User talk:BalanceRestored

Leave me a message | Send me a mail.

August 2006
This is your last warning. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Please do not use talk pages to promote views or engage in debates. Again, please limit your posts to allow time for people to consider your statements and reply. Also, please leave decided topics alone, once it is clear what the consensus is on the issue. If you strongly disagree with the positions of others, please do not continue to argue the issue, but rather seek dispute resolution. If you continue with your current approach, you may be blocked to prevent the disruption and distraction. Thank you for understanding.'' Vassyana 07:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, what else I can say. I better shut my self. But, this is not right. I was only discussing Dab's comments. How do I decide when to raise a DR, and when not to I thought Dab was only questioning? How do I really decide if it is a normal comment or he is arguing?. Suddenly Dab types nonsense with out even finding facts, and all rush to help him. BalanceRestored 07:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * These people are desperately trying to keep me away from Veda. But, this is not research or getting to know facts. This is just bullying. I was presuming that Dab was counter questioning me, and there's nothing to be getting annoyed about that. I presented quotations from a very well known book. There were acquisitions that the source was false. I presented the details from the same. Leave it.. Now what do I do?BalanceRestored 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had already left details at my mentor talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hirohisat. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hirohisat&diff=152862890&oldid=152862128 BalanceRestored 07:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And DAB uses a very foul language, persistently, is that right? Did I not talk to you about that already?BalanceRestored 07:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, am I going too fast? But, I find everyone doing the same. I like to research Veda. I love that subject. So, I am only around it.BalanceRestored 07:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, VS, I don't really like to be complaining any where about anyone. We are all here finding facts, and understand what life is about. I am sure DAB too is a good person. Just that he loves to keep track of my findings. :)) BalanceRestored 08:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, Balance, I really understand you're into Vedas, but the point is, don't ever think of warning anyone, or otherwise assume good faith. Neither of you are making a mistake. It's just that both of you are trying to argue. If you still have doubts contact me. --H| H irohisat  Talk 08:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure DAB has did not read everything, he presumed that I wrote wrong keeping in mind what I did previously. He forgets that I could have probably corrected my methods. BalanceRestored 09:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying best to correct my earlier mistakes, lets see. The world did not change in a day. :)BalanceRestored 09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where exactly is this happening? --H| H irohisat  Talk 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you back?
↑ -- Hirohisat Kiwi 05:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. If I quit, it is not wise.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going though all the policies.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Gooooood Luck! -- Hirohisat Kiwi 06:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing at Talk:Vedas
Please don't resume spamming Talk:Vedas with irrelevant polemics or using it as a soapbox, (as you did here) for which you have been warned multiple times by multiple editors. If you have some relevant content to propose for the page and have a reliable reference for the purpose (and no, webpages for tirupati etc. do not qualify as you have been told before), you are welcome to do so, but be aware that on wikipedia references are judged based on their relevance and reliability (as per WP:RS) and not on the religion/nationality/race/ethnicity of their authors. Abecedare 06:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I presented a very clear view. I seem to voilate non below
 * Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]
 * Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
 * Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
 * Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I quoted a very plain view "No-India Seers?"''', I followed WP:BOLD and I think you need to WP:AGF. I understand you are surely taking things negatively. Cheers :)) BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Balance, sorry to bother you, but as your ex-adopter, I would like to comment. One, Abecedare did not violate AGF. He is actually citing a very important policy of wikipedia, WP:NOT. Even though you believe (and I agree with you on that viewpoint) that there should be a Indian view. However, Wikipedia is not a place to express different viewpoints based on your opinion. Even though I myself would like to add on some Japanese viewpoints on WW2, I do not add it since it is a POV. Your comment that Abecedare cited was not constructive at all, and only, and merely critised Wikipedia. Bring