User talk:Abecedare/Archive 8

Economy of India
Thanks for reverting the nonsense there. I was trying to undo, but intervening edits didn't allow me to. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You and I seem seem to be among the few regular editors to have this article on our watchlist. I am surprised that errors like placing the National Stock Exchange of India in Delhi persisted in the article for so many days! Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the NSE error is a shame. -- Sundar \talk \contribs

Must reach consensus
Over the past couple of years, I have made various attempts to make the section on MRI accord with the truth of history. When I make postings, the entire article is automatically reverted, even though each statement is validly footnoted. I would like to reach a consensus that gives Raymond V. Damadian's contributions their fair place. Here are two quotes from respected textbooks that I hope make the point:

“The initial concept for the medical application of NMR, as it was then called, originated with the discovery by Raymond Damadian in 1971 that certain mouse tumours displayed elevated relaxation times compared with normal tissues in vitro. This exciting discovery opened the door for a complete new way of imaging the human body where the potential contrast between tissues and disease was many times greater than that offered by X-ray technology and ultrasound …. NMR developed into a laboratory spectroscopic technique capable of examining the molecular structure of compounds, until Damadian’s ground-breaking discovery in 1971.” MRI from Picture to Proton, Cambridge University Press, 2003

Making Modern Science, A Historical Review, The University of Chicago Press, 2005“By the final few decades of the twentieth century, medical practitioners were exploiting developments in nuclear physics to provide a range of new ways of peering inside the human body …. Another technique developed during the 1970s was MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). The technique was initially developed by Raymond Damadian (1936 -), working at the Downstate Medical Center in New York, making use of the fact that different atomic nuclei emit radio waves of predictable frequencies when exposed to a magnetic field. Damadian noted that tumorous cells emitted signals different from those emitted by healthy tissue and used this as the basis for a new technique for identifying cancers. Damadian and his fellow workers produced the first MRI scan of the human body in 1977.” Making Modern Science, A Historical Review, The University of Chicago Press, 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomattea (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine to give Damadian due credit for his work. But it will be best to discuss the topic at the article talk page to discuss how to do so and where it should be placed in the article. Abecedare (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. I posted this and more information on the article talk page. Thanks. Let's get the dialogue going. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomattea (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any recent post on the article talk page. Are you sure you posted it at the right place: Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging ? Note that new messages are usually posted in a new section at the bottom of the page. See WP:TPG and let me know if you need any help. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Damadian Thanks. I went to the talk page for mri and started a new discussion at the bottom. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomattea (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Lets wait for a day or two to see what other editors on the page have to say; and then we can decide how and where to mention Damadian and other pioneers' work. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Good idea. Let's wait and then talk more. Tomattea (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning message on the LA deaths!
It's awesome that you left that comment to stop anyone else from making the same mistake I did. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a fast changing story, isn't it ?! Abecedare (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Swine Flu Outbreak - United States Map
as of 9:29 eastern 29 April -

At least (to the best of my knowledge) Oregon, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas should be changed to light orange because there are suspected cases in all of those states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btleroy (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for keeping an eye. I have updated those states in the map. Abecedare (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Template use
This section is intended for use in many articles refering to swine flu including the various individual country map articles. As such I don't know any other way of adding the content and maintaining it at one location. Another couple of references will be forth coming. Of course if you know a better way then do tell me or be bold and impliment it yourself. Beware thought that I'm about to add this template to many articles which have swine flu out break maps. Barnaby dawson (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guessed your motivation for using a template, but I don't think this content is needed in individual country articles, unless we have country specific information about the reporting bias. Either way, this is not a proper use of templates per wikipedia policy ("Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article"). The current template content (after it is properly referenced), can be substituted into the main article, and the template safely deleted. You may also want to discuss this issue at Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak‎, before any mass-addition. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm there are enough articles (7 already and likely to increase) that updating each directly would be a significant pain. As they stand these articles are seriously misleading.  Without a section like this in each article people will be given the false impression that the media reporting of cases (and our collation of it) is reliable and accurate.  I've read the template guideline article (thank you for linking to it).  However, as I know no other way to accomplish this task I think this should be an exception to the guideline.  Barnaby dawson (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

porcine sniffles
sorry, I'm getting sick (no pun) of the term 'swine flu'. smn works fine, it just needs to be used correctly. -- Ludwigs 2 05:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you mean ? That doesn't work, at least on my computer; are you using a non-standard .js ? Abecedare (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In particular, in the current version, sorting the second column is "alphabetical", i.e., when in ascending order, 16 comes before 1 and 41 comes before 4. Do you get a different result ? Abecedare (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean that, yesm, and I've corrected it above. I didn't notice the problem with alphabetic sorting int he second column.  let me check that out  -- Ludwigs 2  05:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Help:Sorting, "The sort mode is determined by the table element that is currently in the first non-blank row below the header." That means that if we ensure that the data in the "Totals" row is purely numeric, then the sorting wors fine (without using anywhere!). See this version of the template, in which the sorting works fine - on my computer at least. Abecedare (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ah, that's easy then. just keep non-numerics out of the totals row.  seems to work in the edit I just made, at any rate.-- Ludwigs 2  05:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, we have convergence! We can remove the from the template too, though they do not do any harm either. Can you update your instructions at the template talk-page ? Those will be helpful to other editors who have not played around with this, as we have. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like you've figured it out while I was typing but I was about to say... Thanks for pointing me here, I was just about to click save on a message on Ludwigs talk. I tried a few different combinations, and the only time it worked perfectly was when the totals line was purely numeric. For example 214+ returns 8,7,6,5,4,41,3,2,1,16+,14+,13,12,0.


