User talk:Presearch/Archive 2

Gurudas Banerjee
a) Find an admin to delete these edits so that you get article creator's credit. If you can't find any admin, I'll see if I can find someone! b) I suggest to remove all external links from the table, that's a risky thing and we generally avoid in Indian articles. You link IMDb, CITWF and people start linking Youtuve, (copyvio) mp3 download, video download links too! Remove all links! c) Yes, you can nominate the article. I know you need review a nomination I'll do the "one nomination review" for you! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, the links should probably be removed from the table, though they've been very handy for writing it. Actually, they can all be turned into content footnotes, so only a moderate amount of inconvenience will be added. Also, given that the first version of the article was merely a redirect, I'd be inclined to call myself the creator anyway, even without troubling an admin. Though if there are doubts I suppose we can ask for clarification at Talk:DYK. It just seems common sense.
 * Finally, besides the links, another thing that needs to be cleaned up is whether the film Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (second to the last row in the table, with a YouTube link) is the same as the row above it, Shri Shri Ramakrishna Kathamrita. Do you know enough Bengali to look at the YouTube video and figure out if it's the same? (If so, if you want, you could leave me a note here or on the talk page, and then I can enter the change, without losing your capacity to be the nominator if you want [though I couldn't quite tell from what you wrote above whether you want to be a nominator or not]). Thanks! -- Presearch (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You need an admin to delete previous edits. My internet is currently tremendously slow. If you give me the exact link, I'll try to watch it. (and yes, remove all ELs for article body specially Yioutube videos links, most of Youtube playlist videos are copyvios). About the video, you can ask User:Dwaipayanc, he is also a native Bengali speaker! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Gee, that's awful if most Youtube playlist videos are copyvios. I wonder why the copyright holders don't request they be deleted? And is copyvio any less of a problem for full-length videos, like most of the YouTube video links that are currently in the FaRK and Gurudas Bannerjee tables? Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That isa definitely a copyvio! Who is GajalKashim? For Indian language movies you'll get all movies in Youtube/internet! Wait for 1 week, you'll get "The Light" too! For Indian languages movie either link only those movies which are listed at http://www.youtube.com/user/YouTubeMoviesIN (Bengali movies link: http://www.youtube.com/channel/SBrGKNnqKjaQk These are uploaded by Youtube partners/Film production house or distributors or check the uploader's name and profile! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For clarification, I also like to add full movies Youtube links, but, only from YT partners' videos! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That (YouTube video) details: director: Radha Saha, editor: Narayan Biswas, photography: Sunanda Chatterjee etc. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! -- Presearch (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ramakrishna play
Add this man. I had a wish to create an article on this drama, this man portrayed the role of Ramakrishna for 30-35 years at a stretch! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ready for DYK?
Yes, it is. Go ahead or suggest the hook! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks very good! Are you suggesting me to nominate it or you are going to do the work? --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well... if you want to nominate it you could probably do it without doing a review, right? I would be happy for you to nominate it, and then I could also stay tuned and ready to respond if any issues arise. BTW, it looks from here and here that SRK's birthday may be March 13 so if you think it's a good idea we could suggest running it on that day as a special event. What do you think? -- Presearch (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Ramakrishna's birthday is 18 February 2) SRK mean Shahrukh Khan 3) I am reviewing an article for you, link it as your QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Matanaka Farm --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ladakh International Film Festival
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkey talk
Several issues  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In the UK, I just get We're sorry, but this video is not available in your region due to right restrictions. So it's not available to all Wikipedia readers, and of limited value.
 * That message suggests that the publishers have not agreed to free access to the content, so the link should not be posted here. This is why we have automatic bots that remove links to Youtube and the like.
 * You are very specific in linking a particular book and the film made from it. Neither are used as sources for the article, and probably wouldn't be acceptable in what is essentially a biology article anyway, since there is a separate article for domesticated turkeys. There are lots of books that could have been listed as further reading, but aren't. The effect, even if unintentional, is that it looks as if you are promoting these products.
 * "Further reading" and "See also" sections are rarely a good idea. If the book etc are relevant, they will be used as sources, if not, at best you get a pointless list
 * I looked at My Life as a Turkey. While some issues remain, the notability requirement appears to be met by the Emmy, so I have no particular problem with that article.


 * I thought it seemed a reasonable compromise. The varying access isn't restricted to PBS, some BBC material can't be watched outside the UK, and Google Books also gives differing geographical access. I guess it's to do with the copyright licences under which the material is published.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I received the email below today (third paragraph) and I do not know how to get this issue corrected. I edited the article 'How To Start A Revolution' with the following addition: "The eleven second footage of the Boeing 767 landing at Logan International Airport in Boston, MA., USA, by Videographer Lyman GL DeLiguori, Sr., MCP., of Methuen, MA., USA, was shot on a Sony HVR-A1U with Carl Zeiss T* Lens in arduous weather conditions of -20F and from a distance of approximately one-half mile."

