User talk:Kala Bethere

MVAH
I think you may have placed a comment in different section than you intended, which is easy to do. Perhaps it belongs better at the end of "MEDRS example", where we discuss a review? I have a response, but I first wanted to check with you about which thread it should go in.  Will Beback   talk    21:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right Will. Sorry about that. I'm still getting used to editing.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Private Workspace for Compiling Study list
This section is for user Kala Bethere to work on a table of acceptable papers. Please do not edit, but feel free to leave suggestions in the section below.

Private Workspace for Compiling Study list (discussion/suggestions)
If you'd like to share ideas on the above table, please add those comments here:

Here's how you proceed
To answer your question on how to proceed, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warringFladrif (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Fladrif, that's very helpful to know. A keeper. :-) --Kala Bethere (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Definitions
(Emphases, mine)

"Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in basic scientific laws or reality in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results..." 

Pseudoscience entries, by definition are not real science, so therefore must be described according to WP guidelines:

"Pseudoscience and related fringe theories

Further information: WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE Pseudoscientific theories are claimed to be science, however, they lack scientific status by use of an inappropriate methodology or lack of objective evidence. Conversely, scientific consensus is by its very nature the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views. Any mention should be proportionate, representing the scientific view as the majority view and the pseudoscientific view as the minority view, including explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all part of describing differing views fairly."--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

COIN
The matter, as Will said, has been discussed on at least five different threads at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. And, I'm as shocked as you that nothing whatsoever has been done to enforce the COI rules on the TM-related article. You'll see, if you peruse these, including the links to the prior discussions, that three editors have acknowledged being employees of various TM-Movement Entities. This one will provide you with most background, as well as links to earlier COIN discussions.. This one is the most recent. Then there is the issue of Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets, anonymous or otherwise, which is another problem altogether. Fladrif (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This section is for user Kala Bethere to work on a table of acceptable papers. Please do not edit, but feel free to leave suggestions in the section below.

List of Current Refs which Violate WP:FRINGE for TM

 * Discuss below please

A list of current scientific papers which violate the WP:FRINGE in the entry Transcendental Meditation.

Some guidelines in removal and editing from WP: FRINGE (emphases, mine)

"Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising."

Independent sources

"While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. If independent sources only comment on the major points of a fringe theory, an article that devotes the majority of its space to minor points that independent sources do not cover in detail may be unbalanced. "

"Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance."

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas.

"Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable.

Papers are listed by relative appearance in the entry. May not include all non-compliant citations. "Other" non-compliant magazine articles, etc. to be listed separately.

Comments
Kala your constant comments about COI constitute harassment, are uncivil, and violate WP:NPA. If you have something to say take it the COI Notice Board. Thanks (olive (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