alternatives, and discuss; not only critisize. Explain why you think there needs to be Indian citations (again, agree with your point). Please remember, western citations are not always wrong. You can put information that follows NPOV, whether western or not. What Abecedare is indirectly trying to say is to be constructive. WP:BOLD is meant for construtive edits. Your comment, although tagged as spam, could be thought as a constructive discussion if it contains alternatives and less criticisms that would benefit the wiki. Please remember that this is just my point of view of the event. You have your opinion, and this is merely a suggestion. -- Hirohisat Kiwi 08:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can understand User:Abecedare being appropriate about his quoting. I cut short my long spammy looking message. I need to learn to be use a bit easy to handle language. Thank you for your comments.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Ganesha
If you repeat your vandalism and deletion of sourced content at Ganesha I will request an admin block or wider community sanctions against you. You have been warned umpteen times, so please desist. Abecedare 10:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am collecting a list of books that clearly quotes that Ganesha's name is there is the Veda. The Orthodox communities have performed poojas like Panchayatana from the time of Adi Shankara. I think you need to practice more WP:AGF, Cheers. These text currently at Ganesha is against the common faith. I have seen you wanted to post article related to prostitution at Mumbai. Well, I too am WP:AGF. I've not re-reverted your change yet nor have violated WP:3RR or WP:Civil. What made you so eager to call my revert as Vandalism?.
 * I've offered explanation for my changes at the Talk:Ganesha page. You have warned me before you explained and you are yet to give any explanations? BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The section the names of Ganesha is from Veda has WP:NOPOV problems. There are lot of views against it.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BR, you are now experienced enough on wikipedia to know why it is unacceptable to delete long-standing, well written content with unimpeachable references without discussion, based on purported claims of having "1000s of sources." Abecedare 10:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You are blocked for 31 hours. Many people have taken much time and patience to explain sourcing, balanced presentation, consensus and other aspects of Wikipedia culture and rules to you. I believe you are trying to contribute in good faith, but your editing practices are often disruptive and tiresome for many editors. Please take this time to reconsider your actions and behaviour. I believe you could be a wonderful contributor, but you need to respect consensus and follow the rules. Vassyana 10:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I do assume good faith WP:AGF. I offered an explanation at the talk page before I edited a content keeping in mind WP:BOLD. I won't challenge your block as always but it will be great if you offer me a better explanation "often disruptive and tiresome for many editors". Was my current action INVALID? I did not re-revert. I did what everyone else here is doing!!! Just that after learning, I am sure everyone starts fresh with a new ID, and I have sustained with the same. I've the GUTS to take comments and even to practice the right.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried everything inline with the policy, didn't I? BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article itself is well sourced mentioning the detailed information from Yajur Veda. I pushed the section up. The article it self is clearly mentioning that the Deity Ganesha is taken from Yajur Veda.
 * Also I was re-editing few sections back. Should I've been not given time to edit completely? AB reverted my edit before I completed editing entirely.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 12:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (cur) (last) 10:00, 14 September 2007 BalanceRestored (Talk | contribs) (70,080 bytes) (→Vedic and epic literature - kindly create a seperate article for these Ganesha allegory, Hindu allegory) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 10:03, 14 September 2007 Abecedare (Talk | contribs) (74,710 bytes) (revert vandalism by User:BalanceRestored) (undo)
 * I have a habit of editing in parts. You can check my editing style from my Contributions. I do not know if there was a policy even for that. I needed to comment on every section of edit with reasons. I think I needed to be given more time before reverting. BalanceΩrestored  Talk 12:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This reason from AB, is very very wrong, Finally and worst of all, he simply deleted two well written (copyedited by two editors from WP:LOCE!) and extensively referenced passages from the article itself with edit summary "kindly create a seperate article for these Ganesha allegory, Hindu allegory". I dare say he does not understand the meaning of the word allegory which makes no sense in this context, but is repeating it only because User:Dbachman used it in a discussion with him a day back. I was half way editing and adjusting things, before I found the article already reverted.  I will next time practice quoting "- still editing" suffix at the comments. I hope it clears this problem too.