I then received the following:

22:30, 17 January 2014 Hello again. I noticed that you made an addition at How to Start a Revolution. You added a sentence explaining how a particular shot in the film was done, and who did it. Do you have a (published) source for that information? If you read up about how Wikipedia is run, you will see that all information must be verifiable through reliable sources. It would be good if you could add a footnote to the source which cites a reference supporting the information. If such a reference doesn't appear on the page within a few days (or perhaps sooner), the new sentence may be deleted (in fact, unsourced additions that look like they may be self-promotional are often deleted sooner than a few days). Best regards, and thanks again for your contribution. --Presearch (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)"

Here is the problem: I, Lyman GL DeLiguori, Sr., MCP., am that Videographer. How do I prove I am he? I can and will sign an Affidavit if necessary, but I know of no other way to prove that my addition is truthful.

ANY help greatly appreciated!

LGLDSR73 (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What you're adding here is likely original research, something Wikipedia is not the place for. If no one else has written about you doing that shot, say a newspaper or a film magazine, Wikipedia should not write about it either. Your own affidavit clearly is not an independent source, and you extolling your own achievements will indeed be seen as self-promotion, again something Wikipedia is not the place for. Thus it's probably best to remove that content until you can provide third-party sources that discuss your effort in some detail. Even then, due to your conflict of interest it's better for you to propose changes on the talk page than to edit the article yourself. Huon (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boston Film Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Last Kiss (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) 09:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Altai-Sayan region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stella (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) 09:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Altai-Sayan region at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Neo-Vedanta
Nice edits; well done. I've left a few suggestions at the talkpage. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indra's Net (book), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Seva and Richard King (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) 08:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
Tito ☸ Dutta 02:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Friendly gesture

 * Thank you for the friendly token, Joshua. Likewise, I appreciate what seems to be your friendliness, and your genuine good intentions. Let me also point out what I suspect is common ground shared by you, me, and Malhotra: All three of us, I suspect, are non-Hindutva &mdash; recall that Malhotra describes himself as a non-Hindutva Hindu. I regard such a claim as completely realistic, since I know many non-Hindutva Hindus, as well as non-Hindutva non-Hindus, who, like Malhotra, perceive and are appalled by phenomena that Malhotra identifies and criticizes. I hope that the broad sectors of people who feel similarly will all be able to express their views without being pilloried as Hindutva.


 * I would also encourage those who believe in the interconnected cosmology of Indra's Net to apply it consistently: Don't apply Indra's Net to most phenomena, but indulge in a Promethean approach to understanding Buddhism and the Buddha himself, pretending that the Buddha did not arise in an (admittedly somewhat degenerate at the time) Hindu culture. The Buddha, while a great creative genius, has also sometimes been called a "child of the Upanishads". These ideas need not be in conflict. Both from the standpoint of Indra's Net and from the standpoint of modern cultural studies scholarship, the presence of a Vedic inheritance seemingly should be a default stance for studying and representing the Buddha, as well as for discussing his legacy. There is plenty of room to give credit to both Hinduism and Buddhism. But I agree with Malhotra that the predilection of recent western scholarship has been to give more credit to a (conveniently Promethean) Buddhism, and deny it to Hinduism. I think this is a mistake that should be corrected and will in time be corrected, and I hope you will do your part (with time available), as a person of good will, to help correct it.


 * I would add that the notion that Hinduism has suffered from some remarkably poor scholarship (mostly by Westerners) in the past 40 or 50 years is not inconsistent with how scholarly fields can sometimes run aground. In such cases, even when scholars get their facts correct, they can look at the world with astonishingly narrow blinders: Consider, for example, the case of behaviorism, prior to the onset of cognitive psychology. From this perspective, Malhotra is analogous to a cognitive revolutionary who seeks to correct a field run aground in narrowness. Not that the cognitive revolution is the last word. --Presearch (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi presearch. Thank you for your kind reply. I'm aware that the political divisions in India are complicated, which is also reflected in the discussions at Wikipedia. There's pressure on the article on India Against Corruption to remove Arvind from it; it appears, to my surprise, that those people also reject Vivekananda.


 * Did I mention already Geoffrey Samuel's "The origins of Yoga and Tantra" to you? Samuel argues that Jainism, Buddhism and the Upanishadic tradition originated in the same cultural milieu, in northern India. With, indeed, a strong Vedic influence, but also non-Vedic elements. From what I've understood about it, making strict distinctions between "Buddhism", "Hinduism", and "Jainism", is not very useful; they are various manifestations of a broad cultural complex. Which is illustrated by the spread of both buddhism and "the Hindu synthesis": both spread from the north to the south of India, and to south-east Asia.