 * On another note, Ludwigs rules for sorting at Template talk says not . I assume that's a typo, but I prefer not to edit others comments.  Wine Guy   Talk  05:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, smn->smb is just a typo (one key over). In fact, the template proved to be a red-herring, and we don't need it at all and that line can be deleted from the instructions. I'll drop a tb at Ludwig's talk-page, so he sees your note and mine. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Wine Guy   Talk  06:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * interesting: are you sure smn is not needed for the inclusion of '+'? I notice that the current version doesn't use that notation (which is probably for the best anyway)


 * I'll fix the typo (damned fingers - those things are a frigging design flaw, if you ask me... )-- Ludwigs 2  06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I verified experimentally that is not needed. See this version. Abecedare (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah, you're absolutely correct. I've struck that rule from the list.  sortable tables really need an overhaul.  nice idea, but a bit like doing brain surgery on yourself. -- Ludwigs 2  06:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest: the very challenge of the problem, rather than its innate importance, is what motivated me to "waste" time to try and find a solution; I am sure that was a consideration for WineGuy and you too. Good to have beaten it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ah, yeah... that's the only way to live.  puzzles stop being fun about three seconds after you solve them, no?    -- Ludwigs 2  06:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Barnstar
Thank you for the Barnstar! I really appreciate it!

I was planning on awarding many of "the regulars" with Barnstars at some point, so let me know if you award any others so that I don't duplicate efforts. Thanks again. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, Abecedare
Just dropping by to thank you for the friendly welcome. I am still trying to figure out the whole editing structure which has me befuddled but I am sure to catch on. If not, I know who to ask. Have a great day.

BTW, I already got a question for you.

On protected pages when one makes a suggestion to the editors with regards to possible changes like this for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Proposed_changes_in_the_section_Spread_within_Mexico

Does one simply put it out there and eventually an editor will respond to it and consider it either adequate or insufficient? What happens if it be the case, that it gets lost in the shuffle and noone addresses it? I am not asking about this case in specific, but in general. Does one resubmit it at a later date, like a day after or so?

Could you please clarify me on this issue.

Thanks.

--GaussianCopula (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a million for the advice, Abecedare.


 * Happy editing to you too.


 * GaussianCopula (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Aryabhata
Hello. If you have some free time, could you take a look at this edit on Aryabhata? Maybe there's something worth salvaging from that edit before reverting it completely, but I'm not sure what. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit gives undue certainty and weight to a new attempt to establish Aryabhata's birth/native-place. However, since it provides references this problem should be possible to fix. Both the cited papers are available online ( and ), and the first paper, especially, provides a useful review of the competing theories in its introduction. I'll try to incorporate this information into the article, but it may be a couple of days before I can devote adequate time to it - of course, you are most welcome to "beat me" to it. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, and looking up the papers... I'm interested but busy too, let's see who beats who. ;-) Shreevatsa (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome message. I'm extremely sorry for blanking a talk page due to mis-interpretation of a notice to remove the template when discussion ends. Hope you understand and help me in future edits. (Brainmap (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

On Jasodhara
Thanks again for the useful informations. And I must congratulate u for your valuable articles on Hinduism. I am looking forward to your guidance for all article on Indian and Orissan culture.

An independent, reliable source that supports contents in the wiki article 'Jasodhara' from leading Oriya newspaper 'Pragativadi' has been added. The news item on the magazine is available online at www.pragativadi.com. I have accessed it in its archive section for April 28, 2009. (Brainmap (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

Art of Living Foundation
Abecedare, as you had previously suggested I've updated the Guidestar data + a murky reference to foreign cash grants.

Most of all I would like to thank you for your guidance. It was your sharp editing that made me look up wikipedia guidelines and strive to achieve them. Most of all you've made me believe in the ethos of wikipedia and the robustness of the dispute resolution mechanisms. You are a gentleman and it has been a priviledge to learn from you.

All the best! Rodolfou (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the information regarding Hindu art and skin color. (I was the one who posed that question.) --71.111.205.22 (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your answer
Hi, I posted a question on Reference Desk on the meanings of "aneka" and your reply was very helpful. Can you please help me again with another expression? Is there a word or collocation like "sastradosha". Sastra meaning arrow, weapon, lancet? dosha is fault, blame etc.? Is there such a Sanskrit expression? Or can there be a neologism in this form to mean what the English saying "A poor workman blames his tools"? Please reply here. I will be greatly thankful to you. --Sankritya (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * MWD gives several derivative terms of (शस्त्र) on page 1060 (col. 3)-1061 (col. 1) but śastradośa is not one of them. This, of course, does not mean that the term has not been used somwhere in the Sanskrit corpus, or that it cannot be formed as a neologism; but my memory of the Sanskrit noun-forms and sandhi rules is too rusty to be able to say if sastradosha will have the meaning you intend. Perhaps someone else on the refdesk will be able to help. Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I hope all is well with you. After a year's absence by chance I noticed this question.  It would be interesting to know if the question arises from a specific citation in order to establish context since the word  "sastradosha" can be parsed in more than one way.  If it is a neologism it would be useful to know more about where it is found.


