User talk:Bladesmulti/Archive 1

Welcome
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at List of religious populations. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dea db  eef  07:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to Water supply and sanitation in India
You have removed information that is based on references from Water supply and sanitation in India, claiming that the information you removed was not supported by references. When I undid your changes explaining the reasons, you deleted the information again immediately, then leaving the following comment on my talk page. It seems from that you are new on Wikipedia and that you have already engaged into an edit war concerning another article. Despite this, I do assume good faith on your part.

On substance, let me just take the example of "no major city in India is known to have a continuous water supply". This statement is supported by multiple sources in the article, such as [http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/WSP_Karnataka-water-supply.pdf World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (WSP): (September 2010). "The Karnataka Urban Water Sector Improvement Project: 24x7 Water Supply is Achievable"] which says that in 2003 "none of the 5,161 urban local bodies in India were delivering 24x7 water supply". In 2007 the situation had not changed, as can be seen in this source Asian Development Bank:2007 Benchmarking and Data Book of Water Utilities in India.

Since at least in one case you have deleted information that is based on several references, claiming that there was no reference in the article, this undermines your credibility. In order to gain credibility, I suggest that you reinstate yourself the information that you removed. Then I suggest that you carefully check the information in the article to see if the information that you want to remove is indeed not supported by sources. If after that you still believe that something should be removed, please state the reasons on the talk page of the article and give others a chance to comment before your remove that information. This being said, you may want to accept the offer to get advice from other editors at the teahouse.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing a credible source on continuous water supply as of 2010 on my talk page. I have included that information in the article. I would have appreciated if you had done that yourself instead of simply removing the 2006 information. You also make reference to a source indicating improved continuity in three cities in Karnataka. This information was already included in the article. If you read the source carefully, you will notice that it says that only some parts of the three cities enjoy continuous supply. Otherwise, you were right about removing the number of people dying from diarrhea in India, which was wrong. Thank you for catching that mistake. However, you have also removed other information that should not have been removed based on the information available, such as the share of the population without access to sanitation (properly sourced in the corresponding section) and the dismal working conditions of sanitation workers (also properly sourced in the reference at the end of the paragraph). This information has now been reinserted. You can respond on this page.--Mschiffler (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Water pollution
Your recent edits removed a good and robust reference and replaced it with a "citation needed " flag. They also removed a very acceptable image of the Ganges and replaced it in two steps with an alternative image without explaining why, and these same edits also removed an important paragraph about the impact of pollution on human health. Can you provide reasons for these edits please ?  Velella  Velella Talk 12:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Velella, the image of Ganges no where actually shows the pollution, since that corner of the river is usually crowded, neither need to call river as "polluted", same type of offense was left on a Indian related page regarding "sanitation and water supply" which was removed 1 week ago. Then the source is not working at all, nor there's any 2nd source of that information so i asked for citation. Now comes to the "700 million people have no access", first of all, having toilet or not have to do nothing with water pollution at all, 2nd thing, the figure is about "500 million" not 700 million now, that's why. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also if you look at this source of UNICEF related organisation from 2012, you would know that it's not 1000 deaths per day in India because of Diarrhea, but close to 581. This source may work for the link that "Domestic sewage is typically 99.9 percent water with 0.1 percent pollutants".. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maurya Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Cox-Forbes theory
Bladesmulti, if anyone gets blocked, I will wager it will be you. I welcome administrator scrutiny of your edits at Cox-Forbes theory. Quale (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574270126 your edit] to Lebanese Civil War may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * been dominated by Maronite Christians since the state was created as a safe haven for them by the French

Contested changes to Women's health in India and to Water supply and sanitation in India
Dear Bladesmulti, I'm contacting you as I was the GA reviewer for Women's health in India earlier this year, and I see that there has been some discussion about unsourced changes that you have made to the article. Firstly let me say that all changes that may be contested must be provided with sources for WP:Verifiability and where needed also to establish WP:Notability -- these principles are actually central to Wikipedia, as otherwise articles could contain WP:MADEUP materials or personal opinions, which are considered Original Research and not permitted in the encyclopedia. Secondly, may I remind you of the importance of WP:Civility at all times, especially in a talk page discussion which is seeking to resolve a disagreement. My view of the matter is that your actions on these articles are almost certainly not justified, and in any case have certainly been made without suitable sources to justify them. I believe that if you conform to these suggestions, no further action will be needed, so I do hope that you will leave the articles to develop peacefully now. With my best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Chiswick Chap, the edits in Water supply and sanitation in India are made by "Mschiffler", and approved, not me. And about Water supply and sanitation in India, the edits were agreed on talk page already, this guy named "Jasdeepsgill"'s doesn't say anything more than "my article", he's trying to push it hard that because he created the article, he can put whatever he wants. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears the matters on both articles are well in hand, so I'll say no more. However on 22 August you did delete a cited claim from the water article, for whatever reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well. These articles are hardly ever edited by the people though, another thing is that the user actually corrected the line, as per the source and actual stat. So it's obviously an improvement. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Bladesmuti, I haven't kept track but I may have reverted several of your edits in the recent weeks, but please don't interpret this to be picking on you. In fact, I think many of your edits to articles on my watchlist are improvements. Unfortunately, in your effort to remove tags from articles, you often seem to pick dubious publications from Google Books. I would recommend that you pay more attention to the publishers, authors, and content of these books before adding them. For example, check if the authors have any academic credentials or publication record (through google scholar); or if the publishers are an on-demand publication; or, if the book makes tall claims that hurt its credibility. These steps take a few extra minutes, but help ensure that content on wikipedia is not being backed up by junk sources. If in doubt, you can always consult editors you trust or post at WT:HNB or WP:RSN. Hope this helps and is not unwelcome advice. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Abecedare, Swastika might be only article where you reverted my edit, other one being bhavishya purana, I may find better source, then let you know, once it's done. Thanks for the advise. Cheers. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have undone a few of your recent changes to the Upanishad article. I have tried to leave explanatory edit-summaries but in case the reasoning is not clear, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Abecedare (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Shiva
Thanks for finding this but I've rewritten it to make it clear that these are historical symbols/paintings. I've removed all but the World Heritage soure - the others are not really RS for archeology and in any case don't actually mention paintings of Shiva, just ones that remind them of Shiva. I've also specified what the paintings/symbols were. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, just checked. Welcome! Bladesmulti (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick notes
Neither of these issues is critical, and I am guilty of errors of both kinds, but I thought I'd let you know. Abecedare (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most India and Hinduism related articles are written in British/Indian English and use the corresponding spelling conventions. That's the reason "characterised" was indeed the preferred spelling here.
 * Yogi is, in general, not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. Many editors have noted that India and Hinduism related articles and concerned editors tend to (improperly) capitalize technical terms and/or terms they think are important (as in "Ghalib was a Poet [sic] known for his Ghazals [sic]").