 * I think that the metaphor of Indra's net applies better to Indian culture as a whole, including Buddhism and Hinduism, but also, I guess, Islam, and the influence of the west.


 * Regarding the "poor scholarship": I see something different, namely a correction of the popular understanding of Hinduism, which is strongly influenced by Vivekananda and other "neo-Advaitins". I can't regard Malhotra to be a compensating factor here; his depiction of, for example, Rambacharan's work i suggestive and, therefor, incorrect. But this is the area where we disagree.


 * Anyway, I appreciate the details of your edits, and your carefull sourcing. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Indra's Net (book)
slakr \ talk / 09:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That book discussion
There is no need to apologize or feel embarrassed; you have the right to your opinion, whether that be supporting or merging whatever proposal there is. If, theoretically, one of us supported/opposed a proposal and we were wrong, it isn't breaking any sort of rule because everybody is allowed to be wrong. I just logged in after a Wikibreak of a few days and found that I had made several large blunders which were pointed out while I was gone. It happens to all of us. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind and understanding words and encouragement! I feel better! Warm regards -- Presearch (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Indra's net
It's a moving book, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   18:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... was there a pun intended? (the page title was 'moved' but changed back recently, partly due to book project discussions. With regard to the book being moving in an emotional or spiritual or intellectual sense, I can imagine that could be the case for many people. For example, one might sympathize with the statement in one of the cited book reviews that a Hindu fellow living in the US particularly appreciated the book because he didn't want his children disproportionately exposed to what he perceived as wrongheaded (ultimately anti-Hindu) scholarship. And the reviewer thought that the book would help the situation of his children. I'm inclined to agree with him, and indeed, that is moving when I consider their situation.


 * For me personally, as an academic and Wikipedian, I particularly appreciated the attempt to characterize the unity (in diversity) of Hinduism. Though I can't call myself a Hindu I've had enough exposure to how the tradition "works" in practice to think that RM is fairly accurate in his description of how the tradition functions (like an 'open architecture'), and to think that a lot of the modern scholars have got it wrong - perhaps because they were, perhaps unawares, importing criteria or implicit assumptions from other traditions that may emphasize, for example, specific doctrines to a greater degree. (RM has various ideas on sources of error, some of them less charitable than others).


 * Sometimes adequately and explicitly characterizing how something functions can go a long way towards dispelling inaccurate characterizations. In my opinion it would certainly be great if that happens here. That might provide a lot of 'concrete' benefit on the human level, such as to that review author. And perhaps foster improved harmony between traditions. Over the long run, maybe even save lives. Indeed, making it possible for people to hold their heads up and be themselves without feeling attacked - that can indeed be moving.


 * Were you serious when you implied you found the book moving?


