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. |
|
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K. Satyanarayana (academic) 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/K. Satyanarayana (academic) 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.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
17:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your extensive reply; highly appreciated, and very clear and claryfying (that's not exactly correct English, but soît. I do know where to find the "special characters"). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I may have rounded up a bit excessively when I said 1000 years, but use of terms similar to Hinduism enormously predate the 19th century, despite claims to the contrary. I think you will enjoy Unifying Hinduism, which I think you told Joshua Jonathan you'd likely read. Whereas the UH book deals with philosophical unification, another source that, if you can obtain it, is much shorter and thus a quicker read, deals with vernacular usage: Lorenzen, David N. (October 1999). "Who Invented Hinduism?". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 41 (4): 630–659. doi: 10.1017/S0010417599003084. BTW, what is listed on the journal webpage as the abstract is actually the first paragraph. And there's an epigraph that somehow didn't get swept into the supposed abstract:
"...moreover if people of Arabia or Persia would ask of the men of this country whether they are Moors or Gentoos, they ask in these words: ‘Art thou Mosalman or Indu?’" --Dr. García de Orta, 1563
Best regards -- Presearch ( talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link but I have read David Lorenzen. His thesis is that what we know as Hinduism was constructed in opposition to foreign religions, first Islam and then Christianity. The popularization of vernacular religious texts like the Puranas helped people see a family resemblance (similar gods goddesses etc) in other Indian sects and this was the direct result of -- or a means to withstand -- foreign invasion and the imposition of a foreign religion. So everything that was not Islam came to be identified as Indu, and later -- much later -- Hindu. But the term Hinduism was only used in 19th century. And philosophical unification, regardless of how it was done or how substantial it was, does not really signify a unification of different sects---Hindu philosophy being an elite activity conducted mostly in Sanskrit. But yes, I will read UH. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 07:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Mahanbhan Mohanbhan, with regard to your statement above that "Hinduism does not -- or does not easily -- fit into the description of 'religion'", the obvious question is "whose description"? If you aren't already, you should be aware that there is no uniform definition of religion that is accepted across many scholarly/scientific fields, and in many cases, there is no uniform definition within a field. Anthropologist Benson Saler, for example, in his
book-length discussion of defining religion, suggests religion is at most a "family resemblance" construct definable at most by prototypes, an approach that is gaining traction in some other fields (e.g.,
psychology). Note that on page ix, Saler suggests that "religion is a Western folk category that contemporary Western scholars have appropriated", and that "In large measure... their scholarly efforts to define or characterize religion are efforts to refine and deepen the folk category that they began to use as children, and to foreground what they deem most salient or important about religion." Thus, to repeat, you should be aware that your claim is not transparently obvious, but begs the question: "Description of religion as defined by whom?" Best regards --
Presearch (
talk)
19:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I salute you for your edits on wikipedia.
Well I think that you are right on those two pages. Charavaka is an extinct Indian philosophy and is almost dead. So I don't find any Charavaka defending on that page. Most of them are Hindus who even claim the same for Gautam Buddha. Its very sad but I will support you.
