User talk:Abhidevananda/Archive 2

Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies
I started the article Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies. Take a look when you can.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thanks. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * After doing initial works on the books, please inform me at my talk page. There are multiple errors in each article. For example, use citation and not CIte book in sfn or Harvnb style citation. I have just corrected one, see here. Also in each article add Template:Infobox book and add book cover low resolution image. Collect images from Ananda Marga Book shop and upload under fair use. If you face trouble in uploading, you can post at my talk page. Or better after uploading first image file, inform me, I'll review the upload and fair use rationale.
 * Try to add ISBN (if those books have any, in Ananda Marga Book store I can see those books have ISBN (http://shop.anandamarga.org/books/sarkar/as.htm example), and in external link you can add WorldCat entry, see Worldcat. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tito ok I will use citation (and not "cite") book. Usually I add ISBN (if the book has one), I will try to check my last editings on this regard. Please consider the recently inserted book's articles as stubs. When we finish to complete all the red items of the Sarkar's template we will try to complete them with additional informations and more wlinks. Anyway I can try to insert right away the template Template:Infobox book. In this regard, I would say however that I haven't inserted it before 'cause I didn't know how to handle the problem of images of book covers. Of course I have the images of book covers, but what if someone proposes to delete them? The fair use is supported only in the US but in many other countries not.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia servers are in US. Yu can upload book cover images under fair use). Make sure those are low resolution and low quality! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will try. In Ananda Vacanamrtam (and in some other series of P. R. Sarkar's books) I've inserted on sources only a source quoted as one book, but the complete collection with the same titles (but Part 1, Part two etc.) is of 34 volumes. Do you think that I've to mention all volumes (Parts) with every ISBN code or it's sufficient to insert only one quote without ISBN code?--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya, it is working. Click on the links in "References" section to see yourself. All ISBN wil be good. You can add OCLC too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will insert all the ISBN codes of the single books (or of the small book's series). For some big series like Ananda_Vacanamrtam it's difficult to find ISBN codes of all volumes and some of them are out of print. Is there a system that avoid us to edit a long citation's list of all 34 volumes and allows to quote a series of volumes with a single citation?--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 34 ISBNs will be much. See if OCLC have indexed it! Come to my talk page! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems of the Day cover and title
Abhidevanada I started adding the "book template" to the books as as recommended by Tito. For Problems of the Day I added in incipit the information related to the previous title but I didn't create a redirect 'couse the cover image inserted shows "Problems of the Day" and seems misleading. anyway if you have an image of the old book we can insert the old image and revert the title too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"A Guide to Human Conduct" (yama-nyama template) and "Discourses on PROUT" infobook template
Tito send a message on my talk page saying that the template of yama-nyama in A Guide to Human Conduct "does not fit into the article unless you expand the article or you redesign the template for that article only". Maybe you can try to adapt it to the article's layout?
 * I inserted the infobook template in Discourses on PROUT too. Thake a look when you can.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