 * Regards --- Presearch (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant the frequent change of title, though I might recommand it to Hindus.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * By any chance, just out of curiosity, have you read any significant portion of the book? --Presearch (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raymond Paloutzian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Barbara. 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, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sharp-From-Dictatorship-To-Democracy-ISBN-9781854251046.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sharp-From-Dictatorship-To-Democracy-ISBN-9781854251046.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. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The image is now re-linked from its original book page, which had been damaged during AWB "repair", which broke the image file name. I have fixed it, and the image should be retained. -- Presearch (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Presearch
You should enable your email or mail me, need to discuss something about previous page that was up for deletion and problem with others. Fundarise (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have little time for Wikipedia at present, and I have never enabled email and don't intend to. I see you seem to be fairly new to Wikipedia. I'd encourage you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia by contributing for a while to a few articles where you have some knowledge but are also detached (not strongly tied to a particular point of view), and in that way you can become familiar with Wikipedia and how it works. -- Presearch (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Lectio Divina
Hi Presearch. I noticed your edit to Lectio Divina. I was wondering lately if classical Advaita Vedanta is somehow akin to Lectio Divina; what do you think? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Well to me they seem like two different things, or at least have two different emphases: I think of Advaita Vedanta as primarily a philosophy, whereas Lectio Divina is primarily a practice. And whereas Lectio Divina is centered around a text -- or at least uses it as a point of departure -- my impression is that Advaita Vedanta doesn't have any special place for texts. Am I missing something? Nice to hear from you. Best -- Presearch (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've got this edition of the main Upanishads with Shankara's commentary; it's a wordt-for-word explanation. And there's swami Dayananda and his students, Anantanand Rambachan and Michael Comans, who describe Advaita Vedanta as the close reading of the sacred texts - as a practice. The texts, and their correct interpretation, are central here.
 * I even started wondering (and I'm setting foot on holy ground here, so apologies in advance) if Shankara was "enlightened", or "just" merely an erudite scholar, who could give lenghty explanations, but without the insight into Brahman/awareness/sunyata. For him, as far as I know, the study and interpretation of the texts was about understanding the menaing they were supposed to carry: the Upanishadic Brahman is consciousness/awareness/prajna, c.q. consciousness/awareness/prajna is Brahman, the highest reality (not necessarily a "thing", but more like a "quality." Still following me in my associations? ;)). Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathan -- again, your comments and questions are mostly outside of where I know much, though I recognize most of the names you mentioned (except Comans, whose name was new to me). But if you want a grab-bag of reactions on the basis of my little knowledge: 1) This is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that Shankara was "just" an erudite scholar. If so, he'd certainly be one of the most remarkable scholars who ever lived. What other mere scholar has founded a monastic order that endured about 14 centuries? Etc. My recollection is that various biographical details are recounted that would be consistent with illumination (and some with the sorts of siddhis that aren't illumination but aren't mere scholarship either), so to argue that he was a mere scholar, you'd have to somehow discount those. But I imagine that a view that he was merely a scholar might have appeal in certain Buddhist circles who are miffed at his role in ending (or assimilating?) Buddhism in India.
 * 2) It certainly makes sense that scriptural reading could be seen as one possible practice, consistent with Advaita, to help attain realization. But presenting it as a practice sufficient by itself would be a different claim. And presenting it as a sin qua non (absolutely necessary) practice would also be a different claim - one that would beg lots of questions, such as "what if I read 9 of the 10 principal upanishads and omit one?" or "what if I read them in translation and not Sanskrit?" etc.
 * 3) I only have a smattering of understanding about the role that shruti plays in Shankara versus other views - an understanding mostly just from seeing the debates discussed by Malhotra and the recent response by Rambachan. But it is commonly said that raw mystical (unitive) experiences require a process of assimilation into one's personality. I'd be inclined to interpret the difficulties described by Gopi Krishna (yogi) in his writings in that perspective (I seem to recall he experienced horrendous difficulties assimilating his experiences). The 21st century researchers on psychedelics (psilocybin) also feel a need to supply cognitive/interpretive resources to help their research participants assimilate their entheogen-induced mystical experiences. So one might argue that if "illumination" means experiencing complete mystical unity -- which is perhaps in some sense the "hardest" step -- then maybe "shruti" (as interpretive resources) is unnecessary; but if one wants to fully assimilate that experience, then, unless one wants to split hairs, maybe "shruti" (or some other interpretive resources from others who've had those experiences and assimilated them) is indeed necessary.
 * 4) Based on my observation of Hindu teachers and tradition, Malhotra's notion of Hinduism as an "open architecture" does indeed evocatively capture the big picture of how Hinduism operates -- and within that fold, teachers use words in ways that are directed at helping their more proximate audiences in whatever task is at hand, rather than in all cases trying to erect a philosophical edifice. So words from long ago (as well as more recent words) should be interpreted in that light. I hope these thoughts/responses are useful. --Presearch (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Presearch. Of course Buddhists can't be completely trusted in this matter ;) yet there are even people who have claimed that it was not Shankara himself, but some later teachers who were responsible for the ascendency of Shankara's teachings. That's indeed partly part of the quarrels between various schools and factions. Regarding Michaels et al, I'll post some links/articles here later; it's interesting, this "orthodox" interpretation. And I totally agree with you that "mystical experiences" have to be assmilated; thanks for mentioning Gopi Krishna; I'll read him, nad hope he may be helpfull for my personal seeking. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Rambachan you know of course already. Also have a look at Michael James, who seems to follow this "traditional" Advaita vedanta methodology in his explanations of Ramana Maharshi's sayings. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's another one: Joël André-Michel Dubois, The Hidden Lives of Brahman, SUNY. I haven't read it (yet), but it's on my wish-list. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathan, thank you for all these ideas and references. You've got me intrigued about the relationship between Advaita Vedanta and text-based (i.e., text-employing) spiritual practices. These references look like a good place to start delving further into the topic -- though I imagine it might be quite slow in my case (though potentially with a few "fits and starts"), because of lots of competing real-life stuff. But regardless of the pace at which I move, I do appreciate the ideas and references. Thanks again -- Presearch (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * PS BTW, with regard to Gopi Krishna (yogi), my impression is that his experiences and writings were quite timely for the epoch in which they appeared -- which I think of as the 1960s (his page says his first major book appeared in 1967), which was a time in which unreconstructed scientism was perhaps more powerful than it is today. My impression is his writings may have been especially powerful and intriguing for people with little prior contact with living spiritual/mystical traditions. I have, however, heard it said that the notion of love is largely or entirely absent from his writings. That seems consistent with the bit that I've browsed him after hearing that idea. In that sense, he might perhaps (???) be put forward as an illustration of the idea in the Gita chap 9 (and in Ramakrishna) that the path of knowledge (especially alone) is much much harder than the path of devotion (bhakti). At least that's how I've filed away GopiKrishna in my mental files. Also vaguely in my mind is the notion that few people are beyond the need for psychological attachment, and this aspect of human nature might be somehow related to the phenomenon (if it is a phenomenon) that the path of knowledge, by itself, is very very difficult (I express this idea to you only because you are a psychologist and might be familiar with the notion of attachment). At any rate, Gopi Krishna had a hard time, and his writings can be quite interesting, as long as you approach them with appropriate expectations. --Presearch (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The notion of attachment is very interesting. According to Kohut and other psycho-analysts (this is another branch than those who "analysed" Ramakrishna), people always "need" human bonds and interactions. And remember the notion of karuna and the Bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism: "higher" than non-attachment is 'working for the good of all humankind.' Non-selfish action may be a means to overcome the illusion of the "I" - or maybe jnana is a means to further non-selfish action, "higher" than delivery or moksha 'for oneself alone.'
 * Also have a look, if you like, at Yoga Vasistha and Moksopaya, which originated in Kashmir, as a "syncretism" of Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Saivism and Advaita Vedanta. Very interesting, how these traditions were not totally different strands of thought, but interacted, and how the notion of sunyata was also applied to Brahman and Shiva. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathan, thanks for the additional references. When I mentioned attachment, I should have mentioned that there's now a substantial body of work applying the framework to "God attachment" -- the notion that the same mental systems/formations that (evolutionarily) were evolved for attachments between people, can also be directed to a personal God. There are questionnaires to measure this phenomenon -- i.e., to what degree do people feel a secure vs insecure attachment to God, and is the insecure attachment "anxious" versus "avoidant". See, for example, here (review), here (measure), here (Islam). Unfortunately, I don't think much work has been done to apply this framework to Hindu or Buddhist (e.g., perhaps "pure land") traditions, although it's equally applicable. Also, there seems to be little application as yet of the theory to attachments to a spiritual teacher, where it would also be clearly applicable. --Presearch (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan, Presearch: I noticed this discussion and decided to add in some of my opinions -- and maybe a little bit of actual information too.