By the way do you know how to create a template on wikipedia? Thanks
Terabar (
talk)
00:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the kind words. Carvaka is an ancient Indian materialism and the Marxists of today must defend it, but obviusly most Marxists wouldn't know about it. But they are building consensus on Hindu template page to change the header to Indian philosophy--this is an improvement. But they want to categorize Carvaka as Nastika and I don't think that is right. Yes, most of them are completely at sea about Carvaka philosophy. All that they know about Carvaka is that it is a Nastika or heterodox school of Indian philosophy which they have read in some dated surveys of Hinduism. About creating templates: I think you can take the php code of a template (by clicking on edit template) and tweak it according to your needs. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 07:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Even Encyclopedia Britanicca defines Charavaka as an Indian Philosophy and not as a Hindu sect. [ Charvaka]. All the scholars of Hinduism claim that those Indian traditions are a part of Hinduism. They want to absorb all the Indian traditions and call them under the term "Hindu". Now the sources which are being presented on Charvaka and Ajivika pages to claim that they were Hindus are from mostly Hindu Scholars. Even Jains and Buddhists are not considered as a separate religion but thought of as an Hindu identity. In the Samaññaphala Sutta the philosophies which existed at the time of Buddha are explained such as of the Ajivika Makkhali Gosala. Nigatha Nataputa (Mahavira) is also one of them. They disagreed with Buddha's dhamma so should we call them them Buddhists? But all the Hindu Scholars feel proud who even reject their scriptures(Vedas) and don't hesitate them to call them as Hindu. I don't know how can I explain this to them. Best regards. Terabar ( talk) 03:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Masochism and Sadism. 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) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I have had occasion to both agree and disagree with you about content at Talk:Hindu philosophy and Talk:Cārvāka and that is likely to be the case in the future too. But as I told Sarah on my talkpage editing at these talkpages would be more pleasant and productive with less bad-blood and bad-faith amongst editors. Focus on the content and sources (and feel free to disagree about that!) but avoid speculating about other editors' ideology and motives, or employing inflammatory hyperbole as in this edit and others. Belittling other editors is not conducive to collaboration and doesn't paint the speaker in a good light, as User:Joshua Jonathan had politely pointed to you before. Hope you'll take greater care in the future. Abecedare ( talk) 22:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Abecedare: As Soham321 has pointed out your intervention was sought during the canvassing by Sarah Welch and that makes you an "involved party." And being an involved party you are naturally choosing to call my very calm and considered response to Sarah Welch's outburst "inflammatory" instead of her completely uncalled for overreaction about wiki not being a Chattopadhyaya-pedia. I am not "speculating" about Sarah Welch's motives, I am responding to her allegations about my motives, and arguing, adopting the best practices, that if she does not reflect an edit she made to Carvaka article (about the roots of Carvaka being in Rigveda) in the Rigveda article it would make her bias obvious. She is yet to respond to that challenge. Does this constitute speculating about someone's motives or intellectually demonstrating that she is acting with a bias? You are an admin and a senior editor and in this case an involved party--so please don't sermonize without adequately engaging with the content of discussion. I am not interested in speculating about anybody's motives; I am discussing, citing sources, pointing out flaws in argument, conceding when the reasons are adequate and holding my ground when they are not; in short, I am arguing and doing so in a civil way. And you cannot accuse me of "belittling" an editor because my tone was a direct response to the tone adopted by Joshua Jonathan, who made these flippant remarks.
I have no objection whatsoever to including Jainism and Hinduism in this template. Who cares if they are not "strictly" Hindu? I don't, most Hindus probably don't, and most Buddhists probably also don't. How about an RfC? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Oh, and Raju is saying that, if the Ajivikas and the Carvakas can be Hindus, Jainism and Buddhism can also be called forms of Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I told him, addressing him as "bother", that he has to cite reasons for having "no objection whatsoever." I was telling them that this was a serious matter concerning lots of people and that it was not OK to discuss it in a cavalier manner. This can hardly be called "belittling" fellow editors.
So with all due respect to you as wiki admin may I point out that you are not in a position to take an impartial view of the matter. You may reserve your chastisement to Sarah Welch who has created all this unpleasantness with her unwarranted outbursts and ad hominem attacks. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 05:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The Charvaka view of inference described in this page may be of interest to you: http://www.iep.utm.edu/indmat/#SH3a Soham321 ( talk) 02:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The article Claire Parnet has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. GLG GLG ( talk) 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Proust and Signs (French edition).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see how best to include a reference to this book in the Chattopdhyaya biography: Cosmic Perspectives. It has an invited contribution from Chattopadhyaya on astronomy in ancient India, and another from Needham on astronomy in ancient and medieval China. It would be useful to investigate whether the two have ever co-authored any paper(s). Soham321 ( talk) 21:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
great job on creating the Lokayata article. I think we should try to have wikipedia articles for all his major books. Soham321 ( talk) 17:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Cover of An Introduction to the Study of Indian History.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Keith Ansell Pearson, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/faculty/pearson.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 22:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The licence for the image you have added to this article states that it is a screen capture of a BBC commentary and can only be used in an article about the documentary itself. Furthermore, non-free content can only be used "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". As the subject is still living, it would be possible to create a free equivalent. For both reasons, I have removed the image from the article. RichardOSmith ( talk) 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Photo of Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RichardOSmith ( talk) 22:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
i think you are at 4RR now. that means you can be blocked by any Admin for, i think, 48 hours. Would advise you to self-revert promptly. Soham321 ( talk) 06:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RichardOSmith ( talk) 08:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen}}
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 ( talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't just revert on Bhakti Movement. Engage with the talk page to be curtious. I have no problem with including that material, but it is a specific example and shouldn't be in the intro. Please go move it into a section or create a new section, but remove it from the lead as it is too long and too specific. The intro is not meant to get lost in detailed specific examples, but to paint the larger picture of the bhakti movement. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 19:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've attempted to make the edit myself. Tell me what you think. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 19:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to [[ Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 06:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello User: Mohanbhan, I want to bring your attention to the above mentioned article. The last Paragraph says //Ambedkar's followers do not believe that a person's conditions at birth are the result of previous karma.//
Firstly I couldn't find the exact source of this paragraph available on Internet and I think that its a copyright violation. Secondly, this sentence is very problematic and can mislead the readers into thinking that Ambedlar's followers don't believe in theory of karma which is quite untrue. In [ Devadaha Sutta ], Buddha himself debates with Jains to the extent that some results are not due to previous actions. Please if you can look into this matter then it would be very grateful. Thanks in advance.