 * Perhaps it is śāstraṃ (शास्त्रं) meaning "instruction" or "scripture" or "science".  To do something according to prescribed rules is to be śāstra-vat, which is like the idea "to go by the book" in English.   If "dosha" is taken as meaning doṣa (दोष) or "fault", a literal translation could be "instruction (bears) the fault" or "text error" which could be taken as "I was just following instructions!" ("A poor workman blames his tools").  I am aware that in Sanskrit poetics the term kavyadoṣa means a poetic blemish, but I can't provide a citation to that effect without research. In scholastic Sanskrit, the word doṣa meaning "fault, defect" refers to a flaw in an argument or doctrine (Tubb and Boose, Scholastic Sanskrit, pp. 248-249).  Perhaps śāstradoṣa means a "doctrinal flaw".  Unfortunately I cannot find the term śāstra-doṣa in Apte, Monier-Williams, or any other reliable source that I have checked.


 * A clue may be that in popular language doṣa ("dosh") is a very common term for a problem in one's life that is caused by something such as a bad planetary effect, being in the wrong place (vastu doṣh), failure to carry out some vow, neglect of one's duties to relatives (pitr doṣh), etc. These things are often called "xxx-dosh" where "xxx" is the source of the problem. Jjyotiṣa calculates many types of doṣa, and "sastradosha" may even be an astrological term since an astronomer is called a śāstrajñaḥ (Apte p. 916).


 * But perhaps "dosha" is not doṣa (दोष) meaning "fault" or "error" but instead is the word दोषन् (doṣan, n.) meaning "an arm, fore-arm"). The equivalent दोस् (dos) also means "the forearm, the arm". If that is what is intended, there are poetic examples of compounds in which a warrior's arm is said to be like a weapon (śastra), e.g., दोस्-दंड ("a stick-like arm" = a strong arm) or दोस्-शालिन् (possessed of strong arms; warlike, brave).  I am unable to find an example of the use of शस्त्र compounded with दोषन् but it may be of the same type as those examples.  Of course that has nothing to do with "A poor workman blames his tools" so I am probably on the wrong track, as is so often the case.


 * On the other hand "sastra" may be śastra- (शस्त्र) as you have already suggested, perhaps meaning "weapon", but also "instrument" when used in medical applications such as surgery. Perhaps an "instrument-defect" could be a śastradoṣa, but again I am unable to find that term in any lexicon.


 * Hopefully some śāstrin (scholar) will be able to enlighten us further. See: दोषन् and दोस् in Apte, p. 513 and MW pp. 498-499. शास्त्रं in Apte, p. 916 and MW p. 1069.


 * For a nice collection of Sanskrit maxims, see Jacobs: "A Handful of Popular Maxims" available via Google Books.
 * -- Buddhipriya (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ramayana
Wanted your suggestions for creation of family tree on the talk? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

nathalie handal
The citation was not only produced by the subject in trying to confirm the statement which was made originally in-part by the subject, but also, the citation has absolutely no content regarding the content in question. Have you actually read this cit? It say nothing, it is just 3 poems.Henry Delforn (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So you want to tell me what is so special about this 3-page reference: "Handal, Nathalie (2004), "My country, my words:Reflections on a life as a writer", in Darraj, Susan Muaddi, Scheherazade's Legacy: Arab and Arab American Women on Writing, Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 37–48, ISBN 0275981762" Have you read it? There's got to be something about it. I don't get it. You and 173.122.236.39 got something going on, wanna let me in on it? Henry Delforn (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page to keep the conversation consolidated. Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Question - Other Sources

 * This question is related to the discussion "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam".
 * 1. The following are attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba used in the "1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam" article.
 * Negative attack websites such as "http://home.no.net/anir/Sai" was  banned by the second arbitration commitee  on the Sathya Sai Baba article. The arbitration quoted saying  "Attack sites contain large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research".
 *  Arbitration ruling on home.no.net website:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy


 * Another such attack site used in the article - www.saibab-x.org/uk. The usage of these attack sites as source  violates arbitration rulings  on the Sathya Sai Baba article. These unreliable sources can be removed right?
 * 2. Another source www.indian-skeptic.org was  never accepted as a reliable source  as per the BostonMA mediation discussion in 2006. The following was the BostonMA mediation discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source.
 * Also I would like to point that this unreliable source was removed by editors in the Sathya Sai Baba main article based on the BostonMA mediation.

These unreliable sources also needs to be removed from this article. I would appreciate your response. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In general we should be very wary of using generic websites and home-pages that are not affiliated with some reputable organization. I cannot access http://home.no.net/anir/Sai and http://www.saibab-x.org/uk, and so my opinion is somewhat tentative, but I would recommend against using these two sources. (The http://www.indian-skeptic.org case is more complicated, since one would need to spend time to research whether it is a genuine and reputable organization or not, and I haven't looked into that yet.)
 * So yes, such unreliable sources should be removed from the article unless someone can make a positive case that these satisfy wikipedia policy requirements. Such discussion is best held at the article talk page (rather than the AFD page) and if there is disagreement, questions can be posed at the reliable sources noticeborad where neutral editors can chime in. Hope that helps! Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Regarding the source - "IndianSkeptic.org". This website was discussed in great detail during the formal BostonMA mediation discussion  in 2006 on Sathya Sai Baba sources. This source was  not accepted  as a reputed source. This also can be safely removed. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

bbclatest
If you view source, it's at the *absolute top* that also says that too.