When the term PROUT was mentioned for the first time
Dear Abidhevananda I thought that Sarkar's discourse "The Cosmic Brotherhood" given in Jamalpur on 5 June 1959 (and published as the last chapter of "Idea and Ideology") was the first in which the term "PROUT" was used, together with the introduction of the 5 principles. In this respect then I think there is an error on the chronology of the Ananda Marga's article too: here it's reported that Sarkar proposes PROUT between 15 to 28 March 1959 (this information was taken from, retrieved on 2012-06-12). From the encyclopaedic point of view I think it's very important to establish which transcribed discourse of Baba reported the term PROUT for the first time.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I&I was compiled from notes taken by those who attended a series of classes by Baba. Their compilation was carefully reviewed and then sent to the printing press. However, approximately the last ten sentences of I&I were not given by Baba in that series of classes. Rather, they were told to someone while the book I&I was at the printing press. That person then raced off to Bhagalpur, where the book was being printed. He appended those sentences at the end of the last chapter (leaving the original date in place). That is what accounts for the tremendous change in style, content, and quality at the very end of the book. Unfortunately, this information was not given in the Publisher's Note to the book but is nevertheless confirmed from several sources and is nowadays undisputed. So June 5 is not the right date. I think it is sufficient to leave the date as 1959. The place where the words were spoken is not very important (in chronological terms). --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. It will be important, in the future editions of I & I, to include the notable information you reported here on a special editor's note. As you know the encyclopedic articles refers as much as possible to various degrees of certified (and primarily written) documentation, otherwise they don't have much value in this regard and someone could easily change or remove all in the future. Please don't forget when you can to take a look at the new "blue items" in Sarkar's template. Some of them are stubs. Of course feel free to make the appropriate changes/corrections if you find errors .. :).
 * If you can take part at the discussion page for the Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar's image deletion. If deleted we wouldn't have the official image of Baba on His article--Cornelius383 (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already taken care of the photo issue. I have an adequate written permission from Central Office, but - on Tito's advice - I will be getting a somewhat better version of the same in the coming days. I will be in India for another couple weeks. When I leave and am back in my headquarters, we can formalize the arrangements. Until then, please continue putting together the articles on the various books. I've seen what you've done, and it seems you have worked out the system with Tito quite well. It looks good to me. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent news! Pleaese if it's possible try to have from Central Office "a general" written permission (or other permissions) extended to some of the most important historical/official photos of AMPS (some from Anandanagar, from Baba's houses in Lake Garden etc, first schools, first Jagartiis, first headquarters, Universities and Gurukul etc.). Some important news and photos from "historical dadas" are also required to create the related WP articles (following your Sarkar's template). Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I know I'm asking you a lot... but if by chance you were able to have some documents attesting the degree of the family relationship between Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and Netaji-Subhas Chandra Bose will be really great. On May 30, 2012, on the "Subhas_Chandra_Bose" article's section "Early life", I inserted the information that Subhas was the mathernal uncle of Sarkar (on "Travels with the Mystic Master" [P. 16 to 23] Dada Dharmavedananda reported this news that I think was previously written by Vijaiananda dada in one of his books). Anyway the news was deleted from the article 'cause the given source (Dada Dharmavedanand's book) was not considered reliable. Maybe you can find over there something more encyclopedic...--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Baba loved Subhash, supported his politics, praised his many good qualities (including his commitment to tantric cult), and even dedicated "Problem of the Day" to him. But if there was any genealogical connection, I do not believe it would have been very close. That seems to be just a popular fiction within Ananda Marga. Personally, I never heard anything from Baba or saw any documentation that would substantiate such an assertion. I asked Ac. Ramanandaji, Baba's long-time personal assistant, if he had heard anything concrete to that effect. He also confirmed my own experience - that if such a relation existed (outside of tantra), it would have been quite distant. While it is possible that I would not have information about something like this, it seems highly unlikely to me that Ramanandaji would not have such information if it were in fact so. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most probably I was the editor who removed Sarkar - Subhas Bose relationship portion for lack of reliable source! Please don't add it back without reliable source! And it'll be better if you collect a source from Bose's aspect (i.e. Any article where Bose is the primary topic (not Sarkar) mentions Sarkar was relative). --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes Tito you was. I'm going to delete this wrong information from Ananda Marga's article too. I was thinking that the quoted info from Dharmavedananda's book was right 'cause I read it somewhere in other Ananda Marga publications and I heard it from some other Indian acharyas too. I'll be more careful verifying the news next time.
 * Thanks Abhidevananda to finally solve this enigma. Do you know if it's also wrong the news (also reported by me in the Sarkar's article) that during his time in Kolkata Baba stayed at the house of Sarat Chandra Bose (brother of Subash)? If yes or if it's not sure I will delete this too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That means you have already added this information? Come one Sarkar staying in someone's house- is this an encyclopedic content? --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was quite interesting from the historical point of view to know the relationship with Sarat 'cause he was an Indian freedom fighter. If you think that this information isn't an encyclopedic one I will delete it, no problem: it's not essential for me to keep it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And what was the source? --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See Brief Biography of Shrii Shrii Anandamurti or P. R. Sarkar p.17. is still the Dharmavedananda book that I've already cited.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So Tito do you think we can maintain this information or it's better to delete it? I supposed it was interesting but, as I said it's not essential for me to keep it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tito, to clarify this, it's a bit more than just Baba "staying in someone's house". Baba lived in the house of his maternal uncle, Sarat Chandra Bose, from 1939-1941 (approximately from the age of 18-20), while studying at Vidyasagar College. Perhaps this was the same Sarat Chandra Bose, who was the freedom fighter. I don't know. I never took much interest in the subject. Baba's mother's maiden name was Abharani Bose. So if Subhash had a brother named Sarat Chandra and a sister named Abharani, then probably Subhash was indeed Baba's maternal uncle. Either way, Baba would have been present in Kolkata around the time when Subhash escaped from house arrest under the British.
 * Within Ananda Marga, there was always a strong belief that Subhash did not die in the 1945 plane crash. If anything, this belief took on greater strength due to Baba's 1958/9 dedication that appears in "Problem of the Day": "To the great hero Shrii Subhash Chandra Bose whom I did love and whom I do love even now."
 * Obviously, this is not a topic that interests me (or Ramanandaji) greatly. Quite possibly, the relationship with Subhash is closer than I initially suggested. Indeed, it might not be a myth at all. But, though this topic does not interest me much, it certainly does interest others. Hence, I do think that this matter has encyclopedic value, and there is no harm in researching the matter. So I will ask Ac. Keshavanandaji (Ramanandaji's successor as Personal Assistant) if he knows something more about this matter. Beyond that, I am not likely to get scope for much further research during my current visit to India. If pressed, I will make some additional inquiries, but I can do that just as easily a bit later (after leaving India). --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dada, Subash Chandra Bose had a brother and this brother was Sarat Chandra Bose this is of course a matter of fact, and He was an Indian freedom fighter. I don't know if this Sarat Chandra Bose was the same of Baba's. Anyway it's an interesting information to collect from the historical point of view. From an encyclopaedic point of view I'm really not sure... thanks anyway. I go offline now it's very late here.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dada, Subash Chandra Bose had a brother and this brother was Sarat Chandra Bose this is of course a matter of fact, and He was an Indian freedom fighter. I don't know if this Sarat Chandra Bose was the same of Baba's. Anyway it's an interesting information to collect from the historical point of view. From an encyclopaedic point of view I'm really not sure... thanks anyway. I go offline now it's very late here.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then, let's close this topic until and unless there is some confirmation that the two Sarat Chandra Boses were the same, which I frankly doubt. It would only become probable if in fact Subhash had a sister who was named "Abharani". Furthermore, in Ac. Vijayanandaji's book, he apparently mentions that Baba's maternal uncle, "Sharat Chandra Bose", was unmarried. But the Sarat Chandra Bose that was the brother of Subhash was married. So, again, it seems unlikely to me that the two persons were the same, and I would not be inclined to believe that unless it can be shown that Subhash had a sister with the same name as Baba's mother. So, if you want to pursue this, first discover the names of all of Subhash's siblings. (For what it's worth, I also asked Keshavanandaji about this matter, and his opinion was the same as that of Ramanandaji - _if so_, it was a distant relationship.) There is still one other person whom I will ask about this matter. But, even if he says something affirmative, I would still not give it credence in the absence of some evidence that Subhash had a sister named "Abharani". --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK dada thanks a lot. As I just wrote to Tito, some months ago I was searching some detailed information on the personal life of Netaji. But I found nothing; all I found were always the same official information... very strange.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it really written in that book "To the great hero Shrii Subhash Chandra Bose whom I did love and whom I do love even now."? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tito, that is the dedication given by Baba at the beginning of "Problem of the Day". It has been published like that in every English edition of the book since 1959.--Abhidevananda (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Tito look here.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you verify again? I am quite confident, you did not understand why I asked such a childish question that, is it really written in that book "To the great hero Shrii Subhash Chandra Bose...., also I did not explain the reason of my curiosity! Actually the spelling Subhash Chandra Bose incorrect! It should be Subhas Chandra Bose (see the article, no "h"), it has been a long time confusion, finally I added his signature where he himself spelled his name. That's why I was asking is it really spelled "Subhash" in that book? Cornellius, please remove "h" from "Subhash" in that (those) article(s). --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, but that POD article still claims that Subhash was Baba's "maternal uncle", and most people would assume by this that Subhash was Baba's mother's brother. I doubt that this is something that can be substantiated. More likely, "uncle" would have to be taken in a very liberal sense - the same way as some young Indians address me as "uncle" (in other words, largely just a respectful form of address). Hence, I suggest you remove that part of the article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I corrected the Problems of the Day's article: Subhas and not Subhash (but in the book it's written Subhash), maternal uncle deleted. I again controlled the dedication on the book: "To the great hero Shrii Subhash Chandra Bose whom I did love and whom I do love even now."--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Tito, as you know, the English edition is a translation from the original Bengali (Ajker Samasya). Baba did not sit at a desk and write a book. He delivered a discourse, and that discourse was transcribed and translated. Transcribers and translators make many such errors, often far worse than that. On such matters, I generally focus on substance rather than form. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway in other books f.e. in "Sarkar's English Grammar" at the end of the chapter 21 the name used was "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose". I personally think that Tito is right and that the name "Subhash" written on the book "Problems of the Day" was wrongly written from the publisher.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We focus on both since we don't have "choose one" option! "Content" is first and the topmost priority but, in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia form and technical issues are also important. Sometimes we do very detailed study on the form, for example, for Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport even Governments are confused, in some Government document/websites the spelling "Subhas" has been used and in some Government documents/website the spelling "Subhash" has been used. The air ticket has one spelling, but there is another spelling at the airport's entrance gate. And we had to select any one. Finally we used Subhas (no "h"). You can see the discussion, might be interesting Talk:Netaji_Subhas_Chandra_Bose_International_Airport.
 * also multiple scholarly books have been written with the spelling "Subhash", see last few books here. So, that should not be an issue. But the spelling (Subhash) is not accepted in Wikipedia unless it is a book's name or a quote etc. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * also multiple scholarly books have been written with the spelling "Subhash", see last few books here. So, that should not be an issue. But the spelling (Subhash) is not accepted in Wikipedia unless it is a book's name or a quote etc. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sarkar/Shri Shri Anandamurti's books
As you can see I'm going ahead with the articles. It will be interesting to have an article with Baba's bibliography like this, this or this one or maybe a "stand alone" Navbox (like the one you did for Baba).
 * Another idea could be to have an Ananda Marga navbox template with all books (included Acharyas books and/or all related books). If we wanted to think of a more gigantic project could also think of a chronological table with a list of all Baba's talk organized by subjects and so on...--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I plan to look into navboxes when I return from India. I was thinking to have a simple navbox for PROUT (in place of the logo that currently appears at PROUT. And I would like to work on the one that we currently have for Ananda Marga. There is some sensitivity about using the pratiika for that purpose, and a global map does not serve much useful purpose. Similarly, we could indeed have a template of some sort just for Baba's books (derived from the PRSarkar template). I am sure that Tito will have some ideas on this and also some suggestions regarding priorities. From my side, however, this is not something to which I can give any serious attention until after I have completed this visit to India. I have too many other pressing concerns... and a very weak Internet connection at Ananda Nagar and on the trains I will be inhabiting for most of the rest of my time here. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I should like very much to be there. Have the maximum utilization from your spiritual journey.. you will have time to think to WP when you will be back to your headquarters! :)--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose
I have now spoken to the third and last reliable source of information on this subject, Ac. Svarupananda Avadhuta. He confirms everything said by Ac. Ramanandaji and Ac. Keshavanandaji, but he adds more detail.

Baba's maternal uncle, Sharat Chandra Bose, was not the same person as Subhas's brother with the same or similar name. So it is wrong to claim that Subhas was the maternal uncle of Baba.

While in Kolkata (1939-1941), Baba frequently visited M N Roy in his house. Through M N Roy, Baba came in contact with Subhas Chandra Bose and Nazrul Islam, both of whom Baba initiated into tantric sadhana. Both were avid practitioners of tantra, although Nazrul Islam was a bit less strict about some aspects of discipline.