Jonathan, I agree with Presearch, that 'Vedānta' names a school of philosophy, or a darśana to use the Sanskrit term. I think we could translate that technical term, darśana, as 'viewpoint.'

Traditionally there were six such major schools in ancient India, collectively known as the 'ṣad-darśana'.

Another meaning for the term 'vedānta' would be the literal one, 'end of the Vedas.' And 'end' can mean 'final portion' or else 'goal' just as happens in the case of the word 'end' in English. The Upanishads come at the end of the Vedic texts, and are also considered 'final' in terms of presenting the perfect philosophy and also describing, as far as words can, the actual realization of the Absolute. The Vedas along with the Upanishads are thus considered as 'śruti', spelled as 'shruti' without diacritics; which can be glossed as 'direct revelation' or some such: 'heard' by the seer directly from the Beyond or however we want to name That.

There are several branches of Vedanta philosophy. Shankara espouses the Advaita (non-dual) sort. In that context he advocates a method for spiritual advancement, summarized in the triad phrase 'śravana, manana, nididhyāsana' as presented in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (BU2.4.5); the phrase means 'hearing, considering, meditating' by my translation; the 'considering' part refers to mental activity. Shankara summarized the meditation method in a single compound word, 'śruti-manana-nididhyāsana' which I would translate as something like 'spiritual-study-meditation.'

Long story shorter: to me this does look a lot like Lectio Divina, in practice.

As for the question, was Shankara illumined, we each get to decide that for ourselves, in my opinion. Surely it a matter of faith whom we decide to consider illumined. I do not think there are any useful 'litmus tests' for illumination; do you agree? We can only have our own opinions there, and also, needs.