The same site posted a joke article sometime around May 2nd also, and I think is also responsible for H1Z1/zombie flu GTNz (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ib40
There is not much listing of volunteer organisations and related information in wiki. I/m an eVolunteer and I help my friend creating relevant information files.

I'm sure we will learn the procedures and policies of the Wiki in due course of time to be more relevant and consistant with the usage.

I hope it is not illegal to keep making orrections, editing and refine articles put up for deletion, irrespective to its relation to a particualr, cuntry, community or organisation, till it is consistant with the wiki policies.

Do you suggest that I should not assit my friend with his articles on the organisation you reffered herein. Ib40 (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

comment

 * I am not sure what you mean by eVolunteer and which friend you are referring to. Can you please clarify and also say if you are User:E6nvikas ? Abecedare (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

eVolunteer means taking up volunteering online and giving resource / network support to NGOs and needy online. My friend has taken a name e6nVIKAS of / for creating some NGO articles whom I help too. But wiki is new... so it is a learning phase. In yoursense, doesn't the 'eVolunteer' merits an article on wikipedia. It is only if we start something that information gets refined and accessible. Moreso. i see so many private copany and commercial product pages on wiki, or articles without so much online search reference. I somehow do not understand when you say spamming. Ib40 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare,

Thank you for the guidance and support. Will seek help as indeed.Ib40 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer your question on whether "'eVolunteer' merits an article on wikipedia." : (as I said on your talk page) please read wikipedia's policy on notability to understand what subjects are suitable for coverage on wikipedia.
 * I understand that you are new to wikipedia and are not yet familiar with the editing norms here; so I would urge you to read up on our policies and editing guidelines before creating any more articles related to Educare India because, frankly, a lot of content E6nVIKAS's and you have added appears to be promotional spam. I have left a welcome message on your talk page that links to most of the fundamanetal policies. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask them here. Abecedare (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion / redirection of International internship programme in EduCARE India
I developed a little better understanding of new wiki articles. I earlier contested deletion of this article but now agree that this International Internship programme in EduCARE india may be deleted / or may be redirected. I have instead created the page ,i.e.india (Internship in EduCARE India. I see its notibility by the sense that it is listed on serch and a number of local educational print publications / directories for students that i will provide references to in the coming days. I hope it will stand the scrutiny of good content, editing and notibility.

Similarily International Internship in India may yet not be deleted seeking further editing and inputs to wikify it, but may also be considered for redirection to Internship in India as a sub section. Looking forward to your comments Ib40 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your observations, but all is not my personal delibrations, it is just like a new person took up a project to set up articles to further enrich wikipedia and become capable to do it. Nevertheless, there are quite a bit of references for the article as stated, I will evaluate and add the ones that seems to meet the criterion soon. Ib40 (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page to keep conversation in one place. Abecedare (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Socks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your source analysis
Hi Abecedare, re your source frequency analysis a couple of weeks back, I've performed some further analysis:. Please have a look when you have a mo. Thanks. Jayen 466 20:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

all advice is welcome
Thank you. I can give you links if you like to allow you to see that the movement now refers to itself as Osho this or Osho that and you can go to any of the websites and you will not find any mention of the word rajneesh. For tonight I am off to bed. Regards(Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC))


 * It may be best to keep the discussion at Talk:Rajneesh movement and within the confines of reliable sources and wikipedia naming policy, instead of trying to use generic websites to determine "popularity". G'night. Abecedare (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Internship in India
a) I'm not a sock. A friend of mine who happened to upload a few articles got blocked and sought me to look into the policy and see if I could make amends to the same. See my edits, and I have done deletions to many personal references that were used to and tried to add some more text of reference. The right way would be (in my opinion) to focus on the subject and the matter – as here in case is Internship in India. If there was an kiddish stuff being loaded by a new user, as was in the case of ib40, warn him, tell him not to create new pages. It was done. And I didn't see any pages created thereafter. And he has commented OK to follow. I wonder you people seem to focus more on user contributors first effort with lot pf biased and and manufactured mindset toned over a period of time with your on-line editorial experiences in wiki. Some observations seem like as if you people are tending to work FBI way. Watch, Expose, Shoot. b) To me, seems a topic of as much importance and relevance and notiability as as is the case of Crime in India, Education in India, etc. Instead of spending as much discussion resources on deletions, sock identifications, I suggest some users, editors classified experts may be sought to contribute more data to it. The suggestion to move it as sub-section to Interns article is not appropriate. If you go into building the topic Internship, you need to classify it further – internship in different sectors – a) development, technical, arts, etc etc, b) paid and unpaid, c) trends and statistics, etc, Internship as a single article cannot do justice. If you have articles like Infotainment Television, Prarthana Constructions Pvt Ltd etc lying there for nothing for so long waiting for contributions, and not deleted because no one touched them to develop and enhance. However, Internship in India that certainly makes a lot of sense to retain and need let it be developed to the wikipedia standards has been proposed for deletion just because there is being attempt to improve it in response to initial tags.. If someone puts up an article, let it grow, All new users are not researchers but at times just searchers. And they create something as they felt it should be theor for reference. At the same time, I do not dispute your observations, that initially only one organisation specific citations or references were placed. But then if that is corrected to let it grow and build. But if this articles go, my house doesn't go up in flames. I have an opinion that I think is valid. I contributed, and would like to do more. And I believe I'm certainly little more cerebral than YellowMonkey after looking at the contributions and subject areas of interest Let the focus more be on subject matter than the assumed intent and personality of an individual or group of users till the time there's nothing so controversial and vandalised act Norwe (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP First, on a professional and social note, let me compliment and thank you for being at and working to keep this great 'Wikipedia'. But at the same time, let me also try and contribute to this wonderful community endeavour through few of my following  observations (with no pun / offense intended) that arise from - a) your message of 'sock' to me, b) the deletion tag of the article Internship in India and the comments I read herein.
 * guilty, 3 months  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio images
Hi Again. I've deleted all of their uploads and will watch with interest. Given the timing, language style and editing interests I think that this is a different person....but time will tell - Peripitus (Talk) 07:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now the last images deleted and blocked for a few days - we shall see if sense prevails - Peripitus (Talk) 08:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see ...
... my post on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Wise decision.  Thanks for responding.  Even though you'll be busy, I hope to see you around on Wiki this summer.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Free
You must be quite free-from-work now, I don't think wiki's paying you (in currency) for your tireless spy-n-hunt job. lol.. all wiki did in currency was to take 6-million worth of USD's from its users as donation.