Anyway, Svarupanandaji had more to tell, but I will get the full story later. For now, I just want to put to rest the claim that Subhas was a maternal uncle of Baba. It is not correct. As for the rest, I don't think there is any way to document it. So there is nothing to write about on Wikipedia other than Baba's appreciation for Subhas. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Very interesting Abhidevananda. All it's now more clear. I will correct all as soon as is possible!--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Or better not write from now until you arr sure of it? Hundreds (if not thousands) sites and blogs copy/use content from Wikipedia, so, it might be a serious trouble in world wide web! --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Tito you are right. But as you have seen I was simply quoting from a printed book! :)--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just corrected those spelling "Subhash"→"Subhas". Was it written it that book that Sharat Bose was relative of Subhas Chandra Bose, if not why did you write it? And why aren't you still deleting it? --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it at 13:40, on 26 December 2012‎. At the same time I've also corrected the name from "Subash" to "Subhas". Take a better look at the Problems of the Day's Revision history.--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: PROUT tags
Hi Abhidev, the oldafd tags make no sense in an archive page, because the archive was never nominated for deletion ... the article was. An article's nomination for deletion is as much a part of its history as a good article or featured article nomination. Take it as a badge of pride that you've managed to improve the article dramatically, proving the !delete voters wrong. Graham 87 04:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that badge of pride argument works well here. Rather, I think that this particular tag only comes across as humiliating for both PROUT and Wikipedia. That is why I expressed the opinion that when a nomination for deletion fails, the tag should simply be removed. This seems to be consistent with universally recognized principles of justice. If the tag must be maintained (as you claim), then at least it should be archived once the article to which it applied no longer exists.


 * Similarly, your argument that an archived talk page was not nominated for deletion is not convincing to me, because it was also not the unarchived talk page of the article that was nominated for deletion but rather the article itself. Yet that tag only appeared on the talk page and not on the article itself. So I think that even if that tag is archived, everyone would understand that the nomination for deletion was not for the archived talk page but rather for the article that existed at the time (5.5 years ago). --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not that big a deal, I guess, though it's highly non-standard. There are a few other examples out there, but not that many. The article and the AFD should be linked in some way, though. I'm going to move the AFD back to the archive. Graham 87 07:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Graham. I also agree with you that it is not "that big a deal". If you had replied that there is some important principle here, I would have just deferred to your greater experience. I guess one of the things that irked me the most here was that the nomination for deletion somehow seemed to influence or be influenced by the assignment of the Politics portal of "Low" importance to the PROUT article. Frankly, I cannot conceive how capitalism gets a rating of High importance on the Politics portal, whereas PROUT gets a rating of Low importance. To the best of my knowledge, capitalism has no fixed policy on the subject of politics. Capitalism is essentially an economic theory, largely based on the pseudoreligious notion of a "sacred" right to private property. To the best of my knowledge, capitalism has no fixed guidelines or insights in respect to government or politics. At most we can say that capitalists tend to prefer political democracy. In contrast, PROUT has much more direct input on the subject of politics (see, for example, the sections of the article on Administration, Democracy, Prama, Sadvipras, and World government). In this light, I find it rather astounding that the Politics portal would assign PROUT only "Low" importance... even after upgrading the quality scale from Start to B class (which rating I can completely understand and appreciate). So, please pardon me if I have been somewhat prickly about that nomination for deletion tag. It just seemed to limit the scope of the Politics portal to assign a more reasonable level of importance to the article. Anyway, Graham, thanks for being so reasonable. I really appreciate it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Friction between capitalism and communism caused one of the defining conflicts of the 20th century. For that reason, plus the fact that capitalist philosophies underpin the political and economic systems of many countries around the world, there is no doubt in my mind that it should be rated top importance in the politics WikiProject. Don't take an article being marked as low importance personally; most articles in big WikiProjects are marked as such. Check out Category:Politics articles by importance or swing through the subcategories in Category:Articles by importance. Graham 87 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Graham, I understand your point about capitalism, and maybe from that perspective it becomes high or top importance. But regarding the articles that are rated as of low importance, none of the ones I saw came even close to the breadth and scope of PROUT. Unlike PROUT, they mostly address very specific and limited topics. I don't believe that it makes sense to place PROUT on a par with Talk:Abortion Opponents' List, Talk:Abraham Lincoln's Peoria speech, Talk:Joan Abrahamson, Talk:Absolutely Absurd Party, and so on.--Abhidevananda (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The importance rating assigned by a WikiProject has nothing to do with the bredth or scope of an article; it is about how influencial its topic is within that subject area. PROUT does not seem to have had much influence in the political sphere, unless you know otherwise; if it had as much clout as the topics in Category:Mid-importance politics articles, nobody would have dreamed of nominating the article about it for deletion. It could probably also be added to other projects, like WikiProject India and WikiProject hilosophy – just use the same syntax as the politics banner, substituting the word politics for "India" or "Philosophy", respectively. Graham 87 04:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand, Graham. The Politics portal of Wikipedia would have assigned Low importance to Marxism until after the Communist revolution in Russia. Thanks for the clarification. Let me see if the Economics portal is equally retrospective in outlook.--Abhidevananda (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposals for deletion
The following articles have been proposed for deletion: "A Guide to Human Conduct"-Discussion for deletion, "Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies"-Discussion for deletion together with "Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda"-Discussion for deletion and "Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India"-Discussion for deletion written by Tito. Take a look. If you can add something more to improve the articles (links, quotations etc.). Only a comment by the way: sometimes our work on WP seems the struggle of Milarepa in doing the walls for Marpa... with a fight that seems to increase its movement towards a psychic dimension. :) Anyway "karmany eva ‘dhikaras te ma phalesu kadacana".--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone can edit an article, and anyone can nominate a page for deletion. Obviously, there are pros and cons to such an arrangement. But so far WP seems to have tipped heavily on the pro side. So, though I am still relatively new to Wikipedia, I don't believe that any of these WP pages will be deleted. I don't see any good reason for that to happen. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes Abhidev. You are relatively new on WP (me too) but it seems you have a wide experience on Sarkar's literature and this is very helpful for us! If you find something to add/rectify in the new articles on Sarkar/Anandamurtijii's books articles please do it. I've to go offline now.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Cornelius, please note that this is my Talk page. It is not a Wikipedia article. You appear to be someone who considers himself/herself to be a margii. Hence, when you write to me on my Talk page, please observe reasonable decorum for a margii. In other words, kindly refer to Gurudeva with more respectful language, and kindly address me in an appropriate manner.