This however seems clear, to me: no one can reasonably deny Shankara's dominant place in the history of Indian philosophy, and world philosophy, and in the history of Indian spirituality in general. We can hardly deny that Shankara was one of the most remarkable of human beings ever to show up, after noting how young he was when he achieved so many grand tasks that have transcended time and place ever after. A bare sketch of his life and accomplishments will confirm that point. Savitr108 (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Savitr, you might be interested in the new article I just created for the book Unifying Hinduism. While Shankara is not much mentioned in the book article, the book itself does mention Shankara. Definitely worth reading (though I haven't read every word myself, alas...) --Presearch (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Presearch, due to your comments here and also the Wikipedia article you created, I have started looking at the book Unifying Hinduism. Very satisfying reading, so far. Savitr108 (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Irony
Hi Presearch. My sincere thanks for your comments at Template talk:Hindu philosophy. Also my apologies for involving you there; I did so precisely because of our diagreements on "dharmic traditions," knowing that you've always insisted on showing the relations between the various Indian traditions. I trusted, and do trust, that you appreciate the irony of me asking for your opinion and help on this. I have to admit that my opinions on this topic are shifting, due to my prolonged reading and writing on these topics, including Unifying Hinduism. Best regards, and a heartfelt thanks,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did appreciate the irony.... but that's the sort of thing that can come to [your] mind (and be successfully implemented) when one has a degree of detachment from one's opinions. While I'm not looking to take on new WP activities (chronic time shortage, blah, blah, blah), I appreciated the invitation and chance to offer perspectives. Interesting to know your overall thoughts/perspectives are continuing to evolve (as are mine). Best --Presearch (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Karuna
Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition of religion
"usefulness of a tradition for transforming and sanctifying the lives of people of diverse temperments" - that's a nice criterium. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah... One of the observations made in some of the psychology literature is that one may view spirituality as the purpose of religion (and one of the ways of capturing a key dimension of spirituality is to talk about virtues and transformation/sanctification of personality), See, for example, -- page 28 says "...Viewed in this way, the field of religion is to spirituality as the field of medicine is to health." Thanks --Presearch (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I also think that religion provides the elements (stories, symbols, etc) which, when internalised, come alive in the recipient, being experienced as a manifestation in the world: the world becomes the "playground" of the religious narrative, is the religious narrative and imaginary. Tantra is a very good example, but also the "tale Kanaans" ("the language of Kanaan," that is, Biblical language). We learn all the elements, and then they come alive: we "get it," become converted, enlighted, etc. NB: it took me more than 25 years to "get this point," fitting all the elements together. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare just mentioned 'Barbara A. Holdrege's Veda and Torah: Transcending the Textuality of Scripture at Talk:Rigveda; sounds like an illustration of what I just mentioned.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - India, Pakistan, and Afganistan
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psychological Studies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer. 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) 09:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Oral tradition
Interesting point. So, what happens when an orla tradition gets fixated in a (printed) canon? My bet: new oral traditions develop, without "official" canonical authority, such as multiple religious belonging, and the combining of elements from various religions and traditions. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited From Dictatorship to Democracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert Einstein Institute. 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) 09:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A History of Modern Yoga
Hi Presearch. Did you read A History of Modern Yoga by Elizabeth De Michelis? It's a very interesting book, with a substantialpart devoted to Vivekananda's thoughts on Yoga. Actually, it seems to be a book Malhotra is responding to in Indra's Net, while hardly mentioning it. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, JJ, thanks. No, never heard of it or read it. I'll keep an eye out for it and perhaps someday I'll have a chance to look at it. Yeah I suppose it's quite possible that Malhotra was responding to something without mentioning it. On the other hand, Indra's Net seems directed ostensibly at a whole trend in recent indology (and was catalyzed, as he said by the commentators at his book symposium on Being Different), so it sounds like the trend, or at least the perceived urgency of responding to it, came to him that way. Is there something especially specific or distinctive about the De Michelis book that makes it seem like he was responding to it (without mentioning it)? --Presearch (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Funny, I also figured that the responses to Being Different made him aware of the "neo-Hindu thesis." It's not a "recent trend," that is, not from the last few decennia or so. Hacker wrote in the 1950s, but awareness of the Brahmo Samaj and Vivekananda as constituting a 'new' interpretation of Hinduism & western thought must have been there earlier than the 1950s.
 * De Michelis builts on Wouter Hanegraaff, who was one of the first scholars to research the influence of Western esotericism on New Age thought (it's a fascinating topic, by the way). De Michelis clearly points out how Vivekananda was influenced by this western esotericism, especially Transcendentalism and New thought, but also Unitarianism. Once you've read De Michelis, and some info on Transcendentalism, New Thought and Unitarianism, and not to forget Mesmerism, then the dots become very clearly connected. So, I was surprised that RM did not respond more elaborately at De Michelis. Maybe Malhotra didn't read the book, or just choose to ignore to avoid any promotion of it?
 * Reading De Michelis also helped me to better understand Malhotra's line of thought. What he calls "Dharmic traditions," in Breaking India, is indeed neo-Vedanta: a neo-Vedantic charicature of "the" west (where's post-modernism? Cultural relativism? Complexity theory? Democracy? To name a few...), and a neo-Vedantic, homogenized picture of "spiritual India." Where is the warrior-hero? The differences between the various Indian traditions? His only response to those differences is his denial of Rambachan's charge that anubhava, for Shankara, does not have the meaning that Vivekananda ascribed to it, namely as some sort of "religious experience" (a topic on it's own, with William James and the like picking out all the extreme "experiences," neglecting possible neurologiocal explanations, and also ignoring the contexts and the mechanisms of socially driven learning, e.g. social constructionism. See The Sacred Canopy for an introduction to that topic.)
 * See also his logic in denying western influence on Vivekananda: Vivekananda was influenced by medieaval Indian doxology, therefor he wasn't influenced by westerners. A breathtaking kind of logic.
 * And a last point: RM's initial trigger seems to have been Kipral (was that his name?) and those other two books with a Freudian orientation. It's idiotic, of course, to take Freudian psycho-analysis as an instrument to analyze Indian religions (see, by the way, the possibility that Ramakrishna had Temporal lobe epilepsy, c.q. Geschwind syndrome, and that this may have caused his "samadhis". Vivekananda hinself thought initially that this explained Ramakrishna's religiosity...), but to take these three books as symptomatic for the whole of Indology is an overreaction, and maybe also telling for a lack of knowledge on his side about Indology (a returning point of critique in reviews).
 * Well, anyway: De Michelis is worth reading. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Namaste
Thanks for quickly retaining the parts you agree to. After I saw one more edit from you and looked back in context I get it. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra T 03:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, good. Glad it all made sense. Sorry for my initial confusion. Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ward V. Evans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bureau of Mines. 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) 10:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Care to help? with an odd incident of Wiki editing?
Presearch, a few weeks ago I corrected a Sanskrit translation at the Ramana Maharshi page. It has to do with the Om namah shivaya mantra. The translation there was poor, to say the least. Well, another Wiki user reverted my efforts back to the original.

