User talk:Doctorbruno/Archive 6

Shared IP address?
Hello! You posted this on my talk page, then erased it:
 * THe IP Address 64.233.172.21 is used by thousands of people in India who access Internet with Data One, The ISP of Government of India.
 * As such, this block hurts the genuine users

However, a WHOIS lookup on 64.233.172.21 appears to show that this address is part of the address block 64.233.160.0/19, issued by ARIN to Google. -- The Anome 07:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: David Geoffrey Smith
An article that you have been involved in editing, David Geoffrey Smith, has been listed at Articles for deletion/David Geoffrey Smith. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Since you removed the tag off the article, I figured it appropriate to alert you to this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas
Please read Vanity guidelines. I recommend you move the content of Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas to your user page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place to promote yourself or your books. Rewster 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already read that, and as per the guidelines it is very clear that the article of contention is not Vanity.I have replied in your talk page WIkipedia is a GLOBAL encyclopedia and not limited one man's encyclopediaDoctor Bruno 05:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Books at Amazon
Part of why I didn't reply was there was no context for your initial comment. Yes, not every book is sold at Amazon. However, not every book sold at Amazon is notable, nor does a book have to be sold by Amazon to be notable. It can be used as an indicator of notability, though, especially when looking at how well a book sells at Amazon (especially when the person's only claim to fame is as an author). —C.Fred (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUTO/AfD
I'm taking the time to write to you directly on your talk page because I hope that you will see that editing your own article is not proper whether or not the AfD results in the deletion of your page. If your article is deleted, I'd suggest you use the process in place to request an article on yourself and, if written, you refrain from editing the article itself. Erechtheus 23:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the history and noticed that it was created by an unregistered user. I made an inaccurate assumption that you were the unregistered user because your talk page mentions something about an IP being blocked. I'm going to change my comment at the AfD from Delete to Weak keep after roll-back of any content you added. In the future, I'd suggest that you make any corrections on the talk page. If nobody evaluates the information and responds to it, try the "helpme" template. My apologies for the confusion. Erechtheus 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The block you describe seems odd. Have you checked with an admin about it? If not, you probably should. Erechtheus 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Regarding my Biography
If you feel that way about the page then why don't you just sit back and let it be deleted? I don't understand why you are arguing so strongly against deletion if you don't like the article and don't want it here. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you feel that way, however there is no way that I can believe that people like Samir are involved in some kind of campaign against you. There is just no way...Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a question: what is bothering you most? Is it what is being said on the deletion page or is it the idea of having the page deleted? It seems like you're saying you don't particularly want the article kept but that you are objecting to the discussion. Is this correct? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have re-read the article and have visited your website and I'm sorry but I just can't see how you meet criteria. I think if you're upset by what people are saying on the discussion page, you should request an administrator blank the page after the discussion is over. There is precedent for this. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You must wait until the discussion is over, then you may ask an administrator to blank the page. Precedent was here: Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Shapiro. You can also cite WP:BLP. You will have to wait until after the AFD closes, though. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doctorbruno. I've responded to your concerns on the talk page, I'm happy to correspond further. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 06:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So you want your article kept? Blnguyen | rant-line 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Politeness
Doctorbruno, I have been following the discussion about your article with interest. I understand that you are upset. But there is no need to shout, and that is why I removed some of the "big" codes you placed in Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas. There also is no need to accuse others of hating you, simply because they believe that your biography (or autobiography, as the case may be) does not belong in Wikipedia. You will find that other editors will be more forgiving and respectful if you make an effort to speak kindly, use polite language, and avoid attacking those who have taken the time to review your article. Best regards, Rewster 06:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have placed the proof on your talk page. If you feel otherwise, you could have refuted that based on the Guidelines of Wikipedia. I have proved that why the Article does not come under vanity as per Guidelines. You did not answer that (may be because you don't have any valid points). But you are very particular as to devalue by arguments.