Babasaheb Ambedkar said
"
I will accept and follow the teachings of Buddha. I will keep my people away from the different opinions of Hinyan and Mahayan, two religious orders. Our Bouddha Dhamma is a new Bouddha Dhamma, Navayan.
— Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Press interview on 13 October 1956 at Sham Hotel, Nagpur [1]
"
References
It clearly says that Dr.Ambedkar accepted the teachings of Buddha. Most of the Ambedkarites follow the Theravada tradition. I find that sentence very problamatic and its partially true and partially false because all the results (Vipaka) are not due to your previous actions. According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms. They are:
So if you are black-skinned or white skinned then it is not because of your kamma but because of the environment conditions. I think you have understood that not everything is not due to your previous kamma. So that statement is partially half truth and half false. Please look into this matter as it is driving the readers into false idea about Indian Buddhism. Terabar ( talk) 16:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
So Joshua Jonathan, Can you please help me? Thanks in advance. Terabar ( talk) 17:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
would you be able to recommend to me any books on the French Enlightenment? I am particularly interested in reading more about Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and D'Holbach. Thanks.
Soham321 ( talk) 19:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the references. Soham321 ( talk) 06:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to say that if you copy material from one Wikipedia article to another, as you've done with the lede to What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy (copied from Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya) you need to make explicit attribution in an edit summary, as explained in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia - a dummy edit summary stating 'copied lede from Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya; see that article's history for attribution' should do it, along with adding Template:Copied (filled in with the appropriate details) to the Chattopadhyaya article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
This was not a constructive reply. If you don't know the answer, don't feel like digging up the sources, or just don't feel like answering the question, you are under no obligation to reply. But sarcastic and supercilious responses to good and sincere questions are not an acceptable alternative. Please avoid this in the future. Abecedare ( talk) 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Mohanbhan. This is just a quick note to explain that if you want to move the article Manuel De Landa to Manuel DeLanda, it will be necessary to get the latter page deleted first. You can request an administrator to delete the page for you. It might help to read WP:HISTMERGE. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks FreeKnowledge, have done the needful. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 14:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I have been doing a lot of editing on the WP pages of Voltaire and Rousseau. Could you please take a look at these two pages and give some feedback? Thank you. Soham321 ( talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Standard practice in articles of British peers is to place their full title on the infobox heading, not their names.-- The Traditionalist ( talk) 10:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The article Davesh Soneji has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
noq (
talk)
12:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
How about a Wiki-article on Three Hundred Ramayanas? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Heavy shit. I'm sorry to hear about this. Take care, and don't let the darkness extinguish the light. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sramana, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
A guy is blabbering over there to remove the criticism of Hinduism from there. Can you please look into this matter? Terabar ( talk) 04:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@D4iNa4 has also removed some names that you entered from the Template:Criticism of religion sidebar See [3]. He has already been a sockpuppet once. Terabar ( talk) 04:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mohan, long time no see. I hope you are fine. Human3015 TALK 18:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016! | |
Hello Mohanbhan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
A very happy new year to you too Terabar! - Mohanbhan ( talk) 17:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I saw that that you edited cult of personality to add a person's name there. The problem is that this is undue weight on that one person. The way it was written, the person who you added had one of the most infamous personality cults in all of the 20th century. We have a separate article, list of cults of personality, where you can add this. The main article should generally be an overview of the concept and not diverge into tangents on highlighting individual people. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, looking at your edits at
Kaushal I thought I should bring it to your attention that surname articles aren't about castes. Such articles are
set indexes listing people with a given surname, they typically have the {{
surname}}
template at the bottom, and the text they contain typically talks about the name and makes no mention of castes.