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vegetarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2 2013
i would like to draw your attention on democracy page to lines written on Aristotle, is it not sort of biography, and you deleted a small link of mine saying it is... Dr B.R. Ambedkar contributed to the democracy in India - the whole country. and what are your views on Foucault-Habermas debate link is it not type of vandalism. thank you. and what are the " other reasons". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav Indian (talk • contribs) 14:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577291376 your edit] to Durga Puja in Odisha may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * *Cuttack Durga Puja

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=578497537 your edit] to Hinduism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * origin known by scholars as Proto-Indo-European." although such ideas remains disputed. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Gxq540du26oC Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics, By
 * | title =Heraclitus and Iran | journal =History of Religions | volume =3 | issue =1| year =1963 | pages=34–49 | doi =10.1086/462470}}

Please provide Edit Summaries for your Edits
Bladesmulti - I saw your recent edits to the Swaminarayan article. Thank you for your contributions to the Swaminarayan article. .  Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad deletion at Religious text
You removed the Epic of Gilgamesh from this article, stating "Epic of Gilgamesh" is mostly dated by 13th century BCE, so removed, not sourced either". The dates in the main article are the dates you removed. And of course it was sourced there. Removing something easily sourceable is always a bad idea. But thanks for the edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, which one is correct? 13th century or 20th century. Main point. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The earliest dates are the ones we use. That's the origin of what we call the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's obviously a bit complicated but if people want the deals they can click on the link. And the first combined epic is 18th century, not 13th. There never actually was anything called "The Epic of Gilgamesh", that's our name for it. But the basis of the epic was created as the source and the article says. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds to be correct. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Good catch
Here and here. After seeing your edit, I reworked the sentences (and previous sub-section) further to clarify the issue. And in case you didn't notice: the citation that was being used to support the 4000BCE dating actually dates the period of composition of the Rigvedas to 1300-600 BCE. ( The Page 251 that was being cited is in the section where the author discussing the 19th century Hinduism Renaissance in which figures like Dayanand Sarawswati and Tilak were re-conceptualizing Hinduism to emphasize the centrality (and antiquity) of the Vedas, often as a reaction to "foreign" criticism of practices like Sati, casteism etc. A previous editor had just picked up a date from that page without considering the context, and the edit had stuck till you detected the problem. Nice work again. Abecedare (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human sacrifice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kufah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Temples
You reverted my edit with no explanation. The band are called Temples, if you type Temples into the search box it takes you to Temple (depite the article originally being created at Temples - someone then changed it to Temples (band)). So the re-direct thing at the top of this page is fully justified in neccessary.

92.8.23.77 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written
The article on I Ching stated that the earliest manuscript that's been "found" dates to (475–221 BC) to the Warring States period, but that's not when it was actually "written". I'm sure you know the difference right? I'm also quite baffled by your insertion of the date "4th – early 2th century BC"? 475-221 BC would be 5th-3rd century BC, not 4th-2nd century BC (you used 2th century BC). There are scholarly references in the article that mentions dating from "1000 BC and before". That's why the date was used. I'm also quite baffled by why you don't change the date of 9th century BC for the Upanishads, when there are no actual archaeological evidence for that date (are there written manuscript of Upanishads that's been found dating back to 9th century BC?). I'm sure you use the 9th century BC as the approximate date for when it was "written" right?--Sevilledade (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

All in all, your edits on the article are quite inconsistent. If you insist on using the 475-221 BC date (which is the earliest manuscript that's been found for I Ching), then you should adjust all the other dates to their earliest existing manuscript.--Sevilledade (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism - IVC - dates
It feels unfriendly to revert you again, but it's just the details, nothing else. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My edit was largely meant to correct the wikilink though. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. My problem was that those dates are not in the source itself, so I put it in a note. maybe I should have used square brackets, instead of a note. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Top Marks
Thanks for your edits undoing the obvious POV pushing trollery of Cogiati's drive-by edits to the Devadasi article. The article is in better shape now than it was a month ago, when it was full of media crap. I'd welcome a deeper look into the material for a balanced version and I would suggest that you watchlist it as it is a POV magnet for Indophobes.Handyunits (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Einstein quote
Always be careful of sourcing when inserting an Einstein quotes, who just like Yogi Berra didn't really say half the things he is said to have said. :) Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Nirmal Baba
I don't understand how the material you removed can be called original research. I've reinstated it, please explain your reasoning at Talk:Nirmal Baba. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
The Times article says "raised fears" and that the 'possibility' was being investigated.. Just speculation and clearly not a source to claim human sacrifice, even if later reports say her husband was never seen after her death. See also this recent report. - we simply do not know why she was killed. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, a page about this incident can be created? Just asking, since it was popular. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. It's still all speculation, all we know is that she was beheaded. I've revised your edit at Rock art as we don't want to suggest that the art is as old as the cave. At Bhimbetka I've commented at the talk page - we should only be using archaeological sources. Acheulean is pretty old, although I think this may be late Acheulean. But earlier suggestions of much earlier occupation seem to be wrong. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok Dougweller, last question, may i remove all datings from the page Rock art? Or you will do it, there are few, who have added the date, even though it's not about dating, like you mentioned here. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Compare it with the other article first. If the other article has an academic source for the same date, add the source. If different dates, probably fix it. If neither has sources and the dates are the same, add fact tags. If different dates, try to find sources for the correct dates. Remember later sources are preferred as shown at Bhimbetka where earlier dates have been shown to be wrong. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=582475021 your edit] to Jāti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * flags and emblems based on these..."