About Ganesha edit
1. The current section starts with "Ganesha as we know him today does not appear in the Vedas."

2. But this next section which was already well sourced was contradicting facts!!!

3. The section which clearly said that and was referred by AB to refer, only after reading I considered deleting the stuff. ''Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, '  (2.9.1) and ' (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" ('), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" ('). These names are suggestive of Ganesha and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. ''

these lines clearly explains that Lord Ganesha is found in the Vedas. The section was controvertial.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See this next line "Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions." . How can one arrive at inferences at a consideration and write such lines "Ganesha as we know him today does not appear in the Vedas.". The section was wrong, I corrected the same.

SO, I edited the invalid part. Now, what did I do wrong. It was 100% clear that the section is wrongly addressing facts. Did I do anything wrong?

You are right about "Many people have taken much time and patience to explain sourcing, balanced presentation, consensus and other aspects of Wikipedia culture and rules to you.". But, I thought it was but obvious, I needed to explain you what happened. I still WP:AGF, and consider that you had good reasons to block me. I will find my own mistakes here.

To end it for the day, Editors kindly have a look at the article for everything. I think everything should be well justified. I don't find any pleasure in disturbing people.

test
test

Mango in Vedas
Hello there, I've been having some difficulties in the Mango article page trying to cite a statement describing the mango as the 'the food of the gods', as mentioned in the Vedas. I've had a pretty long discussion with User:Paul144, you may refer to the contents of the discussion in my talk page and in his. To summarise, as we are not reaching a consencus, I was wondering if you could help me find the exact verse in the Vedas that describes the fruit as 'the food of gods', if not some verses that prominantly mentions the fruit. I'd need to know the verse and the version of the Vedas you are referring for a valid citation. I contacted you as I noticed on the Vedas discussions page that you have significant knowledge on the texts and I'm hoping you can help me out with this, as I'm not familiar with it. Looking forward to your reply. Thanks and have a nice day! S3000 ☎  17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! thanks. I'll invite them to my talkpage and see what they have to say. S3000  ☎  11:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Shivkar Bapuji Talpade
This is regarding the wikipedia article on Shivkar Bapuji Talpade which you have contributed to. Can you tell us about the first reference you've made to "Asia:Asian Quarterly of Culture And Synthesis, American Asiatic Association, Published 1942, Page 40" Where did you find this and can you lead us to a copy?

I live in Mumbai, India and have personally met Pratap Velkar, D.H. Bedekar and other other people who are constantly mentioned in articles about Talpade. I am in possession of Talpade's 1907 book and various articles which have been published in Marathi as well as English newspapers and magazines. I also have access to the magazines which Talpade edited in 1904.

Most newspaper articles on the subject endlessly repeat the same mistakes as each other and have used each other as sources. None of those journalists have done any legwork on this. If you lead us to that article I've mentioned above it might help us go forward.

I have left th exact same message on he discussion page of the article on wikipedia as well as in your mail.

thanks.

regards.

Karan A Makhija (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Can you tell us about the first reference you've made to "Asia:Asian Quarterly of Culture And Synthesis, American Asiatic Association, Published 1942, Page 40" Where did you find this and can you lead us to a copy?' No I have not contributed to "Asia:Asian Quarterly of Culture And Synthesis, American Asiatic Association, Published 1942, Page 40".  BalanceΩrestored Talk 09:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got that from here http://books.google.com/books?q=talpade+Asian+Quarterly+of+Culture+And+Synthesis&btnG=Search+Books  BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

more on Shivkar Bapuji Talpade
hi.

thank you for your response.

i didn't mean that you had written for that magazine.

i meant, since it showed as a source in an article you contributed, i was wondering if you had a copy of that article. or if you know whether it was available on the internet. and if so, could you lead me to it.

thanks again

cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan A Makhija (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashok Kamte
Hi I have adopted Mumbai Police And Mumbai Fire Brigade I'll take responsibility of Ashok Kamtes article-- Suyog talk to me!  08:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi I suspect that User:Dbachmann is not Indian!
 * He is not, but he is one of a seniors here, also someone with admin privileges. He may not be aware of the current happenings.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 09:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

DNA information
wanted to know if adding DNA information of Aboriginals from various countries be useful. 