And this statement is a personal attack on multiple editors, is uncivil, and again you are harassing editors.(olive (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Hi Olive. They're just links to past WP activities and were not intended as attacks, but information to help admins working to clean up these entries and the issues involved. Cheers.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Outing
Comments like this violate WP:OUTING and may lead to your being blocked, please be more cautious in the future. Dreadstar ☥  01:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it was already admitted here on WP, I didn't see a problem. It's not my fault the user has mentioned it!--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is a problem. Even if an editor had previously posted the information on Wikipedia and then removed, deleted, or had it oversighted, you cannot should not refer to that previous posting of personal information.  We've had several cases on this, and even if the person's personal information is in the edit history, it cannot should not be linked to or referred to.  Dreadstar  ☥  19:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that is incorrect. "Per WP:Outing, outing has not occurred if an editor has previously voluntarily self-identified his or her country, language, nationality, or other personal information. Subsequent posting of that information by other users does not constitute outing. If a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected." ARBMAC2 It's polite to respect those wishes, but mentioning self-disclosed information is not outing and is not grounds for blocking.   Will Beback    talk    23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, you are correct; however I think it it is more than merely polite to respect those wishes - even if it doesn't lead to being blocked. I've changed my posting above to reflect that. I still think it's a problem and don't think editors should be engaging in such behavior, especially when editors have been harassed in real life because they mistakenly posted personal information when they first started editing Wikipedia and didn't realize the potential dangers involved.  There are other avenues to address potential WP:COI than repeating redacted personal information.  Dreadstar  ☥  23:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's say I extensively edit an article on Amalgamated Widgets. I disclose that I work in their publicity department, but after doing so I am accused of having a COI, so I redact that disclosure. Does the COI problem disappear with that deletion? No. If someone wants to avoid charges of COI then they should modify their behavior, not hide the source of their conflict. Since Olive has chosen to continue to work on articles in a topic where she has a previously disclosed a conflict of interest, that information continues to be relevant to evaluating her editing.   Will Beback    talk    00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Will. I suggest you stop making comment that discredit an editor. I did not hide my edits. I asked if I could have them Oversighted because I was experiencing off Wikipedia harassment, and you know that. Your comments here and on the COIN which attempt to make me look dishonest are troubling, and actually I thought better of you. Tossing around information that an editor has asked to have Oversighted to protect herself and her family and advising another editor this its fine to use that information is not right in anyway.(olive (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
 * This could all be solved if editors connected to the TM movement avoided editing articles where they have a conflict of interest, as is strongly suggested by [WP:COI]]. Failing that, they should at least make disclosures of their connections. Hiding that involvement is the wrong direction to take. Having your edits oversighted is exactly hiding your edits. I am sorry to hear that you say that you've received harassing phone calls, but I haven't heard that they were directly connected to Wikipedia. How do you know they were due to your previous self-disclosure here?   Will Beback    talk    00:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you view my personal information with such an obvious lack of respect, and since you insist on implying less than honest behaviour I really have no desire to say anything else to you. And as in the past I am and always have been a neutral editor.(olive (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't know anything about you that you haven't disclosed here, and no personal information has been discussed here. An incident of harassment is not an entitlement to ignore WP:COI.     Will Beback    talk    01:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask for entitlement, I asked for respect. And not wanting to reveal personal information to those editors who harass is an integral aspect of the policy WP:COI. You were asking me to explain the off- Wikipedia harassment. I told you I will not discuss anything further given the accusations you have made today. Given the environment I've dealt with in the last week, I feel no compunction to say anything to anybody. Per WP:COI: "Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest.(olive (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
 * If you stop editing TM-related articles then there's no reason your COI would come up again. If you continue to do so then it's inevitable that it will keep coming up. If you don't want to talk about the harassment then don't mention it again.   Will Beback    talk    05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The next move is always in my hands. What COI?  So let's see. Stop editing TM articles or I will continue to be harassed with COI accusations that are also attempts to induce me to reveal my personal information under the guise of,  its  important to find the “source” of a COI?  A telling post.(olive (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
 * The COI exists whether you reveal it or not. You voluntarily disclosed, which is the right thing to do, but now you don't want people to know about that COI any more. So yes, the answer is to avoid COI editing. You have not been editing neutrally, and having a hidden COI on articles you actively edit is incompatible with Wikipedia guidelines.   Will Beback    talk    05:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't even begin to tell me what is the right thing to do, considering what I have seen in the last week,  don't tell me what I do and don't want people to know, and do  not tell me I am not a neutral editor. You are  ignorant of my circumstances.(olive (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't know what you've seen in the past week. Could you explain? As for being neutral, you keep calling yourself a neutral editor so it's a fair comment to dispute that claim. Your circumstances don't really matter, your editing does. A number of editors have given you guidance over the years, but you've rebuffed all attempts at helping and have treated dispute resolution efforts as harassment. I'm sorry that it's turned out this way, and I hope you stick around to edit articles unrelated to TM.   Will Beback    talk    06:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Well it maybe polite to avoid mentioning who a person works for. In this instance the issue of COI is of greater concern. As Deadstar admits that no WP:OUTING has occured maybe he should also strike out these accusations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While clearly Little Olive Oil deserves her respect and privacy, something's going down here and has been for a long time. It's well known on the street by people who follow these entries. And something needs to be done to prevent it from happening in the future. I'm a newbie here, so I have no clue as to the way WP Admin handles such things. Maybe it's time to get Jimbo on the bat phone? But something does need to be done rather than just arguing about it. The solution is in the hands of the Admin, not endless talk page comments.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We only use the bat-phone in emergencies. The Admin is working on this. ;)   Will Beback    talk    13:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My position clearly stated multiple times is to look at the edits not the editor. In addition my position in editing per WP:COI is not "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia."