 * On another but related topic, in about a week I expect to be in a more convenient place for uploading authorized images to Wikimedia. I would appreciate your help with the book covers and perhaps some other images. It would be easiest to carry this out offline, that is, by email. If that is acceptable to you, please send me an email. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry it was not my intention to offend or to disrespect anyone. My intention was good and I can demonstrate this to you on a personal communication if you prefer. The talk pages on WP are not private but public and the language used is sometimes very different for many reasons, and the first is that no one knows who the other really is (not in this case: you declare who you are). It's an ordinary habit in WP not to address anyone with his/her real name or title. I use to communicate with people that on a personal communication I will address with "Mister" or with his/her right title using the appropriate social code, deference etc. Since from my first steps on WP I learned that the style of communication is different and very cold and direct 'couse the attention of all is centred on the "substance". Sometimes I find this really embarrassing 'couse this is out of my personal education, but in WP the rule seems to work differently. I found an e-mail address of you on nzbking.com. If you want I can better explain this to you at this address. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, write to me. Regarding this Talk page, to some extent, the rules are mine. And I am not writing under an alias. Tito is not writing under an alias. And you - well, alias or not - you can refer to Baba with suitable language when talking to me on this page. I will not pretend that I do not have the utmost respect for my Guru. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok Dadajii. In ten minutes you will have my personal answer on your mail.--Cornelius383 (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Time
I was reading the religious concepts and opinions section in one my most favourite Wikipedia article Time. Parabhat Ranjan Sarkar told, the entire universe exists within the cosmic mind, which itself is the first expression of consciousness coming under the bondage of its own nature. Did he say anything else on the nature etc of "Time"? --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In several places, Baba defines time as a "mental measurement of the motivity of action". For example, in "The Omni-Reflective Cognitive Consciousness" (1971) found in Subhasita Samgraha Part 10, we find:
 * While trying to discover the original cause of creation human beings thought that it must be eternal tempos. But when intellect developed they discovered that hypothesis to be incorrect, because time is nothing but the mental measurement of the motivity of action. If there is no action, there is no question of any measurement of time. If the moon does not move around the earth, no question of days, months or years can arise. Hence time is not the original cause.
 * --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More specifically: Isaac Newton felt, ""times" persist like frames of a film strip", that meant "past" or any other moment of time parallely exist somewhere (the way different places exist). Parallel existence of different moments of time means, I am typing currently– this moment exists. And the moment I posted "Welcome" message at your talk page, that moment also exists somewhere (in that moment, I am still typing the the "Welcome" message.) It is similar for ALL other moments. I am being born somewhere, I am growing up somewhere... I am joining Wikipedia somewhere etc. And from here, comes the concept of Time loop.
 * Did Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar say anything on this parallel existence of time? I am highly interested to learn this, because if parallel existence of different moments exist side by side like a film strip, then concept of motion of time or time passes/moves etc are incorrect. It is not the "motion" of time then. It might be the motion of something else– what Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar called:  the entire universe exists within the cosmic mind? -Tito Dutta (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing like a continuous flow of time, and hence there is nothing like eternity. Time is a relative factor. It is a collection of fragments (if you like, "frames in a film strip", though there are many strips and there can be gaps in any of them). As a relative factor, time depends on space and form, changing accordingly. If the earth were viewed from a distant galaxy, Krsna might not have been born yet.
 * There is nothing like Eternity, because what we call Eternity is a collection of numerous fragments of time. The concept of fragments of time arises in the human brain. Suppose a person becomes senseless at twelve o’clock. When that person regains senses after five hours, he thinks that it is still twelve o’clock. During the period of senselessness his mind was not able to measure the motivity of action, and hence time ceased to exist. ("Relativity and the Supreme Entity", 1971, Published in Subhasita Samgraha Part 10)
 * Even cosmic mind (in its complete form) is relative. Philosophically, the source of all being, the supreme causal entity, can only be Parama Brahma (often referred to by many other names, for example, Paramatma, Parama Purusa, or Purusottama). --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So what is "past" or "future" from this point of view? --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Vedantic philosophy that teaches Brahma satyam jagat mithya (Brahma is absolute truth; the world is a lie), Baba asserted Brahma satyam jagat satyam apeksikam (Brahma is absolute truth; the world is relative truth). With respect to the manifest universe, everything is constantly changing in accordance with three factors of relativity, known in Samskrta as deshakalapatra. Kala means time. Kala has three dimensions: past, present, future. But those three dimensions operate only in relation to desha and patra. The past is only meaningful when considered in the context of space and form. What is past for one person on planet earth may still be the future for another person on the moon. Due to astronomical factors (primarily the rotation of the earth relative to the sun and the moon), New Years Day... by the way, happy new year... began in Australia before it began in India. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Have removed
have removed the nomination, nice to know you. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposals for deletion
Abhidevanandaji the following articles have been proposed for deletion: "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion and "Neohumanism in a Nutshell"-Discussion for deletion. I'm still working on the last one, anyway I will try to find more references/sources for both. Please if it's possible for you take a look at the articles (maybe you have something to add or correct..). I hope all is ok with you journey. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have added my comment on the subject. The simple fact is that all of Baba's books meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia on at least the two grounds that I mention. So hold firm, and keep writing the articles. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clear interventions. I've just added some new references and a quote box on Neohumanism in a Nutshell. Of course if you find something to add or correct you can do it or let me know on my talk page if you prefer. Now I've to go offline. Namaskar!--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles are already sufficiently developed. They have been nominated for deletion because of the dogmatic and conservative attitude of the nominator, who has dogged other articles of ours in the past. However, his AfD is clearly ignorant of the grounds for deletion. Any book of Baba's discourses can stand simply because it consists of his writings or speeches (Baba's historical importance). On top of that, these books have naturally made a huge contribution to AMPS. With those two grounds alone, no AfD stands any significant chance of success. For now, worry less about expanding existing articles and more about creating article stubs for all of the missing books in our template. Should any other such article be nominated for deletion, simply reply as I have done. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism
Thanks for changing the title. As I said before your knowledge of Baba's literature is so vast that you can correct all the errors that you find in the articles that I wrote without to tell me. We now have, however, a difference between the title of the article and that present in the incipit. I leave it as it is or I change it? (Or maybe I can add that the original title of the book was this of the article's title?)--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The title of the book has always been the same. It is and has always been: "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". The artist who drew the cover of the book simply wrote it wrong. Hence your confusion. My concern was only to give the correct title, as accurately presented in the Neohumanism article. Later today or tomorrow, I want to start uploading pictures to Wikimedia that we can use. But I'm still adjusting to time zones and catching up on a backlog of work. So I prefer to leave the preparation of the book articles to you. Make whatever changes to the content that you feel necessary, and I will review it later when I get more time. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's books
Nothing surprises me in this world of Wikipedia anymore. There are many models, actresses who worked only in 1 or 2 films, few television shows and you have long Wikipedia articles on them. But, when you start an article on a notable book, researcher, scholar, historian there is a good chance someone would like to take that to AFD.

You may get some relief after seeing that my this article Swami Vivekananda in the West: New Discoveries was taken to AFD because it was thought the book was "non-notable". Sister Gargi spent 40 years of her life to do the research work and published this six volumes of book, as a result Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda which was a 4 volume set then immediately became a 9 volume set (which is the current size). The best research work on Swami Vivekananda till date, acknowledged by multiple institutions, organizations.. the book was tagged as "non-notable"... deletion discussion.

But, I don't think Bob's AFDs was vandalism. Finally that's how Wikipedia works and there is no alternative. Really. If someone comes and writes about a book of some 1850 Turkey or Senegal scholar, most probably you and I would do the same thing, i.e. Google search to check its notability. And we don't have any other "alternative" too. (See this discussion, a 5 year long article that was tagged as Good Article, but a hoax, that is in the news).