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583128408 your edit] to Criticism of Sikhism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Guru Nanak opposed polytheistic practices. Nanak, during his trip to Mecca had debate with [[

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583578985 your edit] to Sinophobia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Improve this section
I'll take a look. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Jainism
Hello, Bladesmulti, I have copy pasted your along with my comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion to Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics, where User Rahul has started a parallel thread on the topic. Please excuse me for doing this. Just for your info. Regards. Jethwarp (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Claimants of Brahmin Status
ref P. 102 ,Vol -13, JOIAS ,https://www.google.co.in/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=Namahsudra. This is the first evidence of The Claim, Then after along course of social interactions the The Vyavastha were given by the Chief Brahmin Pundits of Bengal, and Very recently Their adi-Santo_guru SriSri Harichand Thakur has been accepte as the Purno Brahmo as well , and the Govt.has allotted lands to build their math , Matua-Mahasnagha in The New Town ,Calcutta.I Think this refernce is copmlementary to that.I do not have an account but I added the reference which I incidentalli found.This is an cultural anthropological evidence.The Brahmin group is also an cultural anthropological community not all sections are related by blood.Although in a particular region they are endogampous117.194.205.238 (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC) .

Dalitstan.org
Hi. You created a "third nomination" Afd for Dalitstan.org, but there aren't already two other Afd discussions for that article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * —Largo Plazo, How come.. Can you explain? This article was nominated 2 times before, for deletion.. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no Articles for deletion/Dalitstan.org (2nd nomination) or Articles for deletion/Dalitstan.org. I added the Afd2 template to the Afd you created; when there are multiple nominations, it's supposed to display a box with links to the earlier discussions, but it isn't finding them either. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot —Largo Plazo, I was away from computer for few minutes. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Girlband (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam
Bladesmith, thanks for sharing your concerns.


 * I do think that "nineteenth century" is an appropriate subsection to use under the "History" section. Organizing the history section based primarily on the religious affiliation of the author raising each critism means that we're making the reader jump back and forth between time periods.  It's easier to follow what's going on of if we look what each time period, and then within that time period, what individuals with different backgrounds were saying.  Also, there is at least an implicit dialogue between faiths in any given era.  As the article is improved, grouping the discussion by era will also make it easier for readers to understand how the intellectual climate affected views of Islam.  For instance, medieval critics will generally take different approaches than will enlightenment or 19th century critics.  Granted, it's difficult to organize a lengthy discussion like this, and there's doubtless a way to improve what we have.  I just don't think it makes sense to use the religious faith (or lack thereof) of the critic as the primary organizing principle.  Time period is just a much more natural way to organize a discussion of history.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "Even in talk page he has been assumed as a no namer." I did a word search on the talk page for Criticism of Islam for both "no namer" and for "Barton."  I didn't get a hit for either one.  Simply saying someone is a "no namer" isn't an argument.  Barton doesn't have a Wikipedia page, but that's not a pre-requisite for someone to be a reliable source.  He wrote a work on the Christian view of Islam that was issued by a reputable publisher, it's still available, and as best I can tell is representative of the then-current thinking of Christian critics of Islam.  We may or may not agree with that view, but the work is a reliable source that helps illustrate the thinking of the early 20th century.  If you have a better source on early 20th century criticism - or better yet, a secondary source that summarizes the primary 20th century criticisms - we should work it in.


 * I changed "parts of the world" to "the West" because the source cited was talking about the West. You're doubtless right that there are similar problems with assimilation to other non-Western cultures, and I'll support adding that point if we can find a source to document it.


 * If you have a couple of good sources on assimilation in Bangladesh, why don't you add that in? I'd suggest a sentence next to the one on assimilation in the West. EastTN (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. My issue was just that we stick to what we have sources for, and not say anything we can't document.  EastTN (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please remove or source statement about Jimmy Kimmel on Sinophobia
You have placed a statement about Jimmy Kimmel on Sinophobia. The reference you put in does not contain a valid URL, so it is not possible to verify your statement. News articles I have seen about the event say that a child actor said the quoted words in a skit, which is very different from Jimmy Kimmel saying the quoted words. Please fix, source, or remove the statement. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=584388491 your edit] to Criticism of Jainism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=585089732 your edit] to Karma may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * is the best answer in fostering peace and harmony in a multi-religious society", http://www.easternbookcorporation.com/moreinfo.php?txt_searchstring=3165 Eastern Book Company, ''
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * used in "Sanātana Dharma", and later religions such as Karma in JainismJainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, {{cite book|author=Parvesh Singla |title=The

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=585532270 your edit] to Anti-Christian sentiment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [{{fullurl:Anti-Christian sentiment|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+typo+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3ABracketBot%7CBracketBot%5D%5D}} edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), in their "About the Foundation FAQ {{red|&#93;}} ", states, "Our Constitution was very purposefully written as a godless document, whose only

Reading tip
Hi Bladesmulti. I don't know wat kind of books you can afford (the good books are expensive; I rely on birthdays and "St. Nicolaas"), but this book I can really recommand: "The origins of Yoga and Tantra" by Geoffrey Samuel. It gives an overview on recent research on the origins of the Indic religions, describing the western Ganges Plain (Kuru-Panchala) and the central Ganges Plain (Kosala-Magadha) as different cultural regions at the end of the Vedic Period. It's fascinating to read, and it offers a nuanced picture of the origins of Indic religions, bypassing the trenches of "Aryan migration, yes or no". Actually, he describes the 'Aryan-ideology', c.q. the notions of Aryan nobility and superiority, as a development within the Kuru-Panchala region. The fascinating question of course is: how come that such a relatively small region of India has had such a tremendous impact on the Indic relgions and self-understanding? It's really fascinating. As a personal note: searching for single "origins" seems fruitless to me; Indic history is complex, and/but precisely this complexity has a great value, and recognition of this complexity might contribute to Indian self-esteem. But that's my personal opinion. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Criticism of Jainism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Criticism of Jainism 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/Criticism of Jainism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Rahul (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Zoroastrianism in India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to John Abraham and Persian