 * In this discussion I have serious concerns about the comments leveled at me and they include:

This kind of behviour on the part of another editor is alarming, but in an admin. especially so, and it is critical that such behavioiurs be examined closley in whatever forum that is suitable. Bullying and harassment in attempts to force an editor to admit to some Wikipedia wrong doing is unconscionable.(olive (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
 * A complete discounting of a personal concern that my real life information be respected with reframing, and the comment, that "An incident of harassment is not an entitlement to ignore WP:COI."
 * The perception stated as fact that, in asking that my personal real life information be removed my intent was to "hide" my COI, and the assumption again stated as  fact I don't want my real life information known anymore...
 * The reframing of this discussion which began as an attempts to get me to reveal a COI, but now suddenly, "my circumstances" are  no longer imortant, but  now my edits are...
 * The implication that I will be harassed until I stop editing TM related articles
 * The implication that decisions have already been made concerning my editing, "I'm sorry it has turned out this way", and "I hope you'll stick around".
 * Giving more support to the position that I was implicated in wrongdoing on the COIN when in fact I have never been shown to have a COI.

Pot, Kettle, Black
Kala. You are, and have been making personal attacks, violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. This needs to stop. Thanks.(olive (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Olive, if accusing people of deception or spreading untruths is a personal attack, then you've engaged in similar behavior recently. I suggest that both of you avoid making personal comments of any kind. If accusations of inappropriate behavior are necessary, then there better venues for that, such as WP:RFC/U or WP:RFAR.    Will Beback    talk    22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Take your false accusations and attacks elsewhere Littleolive Oil. Are you saying you haven't been one of the people who've been adding WP Non-compliant references to the TM entries? These aren't personal attacks, they're simple facts! I've even seen you make horrible accusations previously to other editors for removing (and thus trying to improve) the TM-related entries, when they were in fact, correct for what they were doing.


 * Also, since you do not want me to post on your own Talk Page, I think it would be common sense that this would be reciprocal, at least until an apology is forthcoming from you.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Littleolive Oil, you might find WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT helpful. If I can help explain any points that might be unclear, you can feel free to post questions here. We all have our blind sides and maybe talking to someone could be helpful.--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk  • 02:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation started by Kbob closed when found to be unquestionably ❌.

 * 'Please note: You have been named in a formalized SPI case -- — K''bob • Talk  • 06:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been accused of sockpuppetry here: Please make yourself familiar with the guidelines for defending yourself here: Thanks,-- — Kbob •  Talk  • 02:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi KBob. I'm not a sockpuppet. I just post as Kala Bethere, not as any other user. All posts in my username are from me and me alone. I feel I am able to say what I need to without resorting to such childish behaviors. Cheers.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kala, you are free to respond on the ArbCom page in any way that you see fit however please abide by the style guidelines and create your own section as indicated by this text which appears in bold at the top of the ArbCom Evidence page after you click on Edit This Page. Thanks. -- — Kbob • Talk  • 17:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Advice for editing Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration ---Comment only in your own section please. If you wish to respond to a statement or remark by another editor, add to the bottom of your own section the code; Response to Example : Your response here.
 * I was about to tell you the same thing. I've gone ahead and moved your edit to a new section all your own. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dougweller.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User Kbob's accusations were found to be unfounded and the alleged "socks" unrelated in any way by two Checkusers. "* I agree that the users are unquestionably ❌.Brandon (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC) "... was the conclusion of the final Checkuser.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

'''