If you have any interest in stepping in, please do. I would do it myself but I feel sort of intimidated by the protocols here for interacting about Wiki editing. Here is the link:

Talk:Ramana Maharshi

If you'd prefer, do of course simply advise me in how I can proceed. Thanks! Savitr108 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * the translation may not be the best; I don't know. But it's the translation that this specific source gives. If you change it into something which this specific source does not say, then that's not acceptable. But if there are other translations, you can add them, with source. As for which translation is best: I don't know. Maybe some source can tell us? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Friend, I will look at your source to see if I can figure out why that source shows a faniciful interpretation -- and not in any sense a translation. But in the meantime, do please note this from the definitive Sri Monier Williams Sanskrit-to-English dictionary, for the word namas, which becomes namaḥ (नमः) in this context due to sandhi rules:

namas (H2) n/amas [p= 528,1] [L=103845] 	n. bow, obeisance , reverential salutation , adoration (by gesture or word ; often with dat. e.g. raamaaya namaH , salutation or glory to raama , often ind. [g. svar-aadi] ; namas- √kRi , to utter a salutation , do homage ; ind.p. °mas-k/Ritya [ AV. TS. &c ] or °mas-kRitvaa [ MBh. BhP. ] ; n/amas-kRita , worshipped , adored) RV. &c [L=103846] 	food Naigh. ii, 7 [L=103847] 	a thunderbolt, ii , 20 [L=103848] 	gift, donation L. (H2B) n/amas [L=103849] 	m. (?) an inarticulate cry L.