 * Ram Manohar Lohia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Akbarpur

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Godse
Which main page were you referring to? The Nathuram Godse article calls him a Hindu nationalist. --regentspark (comment) 13:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Regentspark, RSS got unbanned under 1 year, because they had no connection with Godse, so it's not 100% correct to call him hindu nationalist, his own page calls him indian nationalist(which is differs from hindu nationalist). Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Godse's article clearly says Godse, a Hindu nationalist activist from Pune, Maharashtra, . Plus, what does the banning or non-banning of RSS have to do with this? Both Godse as well as the RSS are well identified as Hindu nationalists. --regentspark (comment) 17:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind User talk:RegentsPark just read "ex-RSS member". Bladesmulti (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Range of topics
How come you've got such a broad range of topics you're editing on? It's incredible! Greetings, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many Thanks! Actually father had once brought a book called "101 great personalities" when I was about 8 year old, it included many people, like Gandhi, Moses, Zoroaster, Maxim Gorki, etc. So probably my development of studies was wider from start. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

News and Politics
Maybe we could have understood one another better. I believe we both had the same goal in removing something that did not belong.

Sometimes a wild accusation stated in the news includes specific undisputed information someone conservative would not be able to say. A small piece of knowledge can help deflate a huge media deception created by implying two cases are related without stating that they are. I only agreed with you and wanted to help you with the link so the argument about the subject could be ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct! That page was vandalized big time, for that particular period, but no more. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we need it in the article if the talk page has the information closing the subject?Blackbird013 (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Best
Great response! Ignoring the puffery, sticking to the point. My compliments. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irreligion in India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Abraham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Territorial disputes of India and Nepal
Hello Bladesmulti,

This is an entirely friendly question, asked with the intention of understanding your thinking better. Can you please explain why you are so determined to have this article deleted? It seems to me that the sources provided clearly show that it is a notable topic. I would like to understand in your own words why you disagree. Thank you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been a single war between India and Nepal, regarding the border dispute. Neither there has been any national debate, other than that, no one ever raised this issue in parliament either. So if someone sees a article like "India-Nepal territorial dispute", he/she may think like "So there's one more scene in south asia", but it's not. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My friend, the vast majority of territorial disputes worldwide do not lead to wars, and are resolved by diplomacy rather than any actions taken by parliaments. And diplomacy between India and Nepal is ongoing in this area, though perhaps impeded by Nepal's current political impasse. What you said may well be true, but it does not make the topic any less notable, as shown by the coverage in reliable sources. A matter in international affairs need not be a crisis or a "scene" as you put it, to be worthy of an encyclopedia article. I encourage you to try to set your personal feelings aside, and to consider the matter from the neutral point of view.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this one sounds about to be correct. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW Cullen328, since you are interested in topics such as LGBT, Judaism, etc you should have a look at this section Religion and homosexuality, possibly needs more sources and has issues. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the suggestion, Bladesmulti, and you are correct that today I have edited in those topic areas. The Louisiana LGBT topic came to my attention through my work at the Teahouse. I noticed Cattle in religion I believe in your work here, and decided to add a section on Judaism. I am not gay and do not consider myself an expert in Judaism though I am Jewish. But I know enough about both topic areas to feel confident about contributing at a basic level when so motivated. I will take a closer look at that article tomorrow.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, keep up good work. :-) Bladesmulti (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Enneagram
You should try an Enneagram test. I'm quite sure which type you are, but won't tell, until you've tried. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Jesus Myth Theory" Article
Please do not remove factual remarks in the noted article. That proponents of "Jesus myth theory" represent a minority of scholars of this topic is easily verified - the evidence follows in the same paragraph. Because it's debatable that the substantiation of such a remark even belongs in the introduction to said article, rather than removing the paragraph entirely I added the transitional phrase "For what it's worth,", on account of the fact that agreement within a mutually-admiring, mutually-interested coterie of subjective academicians hardly establishes a belief as fact. On the contrary, evidence does that - evidence which is apparently lacking to disprove Jesus myth theory.

If you'd prefer it I can relocate or even entirely remove the paragraph about what the group of antithetical academicians believe: after all, this is an article about Jesus myth theory, not what a group of opposing academicians believe. I can tolerate such remarks in an article on the noted topic on account of the fact that the proponents of said theory represent a minority view - that's what my remark emphasizes while marking the transition between remarks about the theory vs. its opponents. BLZebubba (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The way you are presenting is not the actual accepted way of writing. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, as originally written the paragraph had Bart Ehrman suddenly popping into the article from nowhere, as if a general reader (for whom Wikipedia should be written) should automatically know who he is. But the general reader doesn't know who he is nor why his name was appearing in the article at hand where it was, so transitional language was needed to introduce that Mr. Ehrman is an opponent of the subject of the article at hand. I supplied the needed language.