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence
Hello Kala. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1300 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kala Bethere/tm-evidence
Hello Kala. As you were still over the word limit by 200 words, I've refactored your evidence down and put the bit I've taken out to User:Kala Bethere/tm-evidence. I've linked to it from your evidence.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how to count all these words. Your Help isn't very helpful! How about including how to do that in your requests Ryan? I trimmed it again, but still have no idea how many words are there.--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cut and paste your text into a Word document. There a "word count" function in MS Word, so you can see the number of words. --BwB (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:WTA
You might not have have ever seen WP:WTA. (There are more guideliens on Wikipedia than anyone can keep track of.) Anyway, the word "claim" should only be used in regard to mining. Neutral words like "said", "wrote", or "asserted" are better.  Will Beback   talk    20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Will, that's very helpful to know.--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
The term "vandalism" has a narrow meaning on Wikipedia, and using it loosely reflect more poorly on you than on the purported "vandals". Per WP:VANDAL, vandalism only occurs when there's no good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia even if the result falls far short. In the case of those MVAH studies, I'm sure whoever added them thought they were doing a good thing. I suggest you rephrase your posting.  Will Beback   talk    18:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Will. It was my understanding vandalism refers to a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.


 * So when there was a discussion, among the current editors of the TM-related entries, and it was made clear that the very large number of the types of TM org created references were unsuitable as non-indepdendent and primary sources both in regards to WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS, I thought it was understood that once these bad sources were removed, they shouldn't just be put back again as if they hadn't heard the advice we had received or the consensus we had. We even had a physician-editor come and give the same advice. At what point after removal and replacement does it become vandalism? This has clearly been discussed several times in just the brief time I've been here, noticeboards have given the same advice and experts in the medical field, but nonetheless, the TM Org sources keep being "replaced", often by people with an admitted connection to a TM organization.


 * I'd like to assume good faith as much as anyone Will, but I'd be being dishonest with what I've seen transpire on these TM-related entries.


 * I should know, I removed many of them - and now they're back again! Would tendentious editing be a better phrase? I'd like to be fair to what's really going here, but I also cannot ignore willful replacement of these references, many written by or with key TM-org personnel. Given the in-depth discussion I fail to see how this could not be anything but a "deliberate attempt". How many times does it have to be discussed, explained and advice given before such deliberate replacement constitutes 'a deliberate attempt to compromise integrity'?--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even after you've seen evidence to the contrary, it's still best to assume good faith. That doesn't mean you shouldn't work to make sure those "good faith" contributions actually comply with Wikipedia standards. It's just that labeling them "vandalism" serves no purpose and using that inaccurate description makes uninvolved editors roll their eyes.   Will Beback    talk    19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see your point. While the actions described above would constitute a type of vandalism, they would not constitute what is generally termed on the WP vandalism.


 * These seem to be more issues of Bias and Disruptive/Tendentious Editing. WP:DISRUPT and WP:ICANTHEARYOU seem to describe what I've witnessed. I appreciate you taking the time to help clarify my understanding, thanks.--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rainbow body
Rainbow body may include burning the body.转载光明大圆满行者的死亡方式虹化與火光三味 Nature following and the Tao (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is not the case in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. There are roughly 3 ways it occurs in Dzogchen, and the style of Rainbow Body in the Inner Tantras is actually not an actual "Rainbow Body", more of a misnomer. You are referring to a completely different process.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge book
Hi, Kala. Your misrepresentation of this book suggests that you haven't seen the actual source. You can view the pages by finding the book in Amazon and using the "Search Inside this Book" feature, as you probably know. And you can use screen capture to make images of the pages to use for future reference. TimidGuy (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Timidguy. I have a current copy of the entire work, thanks.--Kala Bethere (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK
Hi, Kala. Will has edited your heading which named me and accused me of tendentious editing. Note that WP:TALK disallows naming other editors in a heading. "Never address other users in a heading." Thank you. TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
 * All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
 * Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
 * Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
 * Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
 * From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
 * User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
 * Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Discussion at Arb Talk
Courtesy notice: There is a discussion at the Arbitration Committee talk page concerning evidence pages created by participants in the TM ArbCom. The outcome of the discussion may impact your user page content (sandboxes) from that case. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Agni dhatu samadhi


The article Agni dhatu samadhi has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not notable, does not cite any rs"

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  dud  hhr  Contribs 20:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)