HFret

(talk)

13:12, 2nd June 2009 (IST)

Apologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFret (talk • contribs) 07:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, as long as you can familiarize yourself with wikipedia content and conduct policies and stop abusing other editors' good faith and patience. See the welcome message on your talk page for links. Abecedare (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the wise guidence

HFret (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hindu criticism section
Please refer to the Wikipedia editing policy page. This is what it says:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and it is considered good editorial practice to cite sources to verify article content. Since the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, the best way to do this is to use inline citations. Citations also demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, and give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. For these reasons, contentious material lacking a reliable source may be challenged and removed."

The sources I have provided are reliable because I have not said they are the truth. Criticism by nature implies opinion and the reader clearly knows that The Friends of Tibet has an opinion. The reader is again informed that the source is from a blog and the reader is free to make their own opinion.

If you can re-write the criticism in another way, please do so and I will look at it. But diluting the criticism or deleting it altogether as you have done pretending it does not exist is NOT acceptable. If you feel like you can make a constructive change that will inform the public over all aspects (positive and negative) of The Hindu, please do so. But please do not make the Wikipedia entry a POV ad for The Hindu. That is not what Wikipedia is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vt26 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even opinion has to be sourced to reliable sources and be noteworthy in order to be included on wikipedia. Unfortunately general advocacy websites and blogs do not meet our sourcing standards. If you can find reliable sources discussing the issue, we can certainly discuss and add it to the article; in the meantime I would strongly advice you against edit-warring since this will only result in you being blocked from editing wikipedia. Let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 1 – June 2009
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 10:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rama
I have much knowledge about Rama, would be able to improve it. I agree the article is not GA status, NOT at least par with the current GA project Hinduism articles. IMO, It is C/B class, you may have a GAR, but someone soon initiate it as part of GA Sweeps: WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Raghavendra stotra
Can you take a look at this page? It's probably salvageable before the PROD expires, and I think it's a decent enough topic to have but it needs some editing and sourcing. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any information about the subject yet, but I'll try to find sources. Abecedare (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject seems notable but the article was a cut-n-paste copyvio from www.appanacharya.org. I have replaced it with a a couple of sentence introduction to the subject for now; will try to add sources in the next few days. Abecedare (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thx, I just came across this when I was looking at uncategorized pages, and I'm not sure about sourcing Hinduism articles, so thought I'd send this your way. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ali Akbar Khan
Thanks for adding to that article. The constant POV pushing and source deletion by IPs was annoying. Hekerui (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of help. I hope to work some more on the article over the next few days and get it in a respectable shape. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Meditation
A very enthusiastic user is using the Hinduism section improperly, and also using the Buddhism part to denigrate Christianity, it seems. Could you take a look? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hindu Meditation
I dispute this removal of carefully referenced text about the types of meditation in yoga. Your explanation makes no sense 8not all forms of yoga = meditation is not a justifiable excuse to wipe out a whole section). What sort of agenda is being played out here?.Fauncet (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the note I left on the talk page. Hopefully we can discuss the issue there and reach a consensus on how to improve the section and what material to retain. As I mention in my note, some of the material you added is useful to the article, so I would request you to assume good faith and not simply jump to conclusions regarding other editors' "agendas".
 * Also be aware that you have already violated the 3 revert rule on the article; I don't intend to report this yet since you were probably unaware of the restriction. However continued edit-warring is likely to get you blocked. Hopefully we can discuss the issue calmly and edit collaboratively instead. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yadunath Thatte
Can you take a look? Page has been around for a while but just CSD tagged. It appears that the person would be notable, but I've found only two trivial mentions yet. Maybe it can be saved? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a Marathi language biography, published by a Maharashtra government's Literature and Culture institute (trans.). That should help the article survive. Hopefully someone with access to the biography will be able to use it to expand the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch! The article was close to deletion and the person turns out to be clearly notable. Now hopefully someone will expand upon the stub. Abecedare (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's definitely looking much more solid. I would have been proud to call him Comrade. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC) old-fashioned Milwaukee Christian socialist
 * Ha, I just left a message on your talkpage, while you were leaving a message here! Nice sync-work. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work guys, glad I brought it up to your attention Abecedare before it got deleted. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Sadhana (weekly), which got created as a result. Very interesting history that fun to discover. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any copyright violations in the Ahobila Mutt article
I don't see any copyright violations in the Ahobila Mutt article. Can you tell me what material is taked from a website on the article Ahobila Mutt? Svr014 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.
 * It's cut-n-pasted from a Oct 94 essay re-printed here and several other pages online. Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can you please improve the article (Ahobila Mutt) by giving this proper reference from this website. Please note that the book Sri Nrusimha Priya is a book published by Shri Ahobila Mutt. Awaiting your reply and help in improving the article. Svr014 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.


