating kalpa (5000 years) i.e. cycles like day and night, waning and waxing moon, and seasons.

It consists of: Heaven: (Day of Brahma)

• Satya Yuga:- Golden Age - 1250 years - 8 births- total population: 0.9 million - Sree Krishna was the first child - Krishna and Lakshmi ruled paradise on earth (Heaven) as Lakhsmi Narayanan - a Garden of Eden - one people, one language, no religion, no sorrow, no conflict.
• Treta Yuga:- Silver Age - 1250 years - 12 births- total population: 330 million - Sree Krishna and Lakhsmi reborn as Sree Raam and Cita - was an age of invention and expansion of peoples and languages, with a slight degradation in perfection.

Hell: (Night of Brahma)

• Dwapar Yuga:- Copper Age - 1250 years - 21 births - an age of the establishment and growth of commerce and religion
• Kali Yuga:- Iron Age - 1250 years - 42 births an age of degradation, decay, and death.

• Confluence Age - the Age which overlaps the end of the Iron Age and beginning of the Golden Age - last 40 to 100 years of Kali Yuga - Birth of Brahma and re-establishment of Satya Yuga - it Started on 1930 - We are in a glorious period were one God aka Shiva, Jehovah and Allah came and teaching us how to purify ourselves to reborn in heaven. It is said that those who believes this and follow the practices of destroying Lust, Anger, Ego, Attachment and Greed will take birth in heaven and others will born again in hell when their time comes in the span of 5000 years. It was almost said in all religion and believed that now we are at the end of an Iron Age and our next births will be in the next cycle, following a short period of Destruction or world transformation.

Reference http://brahmakumaris.info/w/index.php?title=Kalpa

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I need to add this content to Yuga article, previously it was rejected for taking sides and for promotion. I have now made it neutral and added reference link. My intention is not to promote but make people know this point of view on Yugasa. If you are satisfied with content, I'm ready to enhance the article further.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivze (talk • contribs) 06:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hello there! If you would like to request content on an article added or changed, and you are unable to make the changes yourself, the best way to get such changes made is to submit a protected page edit request on the talk page of the article (Talk:Yuga in this case, I believe). Happy editing! — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sivze: Unfortunately brahmakumaris.info appears to be a user-generated content wesite, and is therefore not a usable source on wikipedia. If you can find a reliable source on the topic (ideally, a book or academic paper) I can help you add a summary of Brahma Kumari's view on Yuga's to the main Yuga article, with the details possibly going into the main Brahma Kumari's article, or an article on Brahma Kumari's cosmology, if the subject is notable enough (that will be depend upon the quality of the sources and what they say about the topic). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

@Abecedare I found a Book, The Story of Immortality: A Return to Self Sovereignty. ISBN: 978-1-886872-51-6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivze (talk • contribs) 06:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That book doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It's not a scholarly work but self-published by the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, which despite its name is not a university but a new religious movement whose treatment of Yuga differs from mainstream Hinduism, particularly regarding the length of the yugas and the addition of a fifth. Huon (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

See Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book), and the book is written by a non-notable author. Book is evidently promoting historical revisionism. I had also discussed on the talk(page). Don't you think that the article should be nominated for deletion? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly qualifies as a fringe publication, and the current sourcing in the article (essentially this) is too poor to establish notability under WP:NB/WP:GNG. But before taking it to AFD, it would be worth searching for other sources to see if the book had indeed made waves in India on publication (that could make it notable), or whether that is just hype. I'll try and take a look but my time on wikipedia is going to be very limited for the rest of the week; a post at WP:FTN may get quicker attention. Abecedare (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Did and there are no mention except a few Islamic websites, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book). Bladesmulti (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up Blades. I have added my comment at the afd page. Abecedare (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on three sections. Can I hope you can deny the rest three as well through the help of confusing wiki guidelines? Indian Stock exchange, Space research and aeronautical engg and Bollywood (adding a pic of bolly not a section). Regarding your saying- it is not a page that will advertise India. Cmeon friend. I have compared it to pages like Estonia and I request you to read what I have written there- "Public holidays in Estonia"- no I think the fact that India is 10 largest stock exchange is much more important. Similarly India being the only nation to reach Mars at first attempt is. So please, be discreet. Mousanonyy (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mousanonyy:I have already pointed you to the relevant polices: WP:DUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV and I don't think repeating my comment in six separate sections will be very useful. As for Bollywood images: If you can find a candidate image (certainly freely licensed, and ideally a featured picture) feel free to make a case on the talk page explaining what it adds to the article. But to preempt multiple sub-par nominations, you should know that proposals of the form "image shows actor X, who is a superstar !!!" are unlikely to get any support for inclusion. Abecedare (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare,

Goa was invaded and annexed in 1961 and was fully officially surrendered by Portuguese Republic to the Republic of India in 1974/75 UN TREATY OF SOVEREIGNTY (March 14, 1975). 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_annexation_of_Goa 2) http://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/1074-1962-03-KS-b-RCW.pdf 3) http://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/1074-1962-03-KS-a-RCW.pdf 4) http://www.colaco.net/1/treaty.htm

Thanks for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal Editor Exploration (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Portugal Editor Exploration: I cannot look into this right at this moment but have left a note at India noticeboard requestinng for some more eyes. Note though, that irrespective of who is right on the content issue, continued edit-warring is liable to get you and Qwerty3594 (talk · contribs) blocked. So stop that immediately and discuss the issue of the article talk page instead. Abecedare (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Careful with most India editors as they make GOA wholly INDIANISED and the reality of GOA is MANIPULATED AND MESSED up. Please ask International historians WHO ARE PROFESSORS SUCH AS ME.