 * Furthermore, that Mr. Ehrman and his majority coterie of academicians reject "Jesus myth theory" doesn't in and of itself delegitimize the theory, contrary to the implication of the paragraph as originally written. Mr. Ehrman and his clique participate in a field of subjective scholarship. In fact, as Prof. Ehrman himself is quoted as saying later in the article (I paraphrase a little), anyone who professes a disbelief in the historicity of Jesus is excluded from employment as a scholar of Jesus and therefore membership in their coterie - in other words, if you want a job as a Jesus scholar today you can't write that Jesus wasn't a historical person. So, the vast majority of the field of historical Jesus scholarship, i.e. the opponents of Jesus myth theory noted in the paragraph in question, consists almost entirely of people who presuppose the historical existence of Jesus. Thus the "For what it's worth" language. BLZebubba (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for claryfying! I think we can agree on this point. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he has clarified it better, on the page's talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zoroastrianism in India (December 27)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! — Carnivorous Bunny (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Edward Nkoloso
Opinions of Third Party editors required |here. Input welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguetech (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Pollution of the Lake Karachay was accepted
 Pollution of the Lake Karachay, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Northamerica1000(talk) 01:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pandit Lekh Ram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC) == Your submission at Articles for creation: Influence and legacy of Dayanand Saraswati (December 28) ==  Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer comment
I am not an expert, but at first view it does not appear that your content requires a separate article from Dayanand Saraswati. I would suggest you visit the page Talk:Dayanand Saraswati at well as Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, and while providing them a clear link to your draft ask them if they think your material should be incorporated into the existing article, made a new supplementary article, or no. If you get some clear suggestions from either of those two pages, please link to those discussion at the top of your draft so future reviewers can see you solicited input on the issue, and Resubmit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Another reading tip
Hi Bladesmulti. Another reading-tip: [http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf Michael Witzel (1995), ''Early Sanskritization. Origins and Development of the Kuru State.'']. PDF, so it's downloadable. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just found this one: Olivelle (1998), The Early Upanishads. Annotated text and Translation. It's the full text. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Rahul (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, I could not understand your purpose to |remove a |live reliable source. May you please specify it. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Panchet Dam
You are deleting material because of unreliable source. It was on the basis of this source that the topic got through in DYK. Moreover, are you going to delete unreferenced information - that is wholly unreliable? Wikipedia is full of unreferenced information. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:SIZE
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You may use User:Dr pda/prosesize for easy count. This one helps a lot in DYKs for checking 2x/5x expansion. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:ROWN
Hi Bladesmulti, a revert of something you disagree with that removes the new content plus cleaning up of the article that wouldn't be questioned is not necessary. WP:ROWN has some good guidance you might like to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMMonty (talk • contribs) 10:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you should delete it. The whole point is to get consensus on what content should be.FMMonty (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi,

While I like your suggestion that I stop editwarring, you deleted someones referenced content for there being no page number. I returned it after looking up and adding the page number, and you're suggesting that I am edit warring? Edit warring is enforcing changes that aren't agreed. both myself and the original contributor feel that should be there, so I suggest the one acting out of consensus is in fact yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMMonty (talk • contribs) 12:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No "delhi" sultanate or ruler or anything mentioned in whole book, neither any "mughal". Bladesmulti (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Read page 176 of the book — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMMonty (talk • contribs) 13:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=tXqDRS4IN1IC&q=mughal#v=onepage&q=delhi&f=false < ? Nothing at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we came to agreement on this and you returned the information you had deleted. Please feel free to delete this edit warring section if you don't want it cluttering up your talk page. FMMonty (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written‎
Please don't re add the copyright violation to this article. Per Copyright_in_lists posting the complete list is an obvious copyright violation. It is not a list of facts but an opinion based list on what the most influential books are. The fact that no one has objected is irrelevant. We just don't post copyright violations. Garion96 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Garion96, bring it to noticeboard, talk page first. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A post on talk page is never bad. But copyright violations are and will be removed as soon as spotted. Garion96 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=589082702 your edit] to Ian McDonald (British author) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * intimcd.htmIan McDonald interviewed - infinity plus non-fiction society imposed on an older culture. He became a fan of SF from childhood TV, began writing

Casteism
I don't mean to be rude, but next time before accusing others of being trollish by using a made-up word, could you please look it up first? I found it in Caste system in India and online and in my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. You might want to strike your comment at Talk:Brahmin. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and possibly, but rare.. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Persecution of Traditional African Religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanuri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Brahmin
You beat me to it, but it was copyvio from. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know :) ! Bladesmulti (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Mamilla Pool
I suggest you read http://shamir.mediamonitors.net/april242001.html from start to finish. As well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir.

Israel Shamir has been almost totally discredited. The link was removed for a reason but the 60,000 number remained. The correct number is 66,509. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonney2000 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Jonney2000, can you add 66,509 then? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It already has the 66,509 number with was from Antiochus. Jonney2000 (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Those BBC links
A lot of BBC links are copies of our articles, others are written by amateurs. Glad you removed that one. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Anytime . Bladesmulti (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

History of India
Isn't the Internet great; I've found three more pdf's which I'd like to share with you: Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Metcalf (2006), A Concise History of India, Second Edition
 * Kulke (1998), A History of India, Third Edition
 * Stein (2010), A History of India, Second Edition
 * Kulke is on his 5th edition. What outdated rubbish.  176.67.169.146 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Criticism of Jainism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 09:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Accusation of stalking
Besides the fact we deprecate the word as it suggests criminal activity, following people's edits is commonly done for various reasons. WP:HOUNDING, the term we should be using, says "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."

I watch a lot of people's edit histories. I've just deleted a lot of material, including yours, at [{Slavic Vedism]] after catching up with recent posts at WP:FTN and an email from Mangoe, which he was entitled to send me. I'm concerned about the AfD and will think about whether I should close it or not. but the article is clearly a problem (for one thing it's another name for Slavic Neopaganism). I'm not stalking you but your are still new here and don't understand how we work - I've over 100000 edits and am still learning. Can I for instance point you to WP:VRS:"We need references that discuss the subject – directly, in detail" - some of your edits are WP:NOR or WP:SYN. Treat this as a learning experience, not as an opportunity to confront another editor. Please. It would be a good idea if you struck out your 'stalking' comment. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, will keep in mind. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Dailypost.com is not a reliable source
The About us "DailyPost publishes news, information, gossip, rumors, conjecture, opinions, and commentary. The site includes both reported and edited content and unmoderated posts and comments containing the personal opinions of readers on a wide range of topics. You should be skeptical of any information on DailyPost, because it may be wrong." is pretty clear that it is NOT a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Sun is a tougher call, on first glance, it appears mostly reliable but here: (in what looks like it is a directory where companies place glowing promotionals of themselves), they say they are a lot like the British paper The Sun which is a tabloid of no reliability. Probably a discussion for the WP:RSN. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

now that I am tracking what content you are asking about, for claims of a living person committing cannibalism, you need the HIGHEST quality sources. might qualify, but for claims like that you really need multiple reliable sources.WP:BLP / WP:REDFLAG.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * African spotlight does not appear to have appropriate editorial controls either.
 * We do not make exceptions to WP:BLP / WP:REDFLAG because reliable sources dont cover the suggested topic. In fact that is WHY we have WP:BLP / WP:REDFLAG. If we cannot find reliable sources to support content, we do not cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I dont agree that the information is "needful" - in fact if it is not covered by multiple extremely reliable sources it shouldnt be in the article. WP:UNDUE weight to an incident that is not appropriately covered by the mainstream academic views of the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point, it is probably best to go to the article talk page and start a discussion in the format of :