 * Unfortunately, I won't have much time to devote to the article at present, but you should feel free to expand it yourself. The website I linked to is not a reliable source, but if you can lay your hands on the Sri Nrisimha Priya journal itself, it can certainly be used as a source in the article. Just make sure that
 * whatever you write is verifiable from the source, but is phrased in your own words, and
 * the language is neutral, i.e, you don't claim that the version of events believed by the Sri Vaishnava's is "true"; only that we are accurately reporting what the followers believe.
 * Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand my pal, but I am also busy. Will definitely look for the journal from any Vaishnavite from South Asia, esp. an Iyengar himself. There are lots of information on the Shri Ahobila Mutt website. Once I get time, I can try to improve the article. Have a nice day! Take care...Svr014 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

WP:FRINGE Bhagavata purana
Friend, why are you refering people to WP:FRINGE? Do not doubt that I know exactly what WP:FRINGE is. And, how do you describe consensus? ~ R.T.G 11:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just replied on your talk page. See WP:CONSENSUS for the answer to your last question. Abecedare (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's see if you are guilty of removing absolutely spot on content that has been on the article for 2 years. If you wish to express an interest in the discussion I do insist that you be prepared to read it. Otherwise you should retain blind edits for obvious vandalism etc. In fairness, if you are not previously familiar with the article and you make discerning edit/reversion changes and judgements... ~ R.T.G 11:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read the talk page discussion sections titled "Sources" and "Einstein copied his Theory of Relativity from the Srimad Bhagavatam?". Are there some other discussions you want me read too? Let me know; I'll be happy to do so. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The one titled Sources, there is valid discussion concerning the portrayal of the texts but as for completely removing the stuff about time travel and atoms, then it would simply not be covered in the article (the stuff does appear in the texts, I wouldn't worry about this Einstein arguement). If then, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada cannot be trusted, his work should not be the main source on the rest of the article either. It is entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia to entertain discredit for such a man without good sources (please, look at the 1980s sources provided to discredit him in that discussion, respect for, and valuable work by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is common knowledge, please read his article before asking me to back him up!!) ~ R.T.G 11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the Prabhupada translation should not be the main source in the rest of the article either; I will replace it as and when I get the time to work on the article. Currently I have removed only the most undue and dubious material (the "Scientific content" section). The rest doesn't seem to be problematic enough to require immediate removal. Abecedare (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, if I provide a source that shows Prabhupada to be the most signifant Hindu teacher of modern history, should that reflect upon the inclusion of "his" scientific content? ~ R.T.G 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets discuss the issue on the article talk page, instead of trying to keep the conversation going in two places. Abecedare (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I had established with you that your reversion edit was a change to a long standing (2 years at least) part of an article and that discussion of precisely this matter was only a few days old on a page which only receives discussion on a yearly basis? ~ R.T.G 16:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Those statements about Ahobila Mutt
Hi,

Those statements about Shri Ahobila Mutt and its institutions are facts and facts CANNOT be rephrased in our own words. Look at the website of the Mutt and you will find those facts. Please try to respect the contributions of WP users like me. I follow the copyright laws and there are several pages on the WP that violate CR policies of various organizations. Svr014 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice
Hi,

Thanks for your advice. I will follow your guidance, but, please note that in the midst of our tasks everyone may make unintentional mistakes. I hope you are a nice person and want to help every contributor at WP. I will try to rephrase the contributions of Ahobila Mutt schools tomorrow or some day later. Good luck in your endeavors, and do help me if I ask you for help as you may have some more experience on WP. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The source of Shri Ahobila Mutt already exists in the article. Please look at external links in the article. Svr014 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Thank you for notifying me of that. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Bhagavata Purana
I'm stepping away for a bit, but wanted to say that your new first paragraph of the dating section is perfectly put (it's both encyclopedic and respectful of tradition)—I hope it satisfies everyone (ha ha). p.s. Our messages crossed mid-tube - no worry, keep going at it. Priyanath talk 18:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I trimmed the Significance section to what could be sourced to third-party sources. Again, feel free to tag or hack—in this case if it's too POV in tone. Priyanath talk 23:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I liked the changes. BP is indeed a very significant text in Hinduism-as-it-is-practiced (perhaps more that the Vedas), so pointing out its significance is not POV. I read it being called (approx) "the magnum opus and sourcebook of Vaishnavism". I love that description, but cannot recall exactly where I saw it, else I would add it to the section.
 * I think the current contents are much improved but the article needs significant expansion in breadth. See the outline I proposed on the article talk page and add any topics I may have missed. The ordering and organization can be finalized once we have the content added, just as we did for the dating section. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:DSI
Like to see what you think about a couple of AfDs listed on WP:DSI. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have been too busy off and on-wiki to keep up with the India/Hinduism related AFDs recently. But, I'll go through the list later today and add my 2c. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing backslash
Your recent edit on the WP:RSN had a small typo in the closing tag. It was missing a backslash which caused the text on the rest of the page to appear small. I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of fixing it for you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing my typo!
 * I saw the issue an hour back, but kept getting an error message from wikipedia servers when I tried editing the section. T'is frustrating when that happens, but things seems ok now. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Iyengar article sources
Hello,