Invalid Authoritative Statements
How are invalid authoritative statements handled at wiki? If a research is well referenced but for some reason outdated, what is the procedure to correct the same. BalanceΩrestored Talk 18:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should try to find an updated reliable source. If something said that it was no longer valid, then you could just change the statement using that source.  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFY Wikipedia is based off verifiability, not truth, so even if it is wrong, it would probably stay if there were no references to back up the correct version.  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, what if I clearly notice a statement that's not backed with adequate scientific research, but, yet authoritative is there a way to ask for specific citations to back the research work? BalanceΩrestored Talk 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * citation needed  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did that here, but they got removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_mythology&action=historysubmit&diff=334897634&oldid=334897483, now what can be done?  BalanceΩrestored Talk 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you overused it a bit. You should bring it up on the talk page.  fetch  comms  ☛ 19:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I should have gone slow with it. BalanceΩrestored Talk 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hindu mythology
Hi! I'm leaving this message to help figure out the dispute at and try to better understand your concerns. What about the article concerns you? What is the main problem, as you see it? How can the article be improved? Do you object to the term "mythology"? If so, why do you object to it? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! the reason is simple, certain things which looks inappropriate today, could be appropriate tomorrow. This is what we have seen though out in the past history, people did these, when the logical scientist said, "The earth is round", "Humans can fly", "Humans can reach the moon" and so forth. The word myth, which is more or less associated with "false" should not be used with Vedas at least. For the past two years I've been studying Vedas. What I come to know is, most of it is pure mathematics and logic. It contains historic recordings which has been passed on from generations to generations. Just because humans in certain generation are not able to reason the text, cannot just call it false on the fly. They have to provide concrete scientific evidence even for stating things were false.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I better understand your view. Wikipedia does not address what is ultimately true or may be proven at some later time. Wikipedia simply presents matters as they are currently understood by reputable authorities. Our core policy, "NPOV", requires that we only present what covered in reliable sources and that we do so with the same weighting. The overwhelming majority of scholars view the Vedas as religious texts filled with allegory and mythology, just as they do nearly all religious texts, and thus Wikipedia will present the topic the same way. The personal beliefs, interpretations, and conclusions of Wikipedia editors are not permitted to be used as the basis for our coverage. We only report the views and opinions published in reliable sources. Majority views will determine the main tone, organization, and emphasis of our coverage. Attempts to contradict or combat this editing model will often be seen as inappropriate and even disruptive. If I can help explain this further, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! I think you are getting me wrong. It is not about "Majority view" or "Minority view". The verifiable sources does not mention anything about how they arrive at the conclusion that statements in Vedas are stories, false etc. I only am questioning them. The authors should have been narrated by some reliable source regarding the vedas being false, or the authors arrived at the conclusion after doing some research... But, currently none of the sources mention the same. BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