I have written 6 books out of which 5 has been published by reputed publisher. One user has conveniently ignored the 5 and has taken out the lone book which has been self published and is using that as an argument for notability. Should not I point it out. Why are you biased. It is because you gave a hasty decision and your ego prevents you from going back on your initial mistakeDoctor Bruno 06:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page
I'm sorry but I do not agree with you. I feel that the article about you does not meet WP:BIO. I have also expressed my opinion at the AFD. Srikeit (Talk 07:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be upset
Hi Dr. Bruno, please don't be upset by your article being deleted. It's not personal. We know you didn't make the article yourself, but it's a clear cut case that it doesn't meet the notability standards. I'm guessing that, in a few years, your article will meet notability standards. Please continue to edit, and consider joining us at WP:CLINMED with respect to medical articles. We need good surgeons on the team! -- Samir  धर्म 07:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability
Hello, in response to your comment/question on my talk page, I don't think that the Wikipedia recommendations on notability includes all published authors. In fact, the guideline you linked states "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." As for doctors, the guideline for publishing in the medical field refers back to WP:BIO for establishing notability. I hope that this helps! InvictaHOG 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to your question
I see that you moved the last discussion to the archives - feel free to move this under that heading if it helps, I don't want to clutter things up but want to make sure you see my reply.

I tried reading through the AfD case and some of your comments on your talk page and other people's talk pages. It sounds like the notability question has been resolved (let me know if that's a mistaken impression!) and you have questions about responding to behavior. Probably the easiest and least stressful is to just let things go and to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as if it never happened. I know that's hard and maybe not possible in this situation for you. Several avenues are open as far as official channels. If you feel that a dispute is ongoing, you can ask for an outside view at Wikiquette alerts or for help mediating at Mediation Cabal. You can ask for a formal Requests for comment an a particular user's behavior. All of this and more are found on the pages for dispute resolution at Resolving disputes. I'd personally count it as water under the bridge and move on. Of course, I'm not in your position - let me know if I can help in any way! InvictaHOG 01:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I would advise you to assume good faith - a person can wish to delete an article based upon multiple reasons but only choose one to advertise. I didn't see any indication that anyone is out to attack you personally - most of the times these discussions take place without the subject of the article looking on. Shorthand such as WP:V are not meant to be slander, just to convey an idea.
 * I am sure that there are times when people do not put as much time as they could into a decision whether to keep or not. Hopefully each article can get at least one person who really thinks hard about the subject at hand and reason accordingly. It's hard to build an encyclopedia! InvictaHOG 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing every one, but one user - who claims to be from India who could have easily called the Publisher to verify whether I have written the books for Re 1 (cost of phone charge - less than 3 cents - a coffee cost Rs 3) - who said that I have never written a book. He also goes round various talk pages and incites opinion about meDoctor Bruno 01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, well I don't know about actions on other talk pages. If there is a pattern of wikistalking, then that's an easy job for an RfC or the like. You just need to document the person's attacks. I don't really see anything in the AfD, but I don't the background that you speak of, so maybe something doesn't stand out to me. I must say, though, that the amount of bold and large text that you use in the discussion can be construed as yelling, something which might not be what you want! Let me know if you need help with anything else! InvictaHOG 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I am not able to say with certain whether it is a "intentional personal attack" (which was my first opinion), or an vain attempt to saisfy one's ego to justify the initial hasty comment at the AFD page (which I assume to be the reason now), I think that in the interest of the WIkipedia and community as a whole, the best, easiest and least stressful option is to just let things go and to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as if it never happened and count it as water under the bridge and move on.  [sorry for the copyright violation :) ]
 * As of now, I feel that I have wasted 5 days of my time and time of editors like you in this controversy. May be if some one had spoken to be like you, Blnguyen, Erechtheus, Sarah Ewart and Samir (Scope) this controversy would not have ballooned.
 * As far as the "bold and large text" is concerned, let it be like that till the debate is closed. I would like to bring to the notice of the community that voting in Afd (as well as in Rfd etc) should be done after some thought and contemplation and not mechanically. Let this incident may serve as a mind opener to avoid un necessary heated exchange of words.
 * Thanks for the patient words. And do include me in future projects related to Medicine. Regards Doctor Bruno 02:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It can be hard just to walk away. I always view Wikipedia as a pleasurable way to read, learn, and organize information. If it is becoming stressful, leaving a discussion for a little while and then coming back later has always worked for me! As for contributing: Awesome - you've obviously got a lot of writing experience and the articles certainly lack a non-USA/European perspective! InvictaHOG 02:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your AfDs
Hello. You have listed three articles K. R. Kaushik, Amit Shah and I. P. Gautam for deletion. Please follow all the three steps as instructed by WP:AFD. Frankly, I will be the first person to vote for strong keep because I created the articles and because I feel that these people meet the following 2 criteria for inclusion mentioned in WP:BIO
 * 1) Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (For candidates for office, see the ongiong discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.)
 * 2) Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage

Published MCQ books
The MCQs in question papers of AIIMS PG entrance exam, All-India PG entrance exam and various other state PG entrance exams are the copyright of these medical institutions and instructions contained therein specifically prohibit reproduction in any format. It appears that by being involved in their publication, the concerned parties are violating copyright. As an author of such books, what is your stand vis-a-vis the violation of Indian Copyright act? EyeMD 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the papers are being released from AIIMS Nov 2002, the issue of Copyright does not arise. Can you please quote the rules that prevent authors from using the question paper for publishing an answer key. Also you have to first ask these questions to Bhatia and Salgunan (which you yourself have said you read during your time). The very fact that you did not ask this question to Bhatia or Salgunan, but ask this to me says that you have a malicious intention against me and want to discredit me. Also there are hundreds of web sites and guides. But you seem to be against me. Wikipedia talk pages are not a place for your own bad ideas and hence I will not reply to such personal attacks in future. And do you know the simple fact that the question papers are not retained but given to the students after the exam now-a-daysDoctor Bruno 00:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither am I acting on behalf of a medical institution/group/ring nor am I retained by any body to systematically counter all copyright violations. The question was in response to AfD, not to discuss real life on WP. Citing books, which violate copyright, repeatedly on AfD as a measure of notability is futile - that was the point of asking my question. FYI, The release of question papers to examinees is not accompanied by a release of copyright to reproduce them in any format. Doing so, without the express written permission from the concerned medical institution is a copyvio. The fact remains that the question papers published by the medical institutions concerned are their intellectual property. Insufficient will on part of the medical institution combined with ineffective legal protection of their copyrights, along with presence of similar books which violate copyright is a patently lame reason for blatantly repeating copyright violations. Again, citing books, which violate copyright, repeatedly on AfD as a measure of notability is futile - that was the point of asking my question. EyeMD 10:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to question about user conduct
Can you please give your opinion regarding the behaviour of User EyeMD. Please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FK._R._Kaushik&diff=68742235&oldid=68722846 Also see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doctorbruno/Archive_6#Published_MCQ_books He seems to drag my name into each and every controversyDoctor Bruno 01:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first edit summary could be construed as intimating a bad faith nomination. I don't know much about the subjects, but I don't think that a calm reply asking users to vote on merit (and to assume good faith!) would be amiss. As far as the question on your talk page is concerned, I again am not totally clear about the circumstances. However, I can see where the question might be construed as baiting - even if it is, it's best to avoid feeding trolls and just let things slide. If you think that the conduct is disruptive to your abilities to edit, then you can always seek mediation, etc. I hope it hasn't gotten to that point, but I'm sure that it's not easy to put up with (at least perceived) slights. Good luck and let me know if I can help you navigate any processes that you feel are necessary. InvictaHOG 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Doctorbruno. I have left a comment on EyeMD's talk page and on the AfD itself. I don't think his comments are a positive contribution, and I would also like to say that I feel it is inappropriate for you to ask another user to reveal personal details of his academic transcript. I have also commented some more on your biography's AfD. If you would like me to help with that copyvio thing you were discussing, then tell me. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked about his exam credential because he said that he is "a doctor with extensive education and major contributions to two international textbooks." and "never read this particular author's "books" to prepare for my PG entrance exams in Delhi, nor heard about him from my extended group of doctor/medical student/PG friends all over North India." When he is using his education to argue a point against me, I feel that it is appropriate for me to ask about his academic qualifications. Please note that I did not ask whether he is a MBBS or not. I just asked his rank for which he has not answered, but is going around talk pages discrediting me.
 * About the copyvio thing, unlike the previous years, they do not get the question papers back after the exams(they used to do this before 2002). The question papers are released after the exam. Hence there is no problem at all. This has been very well verified by the publisher before coming out with the book By the way, please see what he himself says "doctors like Salgunan, Bhatia et al could claim to be much more widely read authors of such "best-sellers", with an evidently much wider circulation." Both of these doctors (as well as a host of others) have done the same thing as me. In fact they even did that prior to the era when the question papers have to be returned along with the answer sheets and were not released after the exam. They publish a guide with the questions and answers (only answers) where as I give references and explanation etc. The very fact that he does not care to question Bhatia and Salgunan (I don't say that he should do that !!!) but is worried about the copyright vio only with me substantiates the fact that this user has malicious intention against me. Doctor Bruno 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't fully understand the context of this. Is this about you uploading something onto Wikipedia which is disputed for copyright or something in real life? Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC).