User:Sitush/Common#Castelists does not apply to them. Thanks.
Uanfala (
talk)
09:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Vilas Ghogre, Mohanbhan!
Wikipedia editor NearEMPTiness just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thank you for uploading this article. I think it is still a bit too short to be meaningful. Do you find any interesting external links, and more importantly, any additional references?
To reply, leave a comment on NearEMPTiness's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hi Mohanbhan! How are you? I read here that Dr.Ambedkar opposed Aryan Invasion theory which I think is not true. The sources given in this section are from Arvind Sharma, which can't be trusted because he is bias. Can you please look at it? Terabar ( talk) 10:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russian Futurist cinema 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/Russian Futurist cinema 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. Mike1901 ( talk) 06:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Mohanbhan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. Soham321 ( talk) 21:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Whenever you return to wikipedia editing i'd like you to take a look at this article (and also its talk page): Sati (practice) Soham321 ( talk) 19:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page https://www.opendemocracy.net/author/bela-bhatia or elsewhere online. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The article Bruce Fink (psychoanalyst) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Boleyn ( talk) 19:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bruce Fink (psychoanalyst) 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/Bruce Fink (psychoanalyst) 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. South Nashua ( talk) 17:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you please remove the Deletion notice atop the article. This is because the criteria with which you have tagged it is extremely errenous. If you want to delete it please use the Afd. ⮘ RADICAL SODA(FORCE)⮚ 10:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
While I suppose you were within your rights to just remove something if the link to the source was dead, a better solution would have been to just tag it as a {{ dead link}} and leave it at that, or, better yet, see if the page in question was available at archive.org, which it is, and add it to the cite, as I did.
As it is, when you removed it you also orphaned a second use of the reference, which a bot immediately restored, leading me to my edit. Editing isn't always a simple matter of deleting. Daniel Case ( talk) 23:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
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 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. |
|
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K. Satyanarayana (academic) 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/K. Satyanarayana (academic) 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.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
17:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your extensive reply; highly appreciated, and very clear and claryfying (that's not exactly correct English, but soît. I do know where to find the "special characters"). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I may have rounded up a bit excessively when I said 1000 years, but use of terms similar to Hinduism enormously predate the 19th century, despite claims to the contrary. I think you will enjoy Unifying Hinduism, which I think you told Joshua Jonathan you'd likely read. Whereas the UH book deals with philosophical unification, another source that, if you can obtain it, is much shorter and thus a quicker read, deals with vernacular usage: Lorenzen, David N. (October 1999). "Who Invented Hinduism?". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 41 (4): 630–659. doi: 10.1017/S0010417599003084. BTW, what is listed on the journal webpage as the abstract is actually the first paragraph. And there's an epigraph that somehow didn't get swept into the supposed abstract:
"...moreover if people of Arabia or Persia would ask of the men of this country whether they are Moors or Gentoos, they ask in these words: ‘Art thou Mosalman or Indu?’" --Dr. García de Orta, 1563
Best regards -- Presearch ( talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link but I have read David Lorenzen. His thesis is that what we know as Hinduism was constructed in opposition to foreign religions, first Islam and then Christianity. The popularization of vernacular religious texts like the Puranas helped people see a family resemblance (similar gods goddesses etc) in other Indian sects and this was the direct result of -- or a means to withstand -- foreign invasion and the imposition of a foreign religion. So everything that was not Islam came to be identified as Indu, and later -- much later -- Hindu. But the term Hinduism was only used in 19th century. And philosophical unification, regardless of how it was done or how substantial it was, does not really signify a unification of different sects---Hindu philosophy being an elite activity conducted mostly in Sanskrit. But yes, I will read UH. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 07:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Mahanbhan Mohanbhan, with regard to your statement above that "Hinduism does not -- or does not easily -- fit into the description of 'religion'", the obvious question is "whose description"? If you aren't already, you should be aware that there is no uniform definition of religion that is accepted across many scholarly/scientific fields, and in many cases, there is no uniform definition within a field. Anthropologist Benson Saler, for example, in his
book-length discussion of defining religion, suggests religion is at most a "family resemblance" construct definable at most by prototypes, an approach that is gaining traction in some other fields (e.g.,
psychology). Note that on page ix, Saler suggests that "religion is a Western folk category that contemporary Western scholars have appropriated", and that "In large measure... their scholarly efforts to define or characterize religion are efforts to refine and deepen the folk category that they began to use as children, and to foreground what they deem most salient or important about religion." Thus, to repeat, you should be aware that your claim is not transparently obvious, but begs the question: "Description of religion as defined by whom?" Best regards --
Presearch (
talk)
19:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I salute you for your edits on wikipedia.