 * ''I propose we add the following to the article in X section:
 * "Whatever text about cannibalism you think should be added to the article. (ref)(ref)(ref)"''

and see if there is a consensus of editors that the content is appropriate and the sources are sufficient. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dharmachakra
Thank you for your edit as well. I have always wondered why there was a section of opinion that attempted to distance the dharmachakra from hinduism. I am sure our pauranic chakravartins like Dushyanta putra Bharata would themselves have been perplexed.

Anyhow, I thought given your scholarly inclinations you might be interested in a current dispute on Indian Astronomy. I and a few other editors are concerned about the serious inaccuracies on the eponymous article. Please drop a line here or on my talk if you are interested in working with us. Thanks.

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wisdom
You're going to be a wise man! (you already are) I like your capability to learn and adapt; that's good. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  15:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indomania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apollonius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edit
Your edit needs much clean up. You have reinserted a version that contains inappropriate bolding, and much content that is completely irrelevant to the subject of the article and "best known" is not a valid reason to ignore them. Please revert yourself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Just because there is a source does not mean it belongs in the article. V. 2) The subject of the article is as stated in the title the caste system in India. content about caste systems elsewhere are obviously WP:COATRACKing content that cannot possibly be about the subject of the article. 3) That some of a particular caste held a particular office absolutely requires an inline citation at the very minimum for the claim of caste WP:BURDEN WP:BLP, but also requires a source that sets up why the caste and the office are of any relevance in the context, it cannot just be wikipedia editors presenting their opinions WP:OR via WP:SYN. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Caste System
I reverted your edits the first time, because you had not provided an edit summary, and therefore it seemed like POV pushing. I don't have a problem with the reason you have given now; if you had given that the first time, we could have avoided a couple of reverts. Unless you're reverting vandalism, I think every edit deserves a summary explaining why you are doing what you're doing. Cheers. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

André Servier
I only noticed the Criticism of religion template today and I included André Servier's name among the other critics. He criticised the rigidity of Islam but coming from another angle for he was a secular-minded person who lived all his life in French Algeria and mainly emphasized moral responsibility, as did Antoine de Saint Exupery who wrote The Little Prince at the time. I am not sure about whether the sidebar or the template are preferable and leave it up to your discretion to choose what is best. Xufanc (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

New delhi rape
I've commented on the section you've started on the talk page. I agree with redirecting. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

broken sources
i think the bot found and fixed the issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism in India
I see you made some changes in the order of material to the article on Zoroastrianism in India. I just took a quick look at it, but it seems to be an improvement. I just wondered whether you might consider choosing a different photo for the initial photo and putting the photos of individuals lower down in the article. The article is "Zoroastrianism in India", not "Zoroastrians in India". You might find a photo that shows a Zoroastrian temple or garden, perhaps with people going into or out of it or standing nearby. It's not absolutely necessary; it's just a thought.CorinneSD (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Old Delhi
Just wondered if the latest edit to Old Delhi is correct.CorinneSD (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Azhwar related pages
Hi, I see you have added details to Azhwar related pages - but do not remove referenced edits or break syntax. There are bots which would fix them back anyways. If you feel mention of traditional years is needed, support it with a reference and add it along with actual dates therein. The reference quoted doesn't support the BC date. Thanks a lot for your contribution and wish you good time here.Ssriram mt (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you want, add the date. It is more than clear from the sources taht the date of birth and death are unknown, while tradition places in BC date. I see only Nammalvar has the right mention, which i have modified. Note that Sura books, travel guides, Kalpaz or Gyan are considered unreliable as per WP:Sources. Do not remove references already added, but merely add contents. I have removed references, which are unreliable. Thanks a lot for your contribution.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just go up a few page or 3 of the five refs where it is stated that "historians place" to 6th-9th. The BC dates are traditional account of Manavala Mamunigal and not a scientific one. As i stated above, i am not against placing BC dates, but "add" contents specifying the caveat and do not remove references. To clear the air on dates and the relation, i preferred retaining the section on Azhwars, where it was covered already to show the traditional/historical dates. Second part is the unexplained removal of compilation and spread of Vaishnavism - isnt that the case? Third - but for Manavala Mamunigal, the book or presence of Azhwars might not have been known - a mention about his compilation is all but mandatory.Ssriram mt (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Fact tags in Astrology lead
Hi, I see you've just added some tags to this article. We've very recently gone through a careful revision and GA process, and I think you'll find that the claims in the lead that you've tagged are properly cited in the text, as they should be. If it's ok with you, I'll de-tag the lead; the proper action if you are interested would be to check each citation in the text and confirm that it indeed supports the claims made. However on matters like the existence of some form of astrology in Mesopotamia, there is not much to argue about as there are plenty of scholarly papers to choose from; the extent of such astrology is of course a much deeper question, but not a matter for this article. Hope this helps. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