 * It is very simple. Let me explain a bit. He says that my books violate the Copy Right. It is not at all related to Wikipedia. It is about the 3 books I have published. One more thing you have to note is the fact that it is not mentioned anywhere that I have written a book for AIIMS. I have so far written only for All India. THe AIIMS book is not yet released. But he has also included that in his message. That means the guy has some personal agenda (in real world - may be another author) against me. Initially he said that there are no books at all authored by me. After the existence of books were proved, it was the Notability Issue. Now since it has been proved that the books are notable he has stepped further and says that my books may violate the copyright and hence should not be included. The bottom line is clear. He (and few others) want my article to be deleted for reasons other than Wikipedia. This proves the fact that he has some personal malicious intention against me. I wish you (and other Genuine Wikipedians) understand the issue and revise your opinion accordingly.Doctor Bruno 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So the query about the books is about the validity and integrity of your real-life publications and actions, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia? If so, that is harassment. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what I am telling from day 1. The main aim of nominating the AFD is to slander me in the debate. If they write something wrong or defaming in the article, it can be deleted citing WP:V Instead they have choosed to defame me in the AFD.
 * They did not expect me to take the bull by the horns and reply myself. Once I did that, they kept changing the stands and others like you were also misguided. You can now see a opinion from an anonymous account. How many AFD pages do you see an anonymous account giving such a lengthy explanation for "spirit of the rules" I expect Wikipedians like you to understand the issue and revise your stand and take the necessary actionDoctor Bruno 03:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As it has been pointed out, his questioning me about the contents of my book, when it has nothing to do with Wikipedia was my concern. He initially said that you know nothing about my book and have not heard about my books(see the debate please) inspite of his extensive education and unverifiable claims about contribution to books. He later questioned about the specificities which can be done only if he had read the book (and that means this guy has cheated the entire wikipedia community with his first message that he has not heard about the books). Any how, for any doubts regarding copyright issues in real world, he should have mailed me directly (I have the mail option enabled). The question of that AFD debate was verifiability (that was proved clearly) and notability (a subjective criteria regarding which there were varied opinions). None of the issues had any relation to the contents of the book. That preserved page on AFD is also a stark remainder of how few useless criminal guys can write unverifiable deliberately false propaganda about some one whom they may not like in real life. And our EyeMD is one of such persons who use wikipedia for their personal gains and in my opinion, wikipedia will be a better place if such irresponsible users are weeded outDoctor Bruno 17:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahmedabad Peer Review
Hello. I noticed your comment on the peer review of Ahmedabad. The peer review was closed months back. Please add such doubts in the talk page of the article which would give it a broader viewership. As per your query - The population of Ahmedabad currently stands at 5.2 million. It was 46 lakhs at the time of census 2001. But the taking the population growth into account since then, it is calculated to be around 5.1-5.2 million today. The population figure should still increase (according to me) as several of the panchayats around Ahmedabad have now been merged into the city limits expanding the city drastically. But I guess we shall have to wait till the next census for the most accurate figure. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out the article now. How does the demographics section read now. I think it has removed ambiguity. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the word current is required. It is implied in the sentence itself. As the sentence starts with "Ahmedabad is... with a population of .." it means that we are talking about the current population as the tense is present tense. I am removing the word. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising the issue. Such small things make the article great. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your reply on my page
thanks for your reply on my talk page. but from where did you found about my interests.nids 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I went to Sundar's page to post a message about S. P. Balasubrahmanyam and found your message over there. Hope this clears up the confusion (?Suspicion) :)Doctor Bruno 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