Here are the sources of the origin of Vadakalai Iyengars (an ethnic group related to Iyers). The sources are: 1) Author: Gilbert Slater; Work: The Dravidian Elements in Indian Culture. Page 158 2) Author: J.T. Wheelar; Work: Madras in the olden time. Page 22 3) Author: P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar; Work: History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Pages 55, and 56

I will go ahead and restore the article with sources once you receive this message. Have a nice July 4th! Svr014 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.


 * I have replied at the article talk page. We can continue the discussion there. Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your questions in the article (Iyengar) talk page. Please help me improve the article. Have a nice July 4th holiday!Svr014 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have answered your questions. Please help me improve the article Iyengar. Svr014 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the editing help tool. Awaiting your response regarding the article Iyengar. Svr014 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have answered your questions. Please visit the talk page of Iyengar. Svr014 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced with the Wheelar source and am intending to make an edit that is appropriate. I can be sure that it will fill the bill. Svr014 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked with the Wheelar source (1861) Madras in Olden Time Vol 1. I made an appropriate statement that is in accord with the source. Please help me fix the citation on the page Iyengar. Svr014 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to checke with the Wheelar source and verify the information I made about Brahmins. You are the one who again gave me the source. Go to the article talk page and verify the source from the Vol 1 of Wheelar's book: Madras in Olden Time (1861). The statement I made was neutral and in accordance with the source. Iyengars are Brahmins and Brahmins originated/belong to the Aryan race. Svr014 (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made a request to you in the article talk page. Please respond. Svr014 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments. Please understand what I am saying. Please read the article on brahmin to understand who Iyengars are. Iyengars are also brahmins. Svr014 (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dharmic traditions
Dharmic traditions has most definitely not been discussed extensively, but that isn't the issue at this time. I am addressing notabilty. The issue is you are concealing other aspects of the edits I include which are defensible. The reversions are wholesale which smacks of vendetta and agenda. People fuelled with computer algorithms and webcrawlers and other coding functionality in future will investigate each of our work Abecedare. I appreciate your work. I hope posterity looks on you favourably.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to discuss your proposed edit on the article talk page along with corresponding sources. Edit warring is not an acceptable alternative. Abecedare (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * and with the similar baloney being perpetrated by B9 over at Apperception I think it's time for the (long overdue) ANI report to see if we can finally, once and for all reign in this editor's disruptive behavior, especially given B9's (Apparently mendacious) claim to seek consensus and enter into dialogue rather than edit warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.6.141 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear IP, I don't think ANI is the way to go unless there is a clear technical or conduct violation (such as WP:3RR, WP:NPA etc), since editors/admins there are understandably unable or unwilling to look into content issues (such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and inadequate and poor referencing, and slow edit-warring against consensus). Fringe noticeboard may be a a better venue, since editors there have more experience with such obscurantism.
 * Eventually, an RFC is warranted, but for that somebody needs to take the lead, collect diffs and explain the issue in easily understandable terms. Unfortunately, till that happens, wikipedia content in some subject areas will just continue to suffer. C'est la vie. Abecedare (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring (As Indian religions) doesn't qualify? Even though it's short of 3RR? And the fact that B9's behavior is in violation of what he/she/it promised when begging to be unblocked? That's a shame.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.6.141 (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern because of a user
Hi Abecedare,

I guess you are an administrator at WP. One user named Office of the secret service is posting offensive messages and is threatening me saying that I am a sockpuppet. You very well know that I am a new registered user in US WP. He is also removing citations from the article Vadama. Please protect my interests at WP. I have been following guidance from experts like you. Please protect contents on WP (articles on India-related subjects). Svr014 (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to this sincere request. I am afraid he (User: Ravichandar84) may do some harm to me. He is making abyssmal claims about me. I joined WP only in May 2009. I am an American and not an Indian. I am not a sockpuppet. Please help me urgently. Please remove the allegation from my talk page. Svr014 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin, but I'll go ahead and remove the accusation from your user page. Note that if you have not used illegitimate sock accounts, you have really nothing to fear and no user can do you any real harm.
 * A side issue: It is not okay to edit other user's edits on any talk page (as you did here and here) since then you are falsifying the record of a conversation and misrepresenting what they said. If you wish, you can delete the whole conversation from your talk page, once you have read them (this is not allowed on article talk pages or other users' talk pages except in narrow circumstances) See WP:TPG for details. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare,