2500 BCE Date for Indian astrology
Ah, you've found a popular book on astrology that claims 2500 BCE for Indian astrology. Unfortunately, this is a very strong claim, contradicted by scholarly thinking, so a popular source cannot be considered reliable on its own; further, as I am sure you are aware, there are strict rules on articles related to pseudoscience. Since there is scholarly opinion to the contrary, scholarly citations would be needed to make the case for a 2500 BCE date, and even then it would have to be presented in the article as a *disputed* claim, ie 'Some scholars claim that ...[1], while others assert that ... [2,3,4]'. I therefore have no option but to remove the claim as it currently stands. If you'd like to take this further, could you please introduce it on the talk page, not the article, and we can consider it slowly and carefully. With many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There will be no benefit in discussing non-scholarly sources (on the talk page or elsewhere) as they will simply be thrown out on the pseudoscience rules. Please therefore restrict your comments to scholarly evidence (JSTOR type papers). Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Indian caste system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Dharmachakra". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 12:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Shivaji reference
Who wrote >"] Organiser - Volume 53- and title? I don't know who added it, but that Google books link doesn't help verify it - at the moment there's no way to verify the source. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Related to Chanakya
I recently edited the page Chanakya to eliminate the understanding of Chanakya as India's Machiavelli to preserve the individual identity of the person and you reverted back by stating it as a popular opinion. But understanding that his works predate Machiavelli's by close to two decades I feel that the comparison is not erstwhile and needed to be relooked on it's position on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanthraghubangalore (talk • contribs) 03:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Abject apologies for my many rudenesses to you. They were all uncalled for
I have placed on the Talk Page of Death by burning a proposal for a skeletal summary of Sati.Arildnordby (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...


Rsrikanth05 (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

Here's a Cheeseburger buddy! Thanks for keeping me motivated enough to get some good work done on the Mayor of Coimbatore article! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Stalker
It's good to know that people are watching you - serious! It's an "insurance" against disruptive editors, and an incentive to keep up high standards. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way: This Template:Indian History is what you should correct. Enjoy your cheeseburger (would it be vegetarian?). Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I am pro-vegetarian :) Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Humanism
I saw that edit and checked it, it replaced a dead link with what appears to be an archive link. I assumed good faith which is why I checked it. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you read this?
can you read this and focus on the real issues? edit war because you do not understand basic wikipedia rules. --Inayity (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you read this? "Get the secondary books that are cited and see if they help verify other points in the text, that would be a start. Let the other guy win and have his tags, or the lack thereof, and be constructive. Ultimately, there's only one kind of winning here: the production of a better article. Tags don't make something a better article, good references and well-written text do."

If you had you would had reverted back to pre-itsmejudith's version, but you seem to be in middle, edit war means 3 or 4+ reverts in last 24 hours, especially when you manage to do 3 reverts in just 20 minutes, it applies on you, not me. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So was his advice to keep adding back tags that I am taking out! The end result is not solved by your tagging but by discuss the real issues with the article. Tagging is lazy and easy. Over tagging is what pov pushers do when they do not like what they read. I have never in the years on Wikipedia used tags like that. I am specific and discuss the specific issue not just call something fringe when no one else thinks it is fringe. Also is this something to edit war over? --Inayity (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why you add the primary sources with no page numbers and "Template T"? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with a specific thing then say missing PAGE NUMBER. And you can use WP:PRIMARY on wikipedia. All across my edit history I delete tag abuse, and ask ppl get specific and make sure talk page arguments and tags match. I would never have deleted those tags if they were 1 million in number and backed up by rationale. And human beings get provoked when on top of that you violate Good Faith and fail to listen. This is why I became passionate about it. It is actually a stupid issue. --Inayity (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you won't need primary sources, when you have a lot better sources. And you cant add unconfirmed primary sources either(.i.e no page number, lack of verification). Bladesmulti (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not forget Wikipedia has no deadline nor is a final work. It will forever be a WIP. If no page number is added others can come and add it, or challenge it. This is what Wikipedia is all about. It is not a final book. This is why tags MUST be used properly b/c If I fly by and see an OR tag, I may want to resolve it. If the tag is wrong then... Also the reader has to know a ref has an issue. (hence the right tag). I am a reasonable person and I listen!--Inayity (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, I don't know what's going on, who's "right" or "wrong", but I urgently advice you to calm down, take a deep breath, and have a break. It's just Wikipedia, you know, not like your life depends on it. Take care. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was hours ago. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=591711079 your edit] to Nangur Vishnu Temples may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * are believed to have been sanctified by Tirumangai Alvar, one of the 12 Azhwars. The cave was excavated by Ahmad Hasan Dani in 1963. Chipped stone, bones, were found during

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592482681 your edit] to Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * History.}}

ANI
You have been mentioned at ANI, see this section. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bladesmulti, please don't remove warnings. It will speak against you. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for editwarring, as you did at Persecution_of_Hindus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Blades: you massively exceeded the three revert rule. In the future, when you have a dispute, please wait until a talk page discussion reaches agreement on what to do instead of trying to editwar against multiple users. I normally am adverse to blocking for simple 3rr violations, but you reverted *way* more than three times - I count at least seven. Further blocks for editwarring are going to increase in length.  I know issues like this can be very high tension, but please try to keep as calm as you can so that you avoid stuff like this happening and can continue productiely contributing to Wikipedia.  Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin Gorman, After Warning I hadn't made any reverts. And other user did about 5 reverts, what about it? And I haven't made 4 Reverts in last 24 hours on that page at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will re-examine the diffs to ensure I wasn't mistakenly counting things, but please keep in mind that even if you are reverting/changing different content that has been touched by another editor recently, it still counts towards the 3rr. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, but remember. I made No reverts after the warning. And the issue was in WP:RSN, I tried to solve it without edit warring. Plus, my last edits on Persecution of Hindus are related to editing the See Also. On which other user had requested(last section on talk). Which was never conflicted. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Revert #1, revert #2, revert #3, and revert #4. On top of that,   is not a direct revert but is certainly furthering the editwar. This edit, which deals with the same issue, is confusing since the full citation had already been given including page numbers, and deals with the same material as your reverts as well.  That's at least four reverts and two edits that are all-but-reverts in a period of less than 24 hours.  Keep in mind that you can be editwarring even if you revert less than three times, and your pattern of edits on the page is definitely editwarring. I apologize for overestimating your initial number of reverts - frankly, the sea of edits on that page takes a while to sort through - but you were still over three, and still certainly editwarring. I may have missed one or two of your edits as well, but I need to step away for a few minutes.  When I return, I'll examine the behavior of the other editors involved as well.  I would suggest that you just step away for a bit, let the block sit out, and try to avoid getting sucked in to similar silliness in the future, but if you'd like, you can put up an unblock request. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't need warnings as you are aware of our policy and have warned other editors about it. See and where you reported an editor for a breach of 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Caste system among Christians