If the articles survive these AFDs, they may face AFD again. And you may have to tell the same thing again and again (BTW, the point "publication year of an Indian book is an important thing in an AFD" I have told this at least in 5 discussion), a major problem is digital "source". --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's very interesting... and a good point about year of publication. But, regarding Bob, his vandalism/harassment is mostly with respect to the PROUT article. See the Talk page of that article and his recent edits there. One of the edits might almost have been reasonable, but the other was simply outrageous. PROUT is also referred to as "progressive socialism", so I naturally listed socialism as a major influence in respect to PROUT. Bob deleted the entire section with a remark about self-aggrandizement. That goes beyond non-constructive to the point of insulting. Bob has been dogging that article for years, and now he is nominating books for deletion without even acknowledging the five criteria at WP:NB. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
 Tito Dutta (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Let me know when it is done or you can update in that DYK discussion too! I have just completed adding the full Bengali script in Wikisource Wikipedia discussion: here. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have removed your report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. I see no vandalism; simply a run-of-the-mill content dispute. Kuru  (talk)  12:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you like... but it is not "run of the mill" when a person purposefully targets the same article for year after year and any other related subject... and invariably takes a negative position. Please understand that I view the actions of Bob Rayner as non-constructive, at the very least harassment. Surely you can appreciate the fact that the removal of the entire section on Socialism in his uninformed edit of PROUT was way over the top. If you cannot view this as vandalism then please take steps to protect the Sarkar-related pages from this prejudiced individual. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop the personal attacks. An edit is not vandalism just because you disagree with a content change. bobrayner (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In your case, Bob, it is vandalism. I have now once again undone your numerous deletions from the PROUT article and again reported you to the admins for vandalism. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, these are not vandalism, please avoid the word. This is content dispute, might be serious, but not vandalism. Also check WP:EW and WP:3RR. Don't revert for the third time and don't use WP:ROLLBACK to undo these edits (if you have got this tool)! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is vandalism. If you have a content dispute, then raise it with the admins. Don't just chop out large chunks of an article as you have a penchant to do. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Abhidevananda Ji, You could wait for me (Or I was late to give you that 3RR note). You are in a bit trouble now, your AIV report has been rejected and content dispute has been suggested and your account may be blocked (for 24 hours so, depends on admin) if you have already reverted their edits thrice in 24 hours. In case it is not already 3 revert, please no more revert now! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tito, I don't know if my account is blocked. But I will not use the rollback feature again. Didn't know how that works.--Abhidevananda (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't have the rollback feature, I have checked now! That is a once click revert option which can be applied directly from watchlist, no edit summary, no "confirm" click, nothing, you click once and it is fully reverted. To clarify more, it may or may not be "vandalism" from your point of view, but, according to Wikipedia these are "vandalism": Please check the edits. CC SA Attribution: Some portion is copied from here --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. So WP takes a narrow view of vandalism. It's not enough to deface an article by emptying the article of content. One must also add content that is non-serious. So what shall we call someone who only does the first part? Does Wikipedia have a classification like 'nudnik'? --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything like Nudnik' (you can suggest it here, they'll tell you if we have something similar already), but there is INCOMPETENCE, Randy etc! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. bobrayner (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Edits like this are blatant canvassing. Even if you are unable to assume good faith, and instead insist that I'm biased and stupid &c for disagreeing with you, canvassing favourable editors to an AfD is a really bad move. Stop it. It's almost as bad as using a sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob, when you stop your vandalism of all things connected to P. R. Sarkar, then you can tell me what to do or not to do. --14:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You really must stop the personal attacks. I'm not a vandal just because I try cleaning up crappy content.
 * You also accused me of canvassing; perhaps there has been some misunderstanding about that too, so I tried to explain the difference on the article talkpage. Apart from WP:NOTVAND, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CANVAS, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, are there any other policies you're having difficulty with? bobrayner (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Full protection..
I requested a full protection and it is protected for 1 week. Please continue the discussion in (article's) talk or noticeboards now. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I saw that the protection is imposed. And I have opened the door for discussion on the article Talk page. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV discussion
here Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And also Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It looks like Bob is doing quite a lot of canvassing. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is saying What Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow., Ref. Haven't I told it already, get some reliable secondary sources in support! Incorporate from those JSTOR, Google scholar, BBC, CNN, Oxford University, Cambridge University, Harvard University publications if possible. Well known publication like Cambridge University Press or MPhil, DSc, PhD, MD (or even CD, DVD he he ) holder writer, does not matter what/how they write! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tito... I don't question the need for secondary sources (in the eyes of Wikipedia). It will be done in due course. On another note, I was going to post a TB on your Talk page, but I saw that you are trying to take a break. So no need to worry about this just now. Carry on with your other work. How is the DYK on the Sengupta article going? Let me know if you need me to look over the final copy again. --
 * All these RFC, AFD etc are going to go against your opinion. A stitch in time saves nine --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the obvious purpose of Bob's biased canvassing. However, hopefully, the admins will realize that this is a smear campaign, primarily by one bigoted party. As for the AfD on Caryacarya, that is really absurd. If it gets passed, then I will think again about my involvement with Wikipedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Caryacarya article will be either deleted or redirected/merged unless secondary reliable sources are presented. Please collect secondary RS as soon as possible! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will leave that task to Cornelius. For now, I am mostly in a wait-and-see mode. First, I want to see what happens with the Caryacarya article. Then I want to see what happens with the PROUT article. I also want to see what steps if any the admins will take to protect these articles from the type of vandalism (my own use of the term, not the WP usage) that Bob and others practice here. I cannot afford to spend a lot of time merely safeguarding accurate and informative articles. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cornellius? He has just created a new section in NPOV noticebaord which is not an NPOV issue at all, if he is really confident, he should report it to ANI etc, but, NPOV is wrong noticeboard. You'll have option to appeal or few more options if they delete/merge those books articles and stub the PROUT article. But nothing is going to happen without secondary reliable sources.--Tito Dutta (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Abhidevanadajii and Tito, I have to point out the outrageous statements of Bobrayner. As you can see at the incipit of the talk pages for the deletion of the books ("Lots of ghits - from people selling it") and as I said here: "Outrageous statements of Bobrayner", here and also here this user's statements are strongly insulting. As a WP editor I'm trying to do my best here, I give respect and I pretend respect by other users too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been given a very important task, collect some (as many as possible) reliable and secondary sources as quickly as possible. (details here). --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tito this one that I've just added now seems to me very important.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me, after adding sources (at least 2 RS for every article on book), go to the AFD discussions and mention there. --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Lots of ghits - from people selling it" is a factual statement. If you are offended by factual statements about things you have written, you have my sympathies; the best course of action in future is to write other things that meet wikipedia standards. Don't blame editors who try to deal with the problem of substandard content; please don't make it adversarial. bobrayner (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.  kashmiri 03:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Request
Per WP:WIAPA, I would like you to remove the rhetorical question from this edit. It appears to be a personal attack and is not constructive. Thank you. Location (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr., Miss, Ms., or Mrs. "Location": You supported the AfD with the words, "Delete (or, since they're cheap, redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar)". May I ask you... "since they're cheap"... who or what were you talking about there? Who or what were you classifying as "cheap"? Was this perhaps a personal attack? And why would you even vote without having done any significant research? I asked, "Is it Bigots Week at Wikipedia?" I think that under the circumstances, this question was quite reasonable. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Redirects are cheap" is not an attack. See Redirects are cheap. Regarding the "bigots" allegation, I will seek further input on this. Location (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see... "redirects are cheap". Well, that's one interpretation of your ambiguous remark... though certainly not the most obvious one grammatically. And what about the second question, "Location"? Why did you vote without doing adequate research? I see on your Talk page that others have a similar issue with you. For example, from Dominic: "As well, I don't know if you mean it that way, but it does feel sort of hostile to have someone copy and paste the same vote to something like 6 AfDs yours in half an hour." --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Location (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They thought you were talking about the articles. "Delete (or, since they're cheap, redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar)"- first pronoun of a sentence not preceded by any noun! Might be confusing! But, it was a misunderstanding. I can understand, they meant "redirects are cheap" (common phrase in Wikipedia). And Dear Mr., Miss, Ms., or Mrs – might be "Dr." too? --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * True enough, Tito. The only title I am pretty sure it is not is "Ac.". :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Progressive utilization theory
I haven't unprotected any article. It was protected by me for 1 week. As the week is over, the protection has been automatically lifted. KTC (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Abhidevananda, continuing to change the article to a preferred version is what is meant by "edit warring", particularly when done without having first achieved consensus. If your intention is to avoid edit warring, you should undo this, and wait until the dispute is resolved on the talk page, perhaps participating in the discussion and citing sources. Reverting to the "last good version" is only for undoing edits that are clearly inappropriate, such as vandalism, libel, copyright infringement, or repeated unexplained blanking of reliably sourced information; removal of content on Progressive utilization theory was done for reasons supported by policy, particularly the Verifiability policy. Peter&#160;James (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Peter, not to argue but rather only to clarify my position, please consider the following:


 * The material in the article is sourced and verifiable. Yes, it is mostly original source, because that is the nature of the theory. It all comes from one person. In other words, what that person - P. R. Sarkar - says is taken to be the theory.


 * I did not revert to the "last good version" but rather to the "last complete version". Whatever may have been the intention of the edits, they effectively crippled the article, leaving it with sections that were clearly incomplete. For example, proutist economics has four dimensions. Some editor felt that one of the dimensions was poorly sourced, and so he completely deleted one dimension, leaving the article declaring four dimensions but only explaining three of them. One portion of a graphic was mapped to the fourth dimension (actually the second dimension, which was deleted), but that went nowhere. People then wrote to me asking why one dimension was missing. My feeling is that if an edit is well-intentioned, it may be done in a fashion that does not break the article.


 * Please also note that the article may have weaknesses - relying on primary sources and questionable neutrality - but why not settle this matter with a tag (as happens with many articles), some revised language, or even some modest deletions rather than wholesale deletion of sections with remarks like "crappy content"? I am happy to discuss any and all sections of the article. But why start the discussion with Wikipedia showing a clearly damaged section rather than just a potentially poor section?


 * Peter, you mention consensus. The article was up for a month. It received a rating of B-quality from two portals before all of this kerfuffle began. One of those portals upped its rating from Start quality to B quality. The other portal gave a new rating. Should not the ratings of those two portals be taken into account with respect to consensus, especially when those ratings are probably the only remarks on the Talk page (other than some admin remarks) that are genuinely neutral?