I sincerely thank you for your help in this regard. The reason why I removed those lines on my talk page is because I worried other users may misunderstand me and blindly accuse me. I need guidance from users like you who try their best to make articles look strong and accurate. Again, I am a new user and I am following guidelines from users like you and AdjustShift. Please keep an eye on User: Ravichandar84. He comes to incorrect conclusions about other users and accuses them if those users have a different POV and understanding. Please advise him not to accuse other users without solid understanding of the situation and it's paraphernalia. Have a nice day! Please do continue to help me. Svr014 (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please also keep an eye on all the edits made by User: Ravichandar84 which include Vadama. Svr014 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SVR014, you should assume good faith with regards to other users' action, just as you expect them to trust your good intentions. Ravichandar84 is an experienced and knowledgeable editor - that does not mean that you necessarily have to agree with him in all instances, but it does suggest that it would be better to discuss any edits you disagree with, on the concerned article's talk page. If you two cannot reach a reasonable agreement based on sources, you should consult your mentor about wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms. Hope that helps Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, Thanks for your reply. I assume good faith in other users' actions as long as they don't result in incivility or blind accusation. User: Ravichandar84, I believe, is discriminatory against me because of some unprofessional reason. He is not willing to listen to other peoples' POV with an open mind. He also comes to incorrect conclusions about other WP users (which was very clear in my case). I am really worried because of his behavior on WP. He also tries to pollute the minds of other users (in this case User: Logicwiki). Please protect my interests on WP and please prevent this user (Ravichandar84) from doing any harm to me. Thanks for your time and reply once again. Svr014 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * SVR014, Saying someone is "is discriminatory against me because of some unprofessional reason" is not assuming good faith! I suggest that you concentrate on finding good sources to support the content you wish to add to Vadama or Iyengar articles. Focusing unduly on other users' motives and conduct is eventually a waste of time and effort. Abecedare (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare, I will duly follow your advice regarding the addition of sources to any article. Please do keep an eye on articles edited by User: Ravichandar84. You found some deficiencies in the article Iyer which was mostly edited by User: Ravichandar84. I don't mean to target anyone, but am very worried with this user. I will continue to seek your professional guidance regarding articles on WP. Do continue to protect my interests and my account on WP. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare,

I found some lines from the post of User: Ravichandar84 here. The lines read "I don't care who you asked and what you asked". I deem this incivility as it is a personal attack. Personal attacks are prohibited on WP, as you know. This is just to keep you posted of the nature of comments posted by Ravichandar84. Very offensive to me. Svr014 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read. Thanks for your time. Svr014 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SVR014, Lets keep this simple:
 * Ravichandar84's comment is not uncivil given the context; especially in response to your statements, "Please do not write rubbish and nonsensical stuff on WP. If you are a non-Brahmin, your knowledge of Brahmins (in general) will always tend to be miniscule."
 * I would suggest that you not argue any more at Talk:Vadama till you have actual published reliable sources (like books or academic articles) supporting your claim. Such sources are a core wikipedia requirement (see WP:V, WP:RS), and talking to experts and giving their email addresses is not a acceptable substitute.
 * In general, slow down, focus on content instead of editors, and find sources instead of trying to simply debate a point from personal knowledge. Abecedare (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare, I was very polite and professional in my response. I tried to contribute to diverse articles on WP. I respect you as well as other editors. There was a tag attached to the introduction part of the article Vadama. User Ravichandar84 had removed that citation needed tag from the article. Isn't this a violation? Please note that I try to point out the correct points in trying to help improve articles on WP. Please do continue to support me technically, professionally and psychologically. You are like a sibling to me and other new users on WP. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, I respect you and other users of WP. Please respect me, and please help me. I am a new user and I follow advice from admins and experienced users like you. Please do not accuse me to Ravichandar84. He uses words like racist in accusing me which is clearly incivility. Hope this fills the bill. Svr014 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SVR014, Please be calm. I see an sockpuppet investigation has been started. If you have not been sock-puppeting, that should clear you. In the meantime I would advice you against making repeated complaints of incivility against User:Ravichandar84 (especially given some of your own comments), since they are likely to be interpreted as crying wolf. Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, Thanks for your post. Please view the unbelievable, unthinkable, and unprofessional claims made by User:Ravichandar84, I guess, here sockpuppet investigation. I am speaking the truth and I follow guidance from users like AdjustShift, and Abecedare. I am not a crying wolf. Please give a link in my talk page to anti-discriminatory laws on WP. I need to browse through them. my useraccount and IP address are completely different from the User:Vyaghradhataki. Check yourself. I joined WP only in May 2009, and Vyaghradhataki was blocked way back in summer 2008. Svr014 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, I am NOT trying to attack any editor. Please do not misunderstand me. Please advise Ravichandar84 not to play double standards. I just gave a friendly advice to him. I never lost my cool at anytime and am following guidance from users like Abecedare and AdjustShift. A coin has two sides. Please also advise Ravichandar84. Svr014 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

Dear Abecedare, I think that you misunderstood my statements. Anyway, I will exercise caution while typing statements in the future. I am trying to be civil and neutral to all the editors. Please do not threaten me that I will be blocked for some reason. PLease analyze the statements typed by Ravichandar84 and his false claim of socks. Please do not harass me because you want to side him. Please stay neutral. This is my request to you. He used the following words "I don't care who you asked and what you asked" which was very uncivil. A coin has to sides. Please also advise him. Svr014 (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)