 * I regret to inform you that I have abandoned my copy-edit because my work was reverted by another editor. Please feel free to request another copy-edit when the article is stable and all such problems have been resolved. Feel free to contact me about this when your block ends. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bladesmulti, you are invited to comment here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks


Kanga Roo in the Zoo has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Do you think relevant stuff will be simply removed ? Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship - analyses, responses & advices
Moved to User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

mentor
Hello Bladesmulti, are you interested in having a mentor? I would be happy to show you the ropes around here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do it 72.192.84.101. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. First lesson.  Stop responding to StuffAndTruth.  I have struck you through.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bladesmulti, I again offer to help you put your ideas into Standard English. Judging from some comments at AN/I, others have commented on your lack of fluency in English. This is my last offer. (You ignored my last offer of help.)CorinneSD (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 74.192. Yes, I saw your edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never ignored you CorinneSD. Not even once. And I read your last reply on your talk page as well. It was really emotional. But anyways, Hope to learn a lot more from you. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (( fixed by mentor #1.  second lesson, do not insult your new mentor #2, bladesmulti.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)  ))
 * Hello, delighted to have you offer. :-)     Please call me 74.  Do you wish to set any conditions on mentorship, or do you think five edits per day is enough of a limit that we can train Bladesmulti to be a wikipedian?  74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Bladesmulti -- You didn't ignore me entirely. What I meant was that you did not respond specifically to what I said, and you've done that more than once, which amounts to dismissing what I said. See the exchange on Sanghao Caves on my Talk page, for example. Perhaps you thought you were responding to what I said, but the meaning you were trying to convey did not come across clearly.


 * I would like to help you express your ideas better in English. I need to see what you want to add to an article. I can either look at edits after you've made them and then comment here, or you can share with me what you want to add to an article before you add it, and we can work on it first. Is there any chance you could create another user talk page that is just devoted to this mentoring, separate from your regular Talk page? If we do this mentoring, please make an effort to respond specifically to each point I make.CorinneSD (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just saw a new page for this, below. Shall I use that?CorinneSD (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, except for the most important messages (like the SPI report) we are doing most of the mentoring on that user-subpage JJ created. You are free to WP:IAR and do what you think is best, however.  :-)     Thanks for the help, it's appreciated.
 * Bladesmulti: listen very carefully to CorinneSD.  They will help you.  Carefully weigh CorinneSD's words, in your mind, sentence by sentence.  Watch how they speak.  You do it like CorinneSD does it &mdash; that pathway will bring you success.  If CorinneSD writes something to you, and you do not understand what it means, just say this:  "CorinneSD can you please clarify what you mean?"  Then CorinneSD will make the writing clear to you.
 * Your work in English is good, but we can all improve. Just like wikipedia, each human is a collaborative project.  Right now, your co-mentors are trying to improve Bladesmulti!  :-)    We want you to learn from us.  We also want to learn from you, what you have to teach us.  We especially want you to be ready to edit wikipedia in freedom once again.  But to achieve freedom, you must first know restraint, discipline, and keep a fresh mind.  Pay close attention.  If you do not agree:  say it.  If you do not understand fully:  say it.  We will help you.  Thanks for your patience and your strength.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

JJ - I'm still thinking it over. If I agree, then I prefer to focus on content: what sources do you use, how do you find them, what makes them reliable - or not? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would be extremely helpful. There is a sourcing-question in edit#1 for 2014-01-29, about whether Ājīvika is properly considered a subset of Hinduism.  There is a sourcing-question in edit#2 for 2014-01-29, about whether there are 867M or 999M people that follow Hinduism.  You are free to comment here, or you can make a new section on your own user-talkpage with your comments for Bladesmulti, or even work directly on the articles and article-talkpages where Bladesmulti edits... totally your WP:CHOICE whether/where/howMuch you wish to be a co-mentor.  Thanks, and let me know if I can help, or if you need *me* to change style/focus/etc.  :-)    &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Carvaka
@Jethwarp, Rahul jain is reverting the reliably sourced content from Carvaka uselessly, I don't know why, without even giving a edit summary. I think he is trying to benefit from the recent allegations he made about me. Under terms of my mentorship I am not comfortable engaging with him at this time. But we know about him. But I would like to retain the moral high ground and not make accusations, even though Rahul Jain made accusations about me. Can you please have a look? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC) (( fixes inserted by mentor 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC) ))


 * I have been editing less frequently now as am busy in real life and therefore try to avoid issues where constant monitoring is required. Also am not aware of topic Carvaka and dispute. I would suggest you raise the issue at WT:INB to get involvement of other India related editors. On Rahul Jain - I refrain for commenting, however, many India related editors are aware of his way of editing/working. Further, wish you good luck in SPI and other matters. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk)`
 * I will take a look. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the revert.


 * 1)  ...and religious indifference. (ins)  (/ins)
 * 2)  Cārvāka is classified as a heterodox
 * 3)  Hindu  Indian
 * 4)  (Nāstika) system. (strike)	 	 	 	 (/strike)
 * 5) (ins) 	  	 (/ins)
 * 6) It is characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought. While this branch of Indian philosophy is today not considered to be part of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, some describe it as an atheistic or materialistic philosophical movement within Hinduism.  (strike) (/strike)
 * 7) (( Cārvāka )) emerged as an alternative to the orthodox Hindu pro-Vedic Āstika schools,
 * 8)  as well as a philosophical predecessor to subsequent or contemporaneous nāstika philosophies such as Ājīvika, Jainism and Buddhism (the latter two later spinning off into what may be described today as separate religions)
 * 9) in the classical period ...

Is this what you are worried about? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)