 * --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If there are obvious errors caused by removal of content, you can fix them, but don't just revert. The dispute isn't just about lack of sources, it's about whether the content would be accurate and appropriate for a finished article. The "psycho-economy" section was removed as dubious. No sources were cited for it, no definition was provided for "psycho-economy" or "psychic pabula" which would appear meaningless to most readers; it needed rewriting with sources. The concern about B-quality seems irrelevant, as articles are assessed at that level by individual editors, who are often not experts in the subject areas being assessed, and issues such as quality and independence of sources are often not checked thoroughly, a problem that even occurs in "good articles". Peter&#160;James (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, Peter, I understand your point about reversion. And you are no doubt correct to some extent. However, the assumption here is that I have endless time to spend making revisions forced on me by apparently reckless and ruthless deletions. I reverted, because it was the quick and sensible solution. I have never indicated that I am not open to edits of the material. Quite the contrary. I merely want that the article achieve a high degree of quality in every sense.


 * Regarding the psycho-economy section, in a broad sense, it was sourced. But you are right in saying that no sources are quoted in that particular section. Had someone pointed this out to me, I could have easily rectified that problem. There was no need to delete the entire section when a flag would have sufficed. Similarly, a definition of "psychic pabula" could also be provided. Again, there was no need to delete the entire section, breaking links and making meaningless or at least unintelligible the concept of four dimensions to PROUT's concept of economics. Regarding "psycho-economy", it is in fact defined by the entire section.


 * Regarding your other point, frankly, I don't see why a B-quality assessment would seem irrelevant to you. You might just as well argue that the whole system of assessments by portals be eliminated. And, even though the assessment is done by individual editors, all the comments and all of the work on the article are also by individual editors. My point was that the persons who assessed the article as B-quality are likely to be more neutral than anyone invested in creating or editing the article (for better or worse). --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You may see the sourcing as sufficient, but other editors have expressed their disagreement and removed some of the content. Discussion should take place on the article's talk page, that's really the only place where consensus can be achieved. The article is now protected, but that doesn't indicate support for the protected version. The assessment of quality is probably neutral, but unimportant as it's from only one editor (if the content was approved for good article or featured article status, that could be seen as support for the content). Peter&#160;James (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Peter, I did not say that the sourcing is sufficient. Rather, I indicated that - on review - it also strikes me as insufficient. My only point was that there was no need for a draconian deletion in order to fix that problem. Someone could have mentioned it on the Talk page, and I would have taken steps to rectify the omission. As for the quality assessments, that was on two portals, not just one. Hence, presumably it was the assessment of two editors, both of them more neutral than anyone involved in editing the article. That was and is my only point. As for approval for GA status, if I understand correctly, that generally takes more than one month to process. To the best of my understanding, B-class quality for a one-month old article is pretty much the best one can hope for. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Law and WikiProject Politics. As a reviewer myself, I don't think these are B class articles, one can ask those WikiProjects to re-assess! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Or one could have just waited a little longer to see how the article would be assessed by the other five portals invited to rate the article... waited without seeking to influence the rating, as I was doing. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see article Jesus, now see talk page of it, that article has been assessed as B class. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, it looks like C-class or possibly even Start, although it was assessed at B-class by an experienced editor. Quality levels are often copied from one project's template to another without further review, which would explain the second B-class. Peter&#160;James (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't just the omission of references (and I agree, if that was the only problem deletion of text isn't recommended as a first step). The accuracy was challenged, and the verifiability policy states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Peter&#160;James (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jatindra Mohan Sengupta
The DYK project (nominate) 02:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ramakrishna Mission Swami Vivekananda's Ancestral House and Cultural Centre
Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Image question
Hi, Did you create this PROUT logo? bobrayner (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the question, Bob. Are you asking me whether I have the authority to upload the graphic, or are you asking me whether this is the official PROUT logo (and perhaps secondarily whether I was the person who created the official PROUT logo)? --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking whether you created it. The logo. Did you create it? Did you create this PROUT logo? bobrayner (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I only created some graphics for the article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That image is alright. If you have nor problem, I can ask someone to delet/check all images of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar now (which are at Commons DR now)! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a strange place to ask for help with a commons deletion discussion. Isn't that canvassing? bobrayner (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Who are you addressing? (also explain, what help?)--Tito Dutta (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, reminding Abhidevananda that there are deletion discussions about images of Sarkar, PROUT &c on Commons could be seen as problematic, considering the previous canvassing, sockpuppetry &c. No? It would be good for us all to stay squeaky clean. bobrayner (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See "Images of Ananda Marga" section below! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking about "squeaky clean", Bob, is there no policy on Wikipedia or Wiki Commons that when an item is nominated for deletion, the item creator should be notified of that nomination? If not, there should be. And also speaking about "squeaky clean", Bob, is it appropriate that you should come onto my talk page and allege "previous sockpuppetry" when in fact you lodged an official complaint and were told clearly by the admins that your accusation of sockpuppetry was dismissed as highly unlikely? Frankly, Bob, these words of yours are highly uncivil. I believe an apology is in order here. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They notified at your Commons talk page --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the info. I did not even know that I have a Commons talk page. :) Certainly, I haven't received any emails from that Talk page alerting me of postings to it. In any event, I have now responded to the deletion nomination, for what that's worth. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to enable email notification at preference of Commons! Few editors enable email for all watchlist changes in those Wiki where they are not very regular (I have this option enabled everywhere other than en.Wikipedia) --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can not see any new reply at any deletion discussion at Commons! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I was sure that I replied. But it turns out that my reply did not go through because of an "edit conflict". So I am resubmitting it now. Thanks for the heads-up on that. I will also look at my preferences in relation to my Commons talk page. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The pref page is similar to the one of Wikipedia. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. But, oddly enough, the option to "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed" was already selected. So I don't know why I did not receive any notification. Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Images of Ananda Marga
Let me know when you are ready, the DR has been kept on hold for a long time. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please reply here! --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tito, as you may easily infer, there is another matter on Wikipedia that I consider to be a much higher priority. Please understand that I have a lot of other work that must be done outside of Wikipedia. So, kindly pardon me, but it might be a few more weeks before I get around to working on graphics/images for Wikipedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That discussion is going nowhere and soon will be taken to arbitration committee or some other noticeboard. Those images are in DR for a long time now. Since that is related to copyright, that is more important than these primary-secondary sources discussion. I am not asking you to upload any photo, but, talking about closing the previous discussion by keeping/deleting those photos! --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Tito, I had to step out. Regarding this matter, once again, I don't have the bandwidth just now to work on this particular project, but I will get around to it in the coming weeks. Until and unless I have uploaded replacement photos, I would rather not delete any photos that are in use on Wikipedia, because that might damage continuity of articles or templates. As you surely know, copyright issues mostly arise when an injured party complains. As AMPS is the only party that might be injured by a copyright infringement here - and as I am representing AMPS in this respect - you have my assurance that no complaint from AMPS will arise while I am the one who is clearly delaying this matter. So, for now, if you happen to find any AM-related photo on Wiki Commons that is not in use and that may involve a violation of copyright, feel free to delete it. But if the photo is currently used by a Wikipedia article or template, my request is that you kindly wait for me to upload a replacement photo. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Commons:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle discards points like The copyright owner is not going to lodge any complaint or will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work.. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, Tito... I am representing the copyright owner here. I have sent you the documentation to prove that. So if I say something to you about AM-related files, the copyright owner is legally bound by my words. There is no "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file" here... at least not for the time being. Hence, what you have quoted at Commons:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is not pertinent. However, I do not have the time to argue endlessly about this matter with you. If you feel uncomfortable doing as I have requested, then just do whatever you feel best. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * a) Your behaviour is becoming rude- unexpectedly b) you are talking against i) what you told previously ii) the authorization (which mentions images uploaded by your account), c) you are not understanding the my situation in that DR which I am trying to keep on hold for a long time now. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Tito, I don't believe that my words were rude. Certainly there was no intent to be rude. But as you have taken my words that way, I apologize. Again, if you feel that you cannot keep this matter on hold for another couple weeks, then just do whatever you feel best. I also have a situation, and I am not in a position right now to dedicate time to the identification, location, and scanning of files for upload to Wiki Commons. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing to apologize, my dear Sir! But, it is a bit frustrating for me. In case you don't know that PROUT logo has been nominated for deletion and I am trying to defend it! Also read the last few posts here and then assess my position there and my posts (to hurry up) here! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears from that discussion that Bob Rayner is a very suspicious fellow and quite hasty - dare I say "uncivil" - with his accusations. But, hey, we knew that already. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, Tito, I just had a closer look at the discussion on Wiki Commons and gave a short reply to Bob Rayner. In any event, I also looked over all of the images in Category:Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar. Other than those that have been uploaded with presumably valid personal authorization (for example, the graphic by Sohail Inayatullah and Samantha Wilcocks as well as its Polish translation), I see no problem in deleting the various photos of Sarkar that were not done with organizational permission (in other words, all of them except the three that I recently uploaded - the three "gentleman photos"). All of the photos of Sarkar on that page are commonly sold by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha, and none of them - to the best of my knowledge - has ever been authorized for free distribution outside of the explicit, written authorization letter that I recently was given and presented. To maintain continuity, would it be possible to replace any of the withdrawn photos of Sarkar that are in use with "File:PRSarkar GentlemanPhoto 3.jpg"? Later, I will upload a higher quality scan of that photo, but for now the current version should suffice. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. It turns out that this specific matter is not as complicated as I anticipated. There are, however, other photos and images that we need to deal with in connection with Ananda Marga, but let me not open up that particular can of worms just now. A few weeks please. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * a) I was saying the same thing i.e. deleting unauthorized unused photo b) in case you have not noticed I have added special permission in your uploads like this. c) though unauthorized, I like few files there! --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like some of those other photos too... well, probably all of them. And it may be that some of those other photos give a better impression than the photos that I know have been authorized for public distribution. I began a discussion of this on my last trip to India, but the wheels of bureaucracy grind very slowly. So I doubt that a formal decision to release additional photos will be taken in the near future. On this matter, I prefer not to take a chance on overstepping any boundaries. (Yes, I saw the special permission that you added to my uploads. Thanks.) --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is
...Cornellius? His articles have been nominated for deletion (see his talk page) where he should post now! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Progressive utilization theory
FYI: Per your previous involvement in the discussion, I thought you might be interested in commenting in Talk:Progressive utilization theory. Location (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you canvassing for support, Location? :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Canvas --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt, Tito. The proposal is utter rubbish, but the notification is surely valid. Hence my use of the emoticon. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