[13] and good to see you around. Wifione ^Message 20:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wifione. Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Abecedare. You have new messages at User_talk:Titodutta/Adminship#Process_has_started.
Message added 11:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Tito☸Dutta 11:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a "Hindu Saint"? I thought saints were restricted to Christianity. Either way, tell me what to do (redirect/delete) and it will be done. Or @Titodutta: can take care of it in a couple of hours :) --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Least of the problems. :)

But seriously: there surely are encyclopedic articles that can be written about caste-permiability in Hinduism, but User:Buddhakahika/User:Maleabroad (and their 200+ socks) are mainly interested in poorly-sourced fluff that they can in turn use to fight battles on fringe internet fora with other religious warriors.

Can you delete the newly created Vaishya Hindu Saints, Hindu warrior and monarch saints ? See also the latest posts at the SPI page for some other deletion candidates. I am assuming that they are speedy candidates as creations by an effectively banned/LTA user and/or as redundant articles/content-forks, and/or... I assume User:Bladesmulti, User:Joshua Jonathan have taken care of the other junk content the socks may have added (although, unfortunately given how prolific the sockmaster is, there is always some residue left <sigh>) Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, how about Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship/Abecedare 2? I can write up a quick nom if you're ready.--regentspark (comment) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but not active enough right now to justify it. Do plan to keep editing at least sporadically for now, and hopefully will become more active in few weeks. If that happens, may take you up on the offer! Abecedare (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. But it would be a great help if you did decide to get the mop back. Lots of muck lying around! --regentspark (comment) 20:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't tagged any article yet. But Blades might like to do so; he's got a talent for sock-hunting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

and my mind is occupied at the moment with Indo-European migrations; little room left for Buddhakahika. Sorry... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Joshua. I noticed that Blades had already reverted the sock's deletions from Hinduism (and possibly other pages), and RP has deleted the problematic creations. I will take a look at Tapasya Dev (talk · contribs) remaining edits during my next editing-session to see if there is anything glaring that still needs to be cleaned up. Abecedare (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

RegentsPark, Abecedare don't need any nomination for adminship. He had lost adminship as he was inactive, you can see in his user right log. He can request adminship anytime on bureaucrats noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration of permissions. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was inactive for >3 years (Aug 21 2010 to Sep 1 2013), and so can regain the bit only through an RFA. Not on my immediate horizon; will consider it only if I find myself editing on a more consistent basis. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought 2 years. How come you were inactive for this long? You must have thought a little about how 100s or even 1000s of these pages are badly altered. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Sadly he returned just a little too late. But, given the previous RfA, a re-nom will be a no-brainer. --regentspark (comment) 11:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

ref sisodia...you call KM munshi (first Indian dy home minister) that founded the very respected history research and chronicle foundation `bharatiya vidya bhavan' unreliable?? exactly by what qualification and standard do you qualify your opinion to have the audacity to make such a statement?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.77.227 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

KM Munshi was a prolific writer of popular works in the area, but wikipedia prefers more recent, scholarly and specialized works (as in the books by Maya Unnithan-Kumar and Susan Bayly cited in the Paramara article) whenever available. See WP:RS for the minimal standard of sources and WP:HISTRS for the expected standard for history-related subjects. That said, Munshi's work is not unreliable exactly - it's just non-ideal as a source on wikipedia and in the Sisodia article in particular the overall quality of citations can be much improved. If you wish, you can discuss the issue on the article talk pages.

By the way, the wikipedia article on Munshi does not mention him being the Dy. Home Minister of India. If you have a source for that information, it should be added to the article. Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As discussed in Vyasa TALK page i have created a new page " Vyasa (title) ".But feel that the existing page Vyasa should be renamed to " Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa ", inorder to mention about the author of Mahabratha and his contribution.The new page "Vyasa (title) " should be the general platform for indicating all Vyasas ever existed . I have filed for this on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard to obtain consensus among the various users involved.You are most welcome to go through Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and tell your opinion.Thanks Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do with articles such as Dulawat. Is it a CSD job on the basis of no obvious significance? - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

On quick googling, 'Dulawat', 'Rana Dulha', and 'Sisodia' are too common individually to be useful search terms; and searching for them together leads back to the Dulawat page; so I can't even identify who are the entities being talked about. Even the family tree the article creator had linked to is missing any mention of Rana Dulha. So that's no help either, even if we look past the issue of reliability. Given all this I would say the article is speediable under WP:CSD#A1. If anyone objects, AFD would be the way to go... to at least identify a possible redirect/merge target. Abecedare (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Dropped a note at User:Msdulawat's page. Unless they respond with some information that will allow us to at least identify the subject (and, hence judge their notability), can tag the article with A1 in a few hours. Abecedare (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't find anything useful either. I'll dig through my copy of the Mewar Saga later today. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This link [14] was provided by you. It is clearly stated that the Afghan's flag was hoisted at around 200 feet high whereas Indian Flag was hoisted at 250 feet high. 250 is always greater than 200. so, there should not be any confusion.