Well I think that you are right on those two pages. Charavaka is an extinct Indian philosophy and is almost dead. So I don't find any Charavaka defending on that page. Most of them are Hindus who even claim the same for Gautam Buddha. Its very sad but I will support you.
By the way do you know how to create a template on wikipedia? Thanks
Terabar (
talk)
00:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the kind words. Carvaka is an ancient Indian materialism and the Marxists of today must defend it, but obviusly most Marxists wouldn't know about it. But they are building consensus on Hindu template page to change the header to Indian philosophy--this is an improvement. But they want to categorize Carvaka as Nastika and I don't think that is right. Yes, most of them are completely at sea about Carvaka philosophy. All that they know about Carvaka is that it is a Nastika or heterodox school of Indian philosophy which they have read in some dated surveys of Hinduism. About creating templates: I think you can take the php code of a template (by clicking on edit template) and tweak it according to your needs. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 07:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Even Encyclopedia Britanicca defines Charavaka as an Indian Philosophy and not as a Hindu sect. [ Charvaka]. All the scholars of Hinduism claim that those Indian traditions are a part of Hinduism. They want to absorb all the Indian traditions and call them under the term "Hindu". Now the sources which are being presented on Charvaka and Ajivika pages to claim that they were Hindus are from mostly Hindu Scholars. Even Jains and Buddhists are not considered as a separate religion but thought of as an Hindu identity. In the Samaññaphala Sutta the philosophies which existed at the time of Buddha are explained such as of the Ajivika Makkhali Gosala. Nigatha Nataputa (Mahavira) is also one of them. They disagreed with Buddha's dhamma so should we call them them Buddhists? But all the Hindu Scholars feel proud who even reject their scriptures(Vedas) and don't hesitate them to call them as Hindu. I don't know how can I explain this to them. Best regards. Terabar ( talk) 03:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Masochism and Sadism. 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) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I have had occasion to both agree and disagree with you about content at Talk:Hindu philosophy and Talk:Cārvāka and that is likely to be the case in the future too. But as I told Sarah on my talkpage editing at these talkpages would be more pleasant and productive with less bad-blood and bad-faith amongst editors. Focus on the content and sources (and feel free to disagree about that!) but avoid speculating about other editors' ideology and motives, or employing inflammatory hyperbole as in this edit and others. Belittling other editors is not conducive to collaboration and doesn't paint the speaker in a good light, as User:Joshua Jonathan had politely pointed to you before. Hope you'll take greater care in the future. Abecedare ( talk) 22:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Abecedare: As Soham321 has pointed out your intervention was sought during the canvassing by Sarah Welch and that makes you an "involved party." And being an involved party you are naturally choosing to call my very calm and considered response to Sarah Welch's outburst "inflammatory" instead of her completely uncalled for overreaction about wiki not being a Chattopadhyaya-pedia. I am not "speculating" about Sarah Welch's motives, I am responding to her allegations about my motives, and arguing, adopting the best practices, that if she does not reflect an edit she made to Carvaka article (about the roots of Carvaka being in Rigveda) in the Rigveda article it would make her bias obvious. She is yet to respond to that challenge. Does this constitute speculating about someone's motives or intellectually demonstrating that she is acting with a bias? You are an admin and a senior editor and in this case an involved party--so please don't sermonize without adequately engaging with the content of discussion. I am not interested in speculating about anybody's motives; I am discussing, citing sources, pointing out flaws in argument, conceding when the reasons are adequate and holding my ground when they are not; in short, I am arguing and doing so in a civil way. And you cannot accuse me of "belittling" an editor because my tone was a direct response to the tone adopted by Joshua Jonathan, who made these flippant remarks.
