User talk:Geebean

Panchatantra
Hello Geebean, thanks for your many contributions to the Panchatantra article and others.

You undid this change on the Panchatantra article, saying "Please see definition of 'Reference' from Wikipedia itself, esp 'Academic writing')" Perhaps you were referring to the Reference article's academic writing section? It says: "In academic literature, a reference is a previously published written work within academic publishing which has been used as a source for theory or claims referred to which are used in the text." I think I understand this, but could you explain how that footnote is a "source for theory or claims used in the text"? We could discuss this either here or at the talk page of the article.

Best regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, some sort of reply would be nice. Is it ok if I remove the quote from the article for now? Shreevatsa (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Geebean, thanks for your reply to the above. I was away from Wikipedia for a while myself, hence it took this long to reply. Please ignore the earlier comments (above), which now seem cryptic. The issue at heart is this:
 * Because of Wikipedia's unfortunate (but inevitably necessary) policy of verifiability, we cannot write in articles what we (or everybody) know or believe to be true, but only what has been published in some reliable source. Thus every statement that can be challenged (and almost every statement will be!) is supposed to have an accompanying reference that directly says a version of the very statement. The demands of this requirement are sometimes ridiculous, but unfortunately, that's the way it is.
 * I think what happened in this case was that I felt like questioning (or at least desiring a source for) the assertion that the stories of the Panchatantra "hark back to the origins of language". The only accompanying reference was a quote by Doris Lessing, which, interesting though it was (and even rather relevant), did not directly claim anything about the date of the Panchatantra. So I removed it with "not a reference", you restored it, and I left the comments above.
 * I no longer care much about this, so it doesn't matter much to me now. Again, thanks for all your contributions, and the many interesting things you've added to articles. Best regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't mark significant and potentially valuable contributions as "minor"
Welcome! Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Wareh (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Alghlim?
Hi, do you have any idea what an "alghlim" is? I've tried to find out, but the word doesn't seem to occur anywhere on Google outside Wikipedia mirrors. Is it a misspelling of some actual word, perhaps? Shreevatsa (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Medina Publishing
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Medina Publishing, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.medinapublishing.com/About_Us.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Medina Publishing


A tag has been placed on Medina Publishing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Howdy,
I am a little concerned with one of your recent contributions to New religious movements article particularly edits like this and wondered if you would mind explaining your reasoning to for the addition on the article's talk page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
My reasoning (such as I can backtrack it this morning) is summed up in the old motto 'Anthropology begins at home', and the 'home' in this case being Wikipedia itself, and what sometimes seem to be its various tribal mindset-blindspots, especially in untapped links between existing articles. I did note that that the only other Category listed at the bottom of the NRM was 'Religious Conversion', but perceived that more links/data from Social Psychology could be added earlier in See Also, offering more balance to any reader's search for truth. I find it difficult to imagine the process of membership in any NRM without some form of Persuasion (inspirational or outer), and that delicate individual process itself not being potentially at risk from the toxins of Psychological Manipulation.

Hope that helps,

Gb Geebean (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)]
 * I would tend to disagree as much of the literature tends to disagree and have removed the several additions. You addition of the Sociological Classifications and the Social Psych Ref were helpful additions though. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Saqi KD Vol 1 Cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Saqi KD Vol 1 Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)