SPB
Nice to know that you expanded the article on my favourite singer. Regarding a wiki project for cinema, have a look at this. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

69.194.160.248
Hello. I saw your message on Srikeit's talk page. Such complaints should be posted at WP:AIV. That page is watched by many admins and so action would be taken much quicker. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 17:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I am not comfortable with the warning templates, I thought I will let Srikeit (who is interested in Cricket related articles) to take notice and further action if neededDoctor Bruno 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Block
The IP you requested me to block has stopped vandalism several hours ago. Anyway he had only 3 edits & was not warned enough. The usual protocol for warning vandals is test1 to test4 & if the vandal persists then reporting him to WP:AIV will elicit a prompt response from an administrator. Hope that helps. Regards Srikeit (Talk 18:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (cell)
 * ThanksDoctor Bruno 18:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Chiricheppu
Hi doctor,tnks. i have edited the page of chiricheppu and cartoonist s.jithesh. this magazine is agreat fighter against all kinds of evils existing in the society. that is why it has great level of threats from anti- social elements. these anti-social elements are acting against chiricheppu and its editor s.jithesh through internet too. iam a regular reader of chiricheppu. nileena joseph,a great fan of cartoons and poetry

Hi, I saw your posting on the AfD. People would be happy to keep this article if we could verify it in some way. Has it been reported on in any newspapers etc? Wiki is not for original research so we need to have verifiable sources. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