Now come to the para-phrasing: I just made some changes now...Now take a look at that and still if you think that it's not ok, then let me know. Suman420 (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Suman420: Thanks for rephrasing the sentences. Unfortunately though, the India Today article is wrong, and the flag at Faridabad is nether the world's largest not the tallest (the headline of the article that has the additional "Indian" qualifier may be right, but given the blatant errors in the India Today article, we cannot take its word for it). See my longer explanation on the article talk page, where we can continue the discussion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my changes if it caused any complications. I was just editing the pages because the pronunciation actually doesn't tally with how it should be pronounced. But since i dont rly have a source, i couldn't quote one. ~u can delete this after reading it :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poipoise (talk • contribs) 22:19, March 9, 2015

@Poipoise: I am not sure what you mean by "pronunciation actually doesn't tally with how it should be pronounced". In general, we are quite lax about demanding sources for IPA guides on wikipedia, especially since no such sources may exist for (say) some non-European names of persons, places etc. However, that is certainly not the case for Allah (I wouldn't be surprised if there are academic articles on regional variations of pronouncing Allah) and some other terms for which you changed the IPA transliteration. Also given that your IPA transliterations were incorrect, it would be best if you made such changes only when you have reliable sources. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I had given all proofs of newspapers,magzines and books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit.pratap1988 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.We can continue the conversation there. Abecedare (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks friend you appreciate my hard work to create this article Mr subodh markandeya is well known personality in supreme court and one of the few senior advocate In india ,the indian kanoon is well known online magjine of legal world and it shows all famous cases by top lawyers and i mention all books by him with isbn no ..and news of all leading newspaper including The hindu,the hindustan times,zee news and other ,which you can go through my friend and iam new to wikipedia ,even i learn from online that how to chat with you , i had formed my first page name nangli wazidpur, i dont know much that how to give all reliable sources to you which are not present online but are there, there are around sevaral news on him but most of them are not available online as during those days internet was not source of news {talk} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit.pratap1988 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Amit.pratap1988: Thanks for adding the additional media sources.

While the article is still borderline, since its sourcing is so dominated by primary court documents, I believe the problem is now better handled by a clean-up than through outright deletion. Perhaps you can drop a note at WP:LOCE to see, if anyone there could help you with the process. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

hello Thanks for reply ,i had submitted more reliable proofs then all leading lawyers in india please dont edit or clean up important brief as it was a asset of hard working to make such wonderfull article , all material is true and reliable , Subodh markandeya is well known name in indian counsels ,who had wrote 7 books and legal and non-legal subjects ,can you tell me how to post news which are not available online ...Amit.pratap1988 (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Amit.pratap1988: Quick replies:

• Sources need not be available online, but they do have to be published (ie, we cannot rely on personal knowledge, private communication etc). See WP:RS for the relevant policy on what type of sources are acceptable, and WP:CITE for information on how to cite them. If you have questions about any particular news-source, feel free to ask here.
• Also note that it is wikipedia's essential nature that any content you (or I, or anyone else) contributes, is liable to be "mercilessly edited" by others. Content that is unsourced, not properly sourced, undue, or biased is especially likely to be deleted; and even otherwise articles are regularly edited to bring them in line with wikipedia's manual of style. Keep this in mind while contributing content here.

Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain what gives you the right to threaten to block my edits?Jsg10lion (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Replied on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Abecedare. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Observer articles..
Message added 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

(talk page watcher) - NQ (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@NQ: Thank you! Abecedare (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems it's time.

Thanks, LarryLogicalLarry (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC's are typically closed by uninvolved editors after about 30 days of comments, or once no new comments are forthcoming. The exception to this are cases where the consensus view is unarguably clear, which is not the case in this instance. I suggest that we wait a few days, and then post a request for closure at WP:AN. In the meantime our efforts may be better spent improving the 2012 Delhi gang rape and India's Daughter articles themselves (or, any other pages on wikipedia that may interest you and me). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

{YGM}Rajendrarajun (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rajendrarajun: Thanks for the email and for finding an additional source for the deleted article Puttana Venkatramana Raju. However, I don't think that the biographical facts given in Eminent Indians who was who, 1900-1980 are sufficient to meet wikipedia's notability standards. You can try a WP:DRV or creating a fresh draft at WP:AFC, but I doubt it will survive deletion. Instead I would suggest that you create a personal website to memorialize Mr. P.V. Raju, where you will be able to exercise complete editorial control. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)