On notability
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this.

Thanks,

Garamond Lethe 13:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Garamond, my opinion is that your advice is to some extent sound and in all likelihood well-intentioned. However, I also think that your advice may put the horse before the cart. There are five criteria at WP:NB, of which only one criterion must be met to achieve notability. ("A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria.") Cornelius has started his work based on assumption that at least criteria (3) and (5) are met. Unfortunately, AfDs are put forward allegedly on the basis of WP:NB but without considering the five criteria listed there. I find that somewhat disturbing. Even if any particular book is not very notable in terms of having "independent reviews" of the book itself rather than just the topic of the book, what great harm is done to Wikipedia or the public by having a short article on that book in Wikipedia? Frankly, I don't see any. Furthermore, this issue goes well beyond a question of AfD's on books. As seen in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Microvitum in a Nutshell, effectively some of the same people behind that AfD nomination have now peremptorily eliminated the article in chief without anything more than a discussion of less than three hours among two or three non-admin editors at Fringe/n. Yes, the redirect can be undone. But should a reversion even be necessary in the first place? How much time must new editors waste merely trying to defend their contributions against such type of unhelpful and non-constructive edits? When experienced editors behave like this with new editors - and when they get away with it by essentially gaming the system (with offline communication and non-neutral "canvassing" on non-neutral noticeboards) - it would not surprise me if Wikipedia sees a decline in the number of active editors. It certainly does not surprise me that Wikipedia still lacks credibility among serious intellectuals. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughtful response. Let's start by taking a look at 3 and 5.
 * The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
 * If you have a cite in hand attesting to the work's significant contribution then, again, writing the article (and defending the article against deletion) becomes really simple.
 * The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.
 * This one just isn't going to fly. If I wanted to create an article about, say, John Milton's Trinity Manuscript (basically his school notebook, later reprinted in facsimile editions) and I couldn't find a review of the work, then I could fall back on pointing out that Milton is one of the top five writers in the English language.  This argument would be difficult with a top-20 author and pretty much impossible for a top-50 author.  When I consult a book like Handbook of Twentieth Century Literatures in India Sarkar isn't even mentioned.  Ditto for works such as Economic Thought Since Keynes: A History and Dictionary of Major Economists.  Of course, if you can find a reliable source that places Sankar on the plane of Milton, Shakespeare and Chekhov, great.  But I think we both understand those citations don't exist.


 * Based on the rest of your comments I think you understand this. So let me take up the more interesting line of argument.
 * [W]hat great harm is done to Wikipedia or the public by having a short article on that book in Wikipedia?
 * That's an excellent question and I'm going to give you a very blunt answer. Wikipedia, through the efforts of tens of thousands of editors, has been slowly gaining a reputation for being both accurate and, well, encyclopedic.  You're asking to benefit from our reputation without having to do the hard work of living up to it.


 * I'll respond to one last point:
 * How much time must new editors waste merely trying to defend their contributions against such type of unhelpful and non-constructive edits?
 * As much time as it takes to find reliable sources, I expect. Which brings me back to my original point:  if you start with reliable sources in hand before you write the article, then all of this drama is avoid.  If you write the article and then start looking for reliable sources, the article is going to be deleted.


 * To close, wikipedia is a tertiary source that, at its best, is a summary of reliable secondary sources. You're contributions towards this goal will be welcome.  If you decide not work from reliable sources then you're going to continue to have the same problems you're having now.  I'm happy to help and would like to see you become a more successful editor, which is why I started this discussion here rather than on the AfD pages.  If there are sources you'd like me to vet or questions you have, please drop me a line on the talk page.


 * I understand you're trying to help make this a better encyclopedia; you'll be much more success in that once you figure out what the rules are and learn how to play within them.


 * Very sincerely,


 * Garamond Lethe 16:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very rarely, I see majestic replies in Wikipedia. This was one! One must see this post and try to learn how to present an argument! Thank you! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ... but appreciated the effort if not the content. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Garamond, thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful response. But I must say that you pretty much lost me with your comment that if I can show (3), then "defending the article against deletion becomes really simple". Have a look at the AfD nomination in respect to the three books that comprise the Ananda Marga social code: Articles_for_deletion/Ananda_Marga_Caryacarya_(Parts_1,_2,_and_3). Not only was a defense not simple, the defense was not successful... despite the fact that reliable sources were presented. (Please note that reliable sources are not always secondary or even independent sources.) As to the rest of your remarks, I really cannot say why something did not appear in some books. Quite possibly, one factor that might have bearing on this is that the books of P. R. Sarkar are all published internally by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha, and there is no intention of changing that policy. As to the credibility of Wikipedia, perhaps you overrate it. Or perhaps you think that just because I disagree with some policies of Wikipedia (or just your interpretation of those policies), I am not prepared to "do the hard work of living up to" some reputation or other. For your kind information, I have put in well over 400 hours of my time just constructing two articles for Wikipedia, trying my level best to create the best possible article that I could in conformity with the rules of Wikipedia as I understand them. I have also spent many hours (although much fewer than 400) copyediting another editor's articles - two articles that are outside of the "Sarkarverse" and which, I believe, were both approved for DYK. So, yes, your reply was blunt, but I believe it was also off the mark. Anyway, I sincerely thank you for taking the time and making an effort to advise and enlighten me. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What's your best reliable source for the notability of any of the books at AfD? 19:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Garamond, pardon me, but did you even read what was written at Articles_for_deletion/Ananda_Marga_Caryacarya_(Parts_1,_2,_and_3)? The preceptor of Ananda Marga has declared that this is the social code of the religious movement, in other words, comparable within Ananda Marga to the Halakha of Judaism or the Sharia of Islam. You have the Supreme Court of India recognizing the importance of Caryacarya to Ananda Marga and to its members. You have the ruling of a judge in the Denver District Court stating the same thing (and, IIRC, also praising these books for their comprehensive and detailed coverage). Virtually every senior member of Ananda Marga would tell you exactly the same thing. Many people in this world get married according to Caryacarya, they get divorced according to Caryacarya, they get named at birth according to Caryacarya, and they get cremated or buried at death according to Caryacarya. What more are you looking for? In any event, if you cannot see the absurdity of deleting a short article on the set of books corresponding to the social code of a religious movement - and if you cannot comprehend that deleting an article on a series of 26 books on philology (Articles for deletion/Shabda Cayanika) - makes no sense whatsoever, then it seems that there is a fundamental disconnect in our communication. As I see it, this type of lunacy is being legitimized by a dogmatic application of WP policy (contrary to the fifth pillar of WP (WP:IAR), and this dogmatic approach gains traction primarily because Sarkar's books are published in-house rather than through the typical backscratching intellectual network, which quickly and easily tends to generate book reviews for even the most worthless publications. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I meant any articles that are currently at AfD. I don't have access to this article and know nothing about it, but sure, let's take a look at the cite. I see three mentions of the book in the entire decision. That's sufficient to establish that the book exists. Is it sufficient to meet the guidelines for notability?