From Gluewhale
Doctor, can't help but laugh on seeing the above comment from Nileena...I just cant stop laughing imagining myself,Tintin and Thunderboltz as Anti Social elements out to stop chiricheppu....This itself should find a place in the magazine as a cartoon!!!!Ha..ha....This Nileena will vanish once the battle is over but we all will remain here as it's our passion to do creative work that brings us all here. We all have good intentions. We may disagree on things, but that's absolutely necessary for finding out the truth sometimes... Hey, I am not the least bothered...Dr. My first entry to wiki itself was with a battle for supporting the singer Pradip Somasundaran. The only difference here is that I have changed sides...I do not take any such matters as personal. If we were to take so, we all would land up in mental asylums! So let's continue the fight on chiricheppu :-) till someone calls it a day ! See you on the battlefield Dr. GlueWhale 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Filmgraphy
What is wrong in adding a column on co-stars in the Filmography. Please note that this is for a sake of general discussion and I am not arguing. Let us have a discussion and consensus. Doctor Bruno 00:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, Doctorbruno,
 * apparantly, a consensus has been reached about how filmographies should look like. I cut the column of the co-stars, because:
 * The featured articles I took as role models don't have columns on co-stars (Eric Bana, Lindsay Lohan etc.)
 * In the past, there has been an edit war between fans of Ajith Kumar and Joseph Vijay who tried to show by citing co-stars who the "greater" movie star is (Vijay has played with more famous co-stars and therefore, he's is "better"). In order to prevent this, I generally cut the column.
 * Also, co-stars, IMHO, belong into the movie's article and not on the actor's articles - there filmography is generally crowded enough.
 * Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 11:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The explanation is convincing. Please note that I was not in favour of or against one format. I just want to know basis of the current trend. And your explanation that it is not the article about the movie, but only about the actor is a valid argument. May be if there was a significant person (in guest role, perhaps) like a sports personality, producer or singer who acted in a key role (for example Sivaji Ganesan in Thevar Magan) that can be noted (as an exception and not as a general role). Hope this is OKDoctor Bruno 13:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, DoctorBruno,
 * maybe you can add the comment about a special sports personality or the likes under "Other notes" - I won't remove it (personally, I still think this belongs into the movie's article, but what the hey.) However, it's possible that one of the other editors may cut it. And, if someone starts an edit war over it, I'd possibly cut it too, if some new editor starts to act unreasonable about it. (See Trivia section and talk page of Salman Khan's article for a most recent example). Hope that's okay for you. Best regards, and happy editing, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 14:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular fact to add as of now. It was just an opinion. Even if I feel like adding something (in future in any page), I will first discuss in the talk pages and then only add Doctor Bruno 14:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, of course, but don't think I'm playing the watchdog for these articles - I'm always happy if someone helps us, because currently, we're only about four or five really active editors on the Indian Cinema Project. Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 14:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

GIen's RfA: Thank you!
'''PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)'''

Sumer Kumar Sethi
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Sumer Kumar Sethi, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://sumerdoc.googlepages.com/sumersethi'scurriculumvitae, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Sumer Kumar Sethi. Then you should do one of the following:
 * Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Sumer Kumar Sethi where we can find that note; or
 * Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!  Hagerman ( talk ) 18:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I will get back in 3 daysDoctor Bruno 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Entry
Hi, There is nothing wrong with the AfD Entry. I nominated the Vindhyachal House article as primary AfD, and the others as joint nominations. See Articles for deletion for details of what I did. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not always. In the AfD, I have made a presumption that all articles stand at equal ground of being kept or deleted (based on the context and my experiece). Hence, I am putting forward the deletion debale as a debate against all articles. Since one of them has to be chosen as a the "central" article, others are co-nominated and mentioned inside the nom. If any editor feels that the articles don't stand on equal ground, he/she may prescrible different solution. Thus, instead of Delete all, the prescription may be: Delete Vindhyachal but Keep Aravali. However, I find it quite unlikely as I have gone through the articles and per the precedents on such articles, they all would be deleted. I have been a part of previous such discussions on my institute's hostels, though not on the AfD page. See User talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Archive-1 for details. If you have learnt something from this thread, then it was a time well spent. I look forward to see more active contributions from your side. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Re : The Hindu
Hi, in the very next line, we mention that it was founded in 1878. Besides, we would have to move the age forward every year - one reaches a 125 yr milestone once, and then is forever atleast 125 years old. IMHO, the sentence is not required. I was only trying to shorten a lead in paragraph that is too long, in an article that is too long and, again IMHO, requires a lot of editing. The previous editor meant to do it him/herself (see the talk), but hasn't returned to it for a while. Sdsouza 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

S. J. Suryaah
Okay Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling issue
As of now the unofficial noticeboard is the talk page of WikiProject Classical Tamil. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks _Doctor Bruno_ _Talk_ /E Mail 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rajesh Chauhan (physician)
I don't think my view is the same as yours, Doctorbruno. Sorry. I will abstain from the discussion, however -- Samir  धर्म 03:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)