I have no objection whatsoever to including Jainism and Hinduism in this template. Who cares if they are not "strictly" Hindu? I don't, most Hindus probably don't, and most Buddhists probably also don't. How about an RfC? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Oh, and Raju is saying that, if the Ajivikas and the Carvakas can be Hindus, Jainism and Buddhism can also be called forms of Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I told him, addressing him as "bother", that he has to cite reasons for having "no objection whatsoever." I was telling them that this was a serious matter concerning lots of people and that it was not OK to discuss it in a cavalier manner. This can hardly be called "belittling" fellow editors.
So with all due respect to you as wiki admin may I point out that you are not in a position to take an impartial view of the matter. You may reserve your chastisement to Sarah Welch who has created all this unpleasantness with her unwarranted outbursts and ad hominem attacks. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 05:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The Charvaka view of inference described in this page may be of interest to you: http://www.iep.utm.edu/indmat/#SH3a Soham321 ( talk) 02:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The article Claire Parnet has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. GLG GLG ( talk) 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Proust and Signs (French edition).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see how best to include a reference to this book in the Chattopdhyaya biography: Cosmic Perspectives. It has an invited contribution from Chattopadhyaya on astronomy in ancient India, and another from Needham on astronomy in ancient and medieval China. It would be useful to investigate whether the two have ever co-authored any paper(s). Soham321 ( talk) 21:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
great job on creating the Lokayata article. I think we should try to have wikipedia articles for all his major books. Soham321 ( talk) 17:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Cover of An Introduction to the Study of Indian History.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Keith Ansell Pearson, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/faculty/pearson.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 22:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The licence for the image you have added to this article states that it is a screen capture of a BBC commentary and can only be used in an article about the documentary itself. Furthermore, non-free content can only be used "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". As the subject is still living, it would be possible to create a free equivalent. For both reasons, I have removed the image from the article. RichardOSmith ( talk) 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Photo of Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RichardOSmith ( talk) 22:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
i think you are at 4RR now. that means you can be blocked by any Admin for, i think, 48 hours. Would advise you to self-revert promptly. Soham321 ( talk) 06:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RichardOSmith ( talk) 08:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen}}
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 ( talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't just revert on Bhakti Movement. Engage with the talk page to be curtious. I have no problem with including that material, but it is a specific example and shouldn't be in the intro. Please go move it into a section or create a new section, but remove it from the lead as it is too long and too specific. The intro is not meant to get lost in detailed specific examples, but to paint the larger picture of the bhakti movement. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 19:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've attempted to make the edit myself. Tell me what you think. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 19:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to [[ Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 06:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello User: Mohanbhan, I want to bring your attention to the above mentioned article. The last Paragraph says //Ambedkar's followers do not believe that a person's conditions at birth are the result of previous karma.//
Firstly I couldn't find the exact source of this paragraph available on Internet and I think that its a copyright violation. Secondly, this sentence is very problematic and can mislead the readers into thinking that Ambedlar's followers don't believe in theory of karma which is quite untrue. In [ Devadaha Sutta ], Buddha himself debates with Jains to the extent that some results are not due to previous actions. Please if you can look into this matter then it would be very grateful. Thanks in advance.
Babasaheb Ambedkar said
"
I will accept and follow the teachings of Buddha. I will keep my people away from the different opinions of Hinyan and Mahayan, two religious orders. Our Bouddha Dhamma is a new Bouddha Dhamma, Navayan.
— Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Press interview on 13 October 1956 at Sham Hotel, Nagpur [1]
"
References
It clearly says that Dr.Ambedkar accepted the teachings of Buddha. Most of the Ambedkarites follow the Theravada tradition. I find that sentence very problamatic and its partially true and partially false because all the results (Vipaka) are not due to your previous actions. According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms. They are:
So if you are black-skinned or white skinned then it is not because of your kamma but because of the environment conditions. I think you have understood that not everything is not due to your previous kamma. So that statement is partially half truth and half false. Please look into this matter as it is driving the readers into false idea about Indian Buddhism. Terabar ( talk) 16:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
So Joshua Jonathan, Can you please help me? Thanks in advance. Terabar ( talk) 17:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
would you be able to recommend to me any books on the French Enlightenment? I am particularly interested in reading more about Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and D'Holbach. Thanks.