BR, You are misinterpreting what the sources and wikipedia article, Hindu mythology and Vedic mythology, are saying and then demanding for references and evidence to back up your misinterpretations ! You are also repeatedly making an argument from ignorance, and asking others to provide evidence that scholarly sources are not wrong, ,. Many editors have tried to point the fallacy of your arguments, the need to follow secondary sources etc, and I have guided you to authoritative references on the subject. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have followed any of the advice, or read and understood any of the sources, and your posts on the talk pages are increasingly tendentious. If you continue in this vein of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I will be requesting that you be blocked, or even banned as having exhausted the community's patience. Hopefully you'll rethink and rectify your behavior before that stage is reached. As I have recommended many times before, you really should get a WP:MENTOR to guide you on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing all the references. I did discuss all that at other places as well. I understand the concerns at wiki, fortunately I did find other places where I could exchange views in a better way. I did get useful results to back what I did point. Once, I've done my research I will surely update them at wiki.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like you are having some difficulty with understanding how we treat sources and what we mean by reliable sources. Taking a look over those links, can you see why other editors thought your statements and concerns were out of line with our content policies? Vassyana (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@BalanceRestored: I recommend taking a bit of time to look over Dispute resolution. It has a lot of information, advice, and links about working with others on Wikipedia. If you have any questions as you look it over, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Vassyana, there's no need to raise a wp:dr for the while. Everyone were raising their concerns and I was raising mine. I will spend sometime, understand wiki's requirements. I will surely talk to you before I message.  Thanks for the help  BalanceΩrestored  Talk 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually wanted to know if there was a provision to question statement's authenticity. E.g. If someone quotes, Mrs XYZ is pregnant. To arrive at such statements one has to have enough medical reports to prove the same. Wanted to know if it was allowed at wiki to question statements. Also, I was mentioned being disruptive for posting too many tags. So, I wanted to know if there is a policy which states frequency w.r.t disruptive behavior.  BalanceΩrestored  Talk 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm stopping by to see how things are going. How is the editing at and other articles? Are you having any difficulties? Are things going smoothly? Do you need any advice or assistance? Vassyana (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All is going fine, just lost my job again. Will need to first get things back on track.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 13:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Got a new job, this one is better than the last, I will be back editing, that I have a stable mindset now.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad of Ghor
Mr. Adil removed verified references twice pls, let me know what should be done. BalanceΩrestored Talk 18:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, it seems like you are looking for advice. If you can, sort this out with the user on his talk page or the article's talk page. However, please do try to keep civil, as this will greatly help.  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it ok to remove a verified ref? BalanceΩrestored Talk 18:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think another author, replaced the text. BalanceΩrestored Talk 18:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hindu mythology
It was a mistake, I must clicked some undo button on the watchlist. Sorry. Reverted. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no problem sir, it happens. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year, too. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

APPEAL TO YOU Reg: [BRAHMAN PUJAN], [UNIVERSAL PRAYERS]. written by [Naresh Sonee] On wikipedia, These above two pages are far older than the present article [Brahman] References of above titles are also available on New York site - http://www.printsasia.com/BookDetails.aspx?Id=445813482 Meanwhile, Can your good selves in Wiki Project Indian Community re-create a precise pages on [Naresh Sonee] & his book [Brahmand Pujan] – [Brahmaand Pujan]. However, Sonee is the writer of  this  book  [Brahmand Pujan] written in 1999. registered with Government of India- HRRD. Details of the registration is provided here on http://brhmaandpujanbook.tripod.com/. More than sufficient, news and reviews are there on http://brhmaandpujan-news-reviews.tripod.com/ Since 5-6 yrs, for one or the other reason pages of [Naresh Sonee] & [Brahmand Pujan] are faced by communal bias from outside India  so these articles over and again get deleted here in Wikipedia for minor reasons. However, many hits of - Naresh Sonee reflects on google search engine also. So, I request Wiki Indian community to kindly come forward and generously help these two pages to grow, as I am fed up to fight my case alone here [left] and moved out long back. Meanwhile, such an important info/issue on ‘Indian literature’  which adds & spell  ‘new meaning /dimension’  to Brahman -should it stay lost else ignored? Your community panel has to judge at last. Myself, will not be on Wikipedia, for the same i apologise, but- pls. help these two pages to get reinstalled, reap, sow and grow, if you too feel so, I appeal to do this munificent favour. Regards- Dralansun (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Macaulayism


The article Macaulayism has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article is about a neologism. Google search shows only [22,000 https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Macaulayism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=s-ktVeGUD4LDmAWXh4GYAw#q=%22Macaulayism%22] results, only a few sources are reliable. This article may be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ken fyre (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Angiras Brahmin


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Angiras Brahmin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ZappyLongNose (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dalton E. McFarland


The article Dalton E. McFarland has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "insufficient evidence for notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Shivkar Bapuji Talpade for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shivkar Bapuji Talpade is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Shivkar Bapuji Talpade until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Editorkamran (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)