I would argue not. If notability could be conferred on books by their reference in a court case, then the telephone directories at issue in Feist v. Rural could get their own article.

Am I to believe that Caryacarya is such a minor work that no textbook mentions it, no peer-reviewed articles have been written discussing its influence, no newspaper or magazines have reviewed it, and no one has written a dissertation on it? Any of those citations would be more effective than a rather obscure court decision that references the text only in passing.

Don't get me wrong: I'd like to have this article. But if I'm going to help bring it back from deletion I need a better argument than this. Garamond Lethe 20:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is on my watchlist so you don't need to notify me at my talk page when you respond. Garamond Lethe 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Garamond, I don't have a better argument than this. And, quite frankly, I find it rather appalling that you - or Wikipedia - would need a "better argument than this". Comparing the social code of a religious movement, written by that movement's preceptor, to a telephone book is a bit absurd, don't you think? You might just as well argue that the United States Constitution is the equivalent of a user manual for a hairdryer. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we've identified the problem. A particular religious movement exists, and while the movement itself has generated many, many texts, the movement has not gained sufficient outside attention to result in the coverage we usually associate with notable religious movements.  I can understand that being frustrating, but the playing field is level and there is a clear path forward for gaining notability.  You're welcome to keep trying to create articles in this area if you like, but as most editors (and all editors who hang out at AfD) understand that there are topics&mdash;and even religions&mdash;that don't (yet) meet our guidelines for notability, I don't have any reason to think you'll be successful in the absence of better sources.  Garamond Lethe  20:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Like I said, Garamond, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in our communication. Your latest remarks are just another example of that disconnect. I talk about a social code, and you talk about telephone books. I talk about books, and you talk about religious movements. I talk about religious movements, and you talk about Wikipedia dogma. You think "we've identified the problem". I think that we have not even come close to a meeting of minds. So I end up exactly where I began. Anyway, thank you for your effort to educate me. --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"...the movement has not gained sufficient outside attention to result in the coverage we usually associate with notable religious movements." Sorry Garamond but this assertion is simply false: you can easily find many many secondary and academic works on Shrii Prabahat Ranjan Sarkar. If a theory like yours above is based on such false assumptions this theory makes no sense. Of course history is full of false theories mixed with bureaucratic quibbles tailored to persecute minorities... Simply here, it strongly seems to me, you are tryiing to use good and apparently rational words, referring to a false theory, wisely distorting some WP rules only to mask the heavy attempt of censorship you made when you ask AfD for all those articles of a spiritual minority group. This seems to me not correct at all. It's very easy to delete. It's very difficoult to create new articles. WP is born to spread all human knowledge not only a part of it. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not the usual way of working of an editor/user. Sincerely--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cornelius, please don't engage Garamond Lethe in any further discussion here on my Talk page. It's a waste of time trying to educate him, and I would rather not be notified of further discussion with him (as automatically happens when any post appears on my Talk page). Sadly, Garamond's character is fully revealed at Articles_for_deletion/Prabhat_Samgiita - an AfD nomination that is so untenable (not to mention, morally repugnant) that the only one of his chums that has supported him so far is Bob Rayner. And if that is not enough, you can also see evidence of Garamond's character at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Liberation_of_Intellect:_Neohumanism. --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

New message:
then
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:PROUTlogo.gif
 * Commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Remarkable! Anyway, I added the official (OTRS) permission to your undeletion request. Alternatively, of course, we could have just uploaded this image again with different language. But now that this undeletion process has begun, we might as well let it take its course. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Crovetto discussion moved to WP:RSN
I've moved the discussion of the reliability of Crovetto's work here. If you have a moment, please consider summarizing your position there. Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe 20:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to turn it down a notch
Rather than head straight to AN/I I would like to ask you, as one adult to another, to stop, take a deep breath and think about what it is you're trying to accomplish here. I don't want an apology and I'm not going to tell you what to do, but I will tell you I expect a much higher level of civility than I've seen from you in the past few days. As I'm not wholly blameless here, I'd like to propose the following, say for the rest of this month: We will allow at least 12 hours to elapse before either one of us replies to the other. If you're willing to do this, I will reciprocate by discussing with you which additional Sarkar-related articles should be deleted, which can be salvaged and which you'll be working on in the near future.

Before you respond (and I am hoping you'll wait 12 hours before you do), I'd like to ask you again to think about what you're trying to accomplish here. Green children of Woolpit had 80000 views a few days ago when it was the featured article. Ananda Marga hasn't seen more than 420 page views per day over the past 90 days. I think we can get Ananda Marga to FA, but you need to make the transition (as I had to) from thinking about how you want the article to read to thinking about what reviewers expect. If you can make that transition, to the point where you're arguing, with examples, that a particular cite should be included or excluded based on how it will affect the FA review, then I think we can have a productive collaboration here.

<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe 04:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Given this, I guess you're not interested. Fair enough.  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe  04:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

sourcing
If I am to be able to find anything, I need the recordings information by this time tomorrow. In general, I would echo Garamond's advice: I do not think the emphasis on sources from within the movement appropriate--please see what I said last night on the RSN about Croveto. The course you are taking will lead to deletion of most of the challenged articles, and will make a FA impossible. The best way to proceed is to find some good third party sources, and add citations to them for the things they support, instead or or in addition to sources from within the movement.  DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * DGG, I saw what you said on RSN about Crovetto. The fact is that I can demonstrate how unreliable her work is; but I might not be able to do that through the indirect method of secondary sources making the same claim. As to a search for something in a New York database, I looked at it and did not seem much Indian music there. Of course, my glance was cursory. I am very busy. So I cannot say whether I will have the time to carry out such a search. For the rest, I will reply to what you wrote on the AfD page. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

An editor who made me totally speechless
User:Graham87, you have communicated with him, an admin, have 133,000 edits... but he is totally blind. --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that. As I recall, we were talking about the "Low" importance rating on the revised PROUT article in respect to the politics portal. I too was impressed. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion
Abhidevanandajii Perhaps you could be interested in this discussion on the article Ananda Marga. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
Tito Dutta (contact) 21:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Navbox image alignment
Using  should do the trick, like so:

Toohool (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That is easy enough, and it looks good. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Thank you.--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Vedanta Philosophy: An address before the Graduate Philosophical Society
The DYK project (nominate) 00:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to respond at AN/I
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Progressive Utilization Theory. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -Location (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * There is no disruption. The article is under construction. A template was inserted by Garamond, describing the article as a mere stub. So, as you have chosen to impose this primitive version of the article, I am merely adding appropriate templates and questions to help you improve it. If you want to write this article, you are free to do so. But as I am also interested in this article, I want to see that it is done right. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You have already been notified of this informally before : per assessment of the members of Arbitration Committee Progressive Utilization Theory falls within the purview of WP:ARBIND. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  06:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)