Soham321 ( talk) 19:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the references. Soham321 ( talk) 06:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to say that if you copy material from one Wikipedia article to another, as you've done with the lede to What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy (copied from Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya) you need to make explicit attribution in an edit summary, as explained in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia - a dummy edit summary stating 'copied lede from Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya; see that article's history for attribution' should do it, along with adding Template:Copied (filled in with the appropriate details) to the Chattopadhyaya article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
This was not a constructive reply. If you don't know the answer, don't feel like digging up the sources, or just don't feel like answering the question, you are under no obligation to reply. But sarcastic and supercilious responses to good and sincere questions are not an acceptable alternative. Please avoid this in the future. Abecedare ( talk) 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Mohanbhan. This is just a quick note to explain that if you want to move the article Manuel De Landa to Manuel DeLanda, it will be necessary to get the latter page deleted first. You can request an administrator to delete the page for you. It might help to read WP:HISTMERGE. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks FreeKnowledge, have done the needful. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 14:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I have been doing a lot of editing on the WP pages of Voltaire and Rousseau. Could you please take a look at these two pages and give some feedback? Thank you. Soham321 ( talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Standard practice in articles of British peers is to place their full title on the infobox heading, not their names.-- The Traditionalist ( talk) 10:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The article Davesh Soneji has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
noq (
talk)
12:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
How about a Wiki-article on Three Hundred Ramayanas? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Heavy shit. I'm sorry to hear about this. Take care, and don't let the darkness extinguish the light. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sramana, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
A guy is blabbering over there to remove the criticism of Hinduism from there. Can you please look into this matter? Terabar ( talk) 04:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@D4iNa4 has also removed some names that you entered from the Template:Criticism of religion sidebar See [3]. He has already been a sockpuppet once. Terabar ( talk) 04:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mohan, long time no see. I hope you are fine. Human3015 TALK 18:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016! | |
Hello Mohanbhan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
A very happy new year to you too Terabar! - Mohanbhan ( talk) 17:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I saw that that you edited cult of personality to add a person's name there. The problem is that this is undue weight on that one person. The way it was written, the person who you added had one of the most infamous personality cults in all of the 20th century. We have a separate article, list of cults of personality, where you can add this. The main article should generally be an overview of the concept and not diverge into tangents on highlighting individual people. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, looking at your edits at
Kaushal I thought I should bring it to your attention that surname articles aren't about castes. Such articles are
set indexes listing people with a given surname, they typically have the {{
surname}}
template at the bottom, and the text they contain typically talks about the name and makes no mention of castes.
User:Sitush/Common#Castelists does not apply to them. Thanks.
Uanfala (
talk)
09:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Vilas Ghogre, Mohanbhan!
Wikipedia editor NearEMPTiness just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thank you for uploading this article. I think it is still a bit too short to be meaningful. Do you find any interesting external links, and more importantly, any additional references?
To reply, leave a comment on NearEMPTiness's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hi Mohanbhan! How are you? I read here that Dr.Ambedkar opposed Aryan Invasion theory which I think is not true. The sources given in this section are from Arvind Sharma, which can't be trusted because he is bias. Can you please look at it? Terabar ( talk) 10:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russian Futurist cinema 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/Russian Futurist cinema 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. Mike1901 ( talk) 06:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Mohanbhan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. Soham321 ( talk) 21:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Whenever you return to wikipedia editing i'd like you to take a look at this article (and also its talk page): Sati (practice) Soham321 ( talk) 19:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page https://www.opendemocracy.net/author/bela-bhatia or elsewhere online. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The article Bruce Fink (psychoanalyst) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Boleyn ( talk) 19:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bruce Fink (psychoanalyst) 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/Bruce Fink (psychoanalyst) 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. South Nashua ( talk) 17:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you please remove the Deletion notice atop the article. This is because the criteria with which you have tagged it is extremely errenous. If you want to delete it please use the Afd. ⮘ RADICAL SODA(FORCE)⮚ 10:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
While I suppose you were within your rights to just remove something if the link to the source was dead, a better solution would have been to just tag it as a {{ dead link}} and leave it at that, or, better yet, see if the page in question was available at archive.org, which it is, and add it to the cite, as I did.
As it is, when you removed it you also orphaned a second use of the reference, which a bot immediately restored, leading me to my edit. Editing isn't always a simple matter of deleting. Daniel Case ( talk) 23:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
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. |