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/

You might also consult this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_Namah_Shivaya Savitr108 (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Page named Deshbandhu College moved to Ramanujan College
Deshbandhu College and Ramanujan Colleges are working currently from the same building and are using some common facilities but both are different. Ramanujan College, in near future will be ready with its new campus and is totally different from Deshbandhu College. As you have changed its name from Deshbandhu College to Ramanujan, please revert it to original name Deshbandhu College for that you can clarify it from College website. It would better to create one more page named Ramanujan College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiseradi (talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I moved it back to the earlier name (Deshbandhu College) as you suggested. If by some chance you can add citations to sources that document the information you supplied, that would be great (see WP:RS). Note that sources are preferably in English, but they are not required to be in English. Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a strong need to have a page for Ramanujan College as now it has it's own building and regardless of that we should consider that Deshbandhu College and Ramanujan College (Deshbandhu College Evening) both are two different colleges with different staff, students, principal, faculty and infra therefore it deserves to have a different page on Wiki To understand the case better let me explain. Previously there were two different colleges (Deshbandhu Morning and Deshbandhu Evening) in the same building with different staff, students and structure, functioning at different timings but then the latter changed it's name to Ramanujan College from Deshbandhu Evening and shifted to new building constructed at the same location. Hope that helps Assefme (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, creating a new page for Ramanujan College sounds very sensible to me though I don't have time to contribute much to Wikipedia these days, so if someone else can do it, I'd urge them to go ahead and create it. --Presearch (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I can do that but for that I would want you to remove the redirect to Deshbandhu College page. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assefme (talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have the capacity to remove the redirect. I think you should request a Wikipedia administrator to remove it (delete it). Or else you could simply expand the redirect to the article that you want; the main disadvantage with simply expanding it is that it will (I think) not show up in your editor info as an article that you have created. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay then Let me talk to an admin :) Thanks Regards Assefme (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Easwaran-2008-PassageMeditation-cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Easwaran-2008-PassageMeditation-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. --B-bot (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sully
I have begun a dialog at Talk:Sully (film), and I ask that per WP:BRD you discuss your issue there rather than edit-war. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon me? Are you accusing me of edit warring? If not, then I too request that you behave in a non-edit warring manner, rather than edit-warring. FYI I have now contributed to the discussion on that talk page in a subsection HERE that was given a more appropriate name, reflecting the BRD process, rather than a false accusation that perhaps not accidentally (?) might risk the undesirable effect of biasing the discussion. --Presearch (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Auguste de Pradines
Thank you for your excellent and hard work on Auguste de Pradines. You are a great editor and your contributions are appreciated. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 09:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Beckler
It was late, I saw https://www.youcaring.com/dollygaiser-962353 and perceived it as an obituary. Although I'm willing to believe that it's accurate, if I'd been more awake I would've been more careful about WP:RS. (Similarly, https://www.dchitthebricks.com/runners/21 is not remotely an RS!) Sorry. DS (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems a good enough source to cite at least for its own claims; I've added it to the article and restored the cause of death tag that you had added. When I did searches to see if I could verify, I searched on "Richard Beckler" but not "Dick Beckler" so I had not seen the page you linked. Thanks! --Presearch (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Easwaran-Original-Goodness-1996-b.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Easwaran-Original-Goodness-1996-b.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Neo-Vedanta
Hi Presearch. You may be interested in this article: James Madaio, Rethinking Neo-Vedanta: Swami Vivekananda and the Selective Historiography of Advaita Vedanta. I found it as a direct down-loadable pdf, but I can't find back that link...Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That article looks like a needed corrective. Western Indology has generated some pretty quirky and sometimes damaging ideas, and it'd be nice to think that a corrective process is now accelerating, with balanced ideas eventually driving out tendentious ideas (many of which, for all we know, may have risen to prominence in part due to sponsors with geopolitical motives, during the cold war and possibly more recently). --Presearch (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Joel Moskowitz
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

CATs
Hi Presearch. "So the smaller ("subset") category is what should be kept on each page - in the example, "Cities in France" is a "subset" of "Populated places in France", and cities is what should be kept. Similarly, Category:Ramakrishna Mission and Category:Neo-Advaita should be kept, because none of their (presently existing) subcategories are on the page." I agree with the example of Paris, but seems to me contradictory when you use that as an ilustration for Ramakrishna article categories. Because Ramakrishna article is the main article of Category Ramakrishna where Category Ramakrishna Mission is a subset. Ramakrishna doesn't belong to Category Neo-Advaita, this is a movement created by Ramana and Nisargadatta disciples. Can you explain me better the reasoning? I think I understand categorization long time ago and I don't get your point. --Hades7 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well,, let me explain my logic first, and then in the second paragraph and third paragraph respond to your comments. I guided my edits and earlier comments by the current categories and their subcategories. When I go to Category:Ramakrishna Mission I do see four subcategories, with names such as "Category:Presidents of the Ramakrishna Order", "Category:Ramakrishna Math and Mission branches", and others. But nowhere do I see "Category:Ramakrishna" as a subcategory, or any other subcategory that was already on the Ramakrishna page. Therefore I inferred that Category:Ramakrishna Mission should be kept (because there was no basis for rejecting it as superfluous to something more specific). That's analogous to looking at Category:Cities in France, and discovering that there was no smaller "contained" category, and inferring that Category:Cities in France should be kept. In contrast, if you look at Category:Populated Places in France, you would discover that it contained Category:Cities in France, which would already have been on the Paris page, and therefore Category:Populated Places in France should be deleted as superfluous. A similar logic was employed for the other category that I restored.


 * Now above, you observe that the "Ramakrishna article is the main article of Category Ramakrishna where Category Ramakrishna Mission is a subset" as a basis for arguing for the deletion of the Category Ramakrishna Mission. I am unsure how to respond because I haven't noticed anything in WP:CAT or WP:SUBCAT that directly addresses this situation. The most relevant text I've noticed is the statement that "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible." And I confess I'm not satisfied by any of the ways that this guidance might be applied to the current question. One potential response would be to delete the higher category (Category:Ramakrishna) and retain the lower (Category:Ramakrishna Mission), but that would seem absurd because, as you say, Ramakrishna is the main page for the higher category. Another might be to argue that both categories should be retained. But Ramakishna Mission does not seem to be a "non-diffusing subcategory", so it's unclear whether that is warranted in this case. A third possibility might be to argue -- as it appears you are doing implicitly -- that the lower category should be deleted because there is no justification. But that doesn't feel quite right, either, because he seems relevant to the Ramakrishna Mission (which is mentioned in the first page of his article). But I am open to persuasion. Perhaps there is a some clearer basis for deleting the Ramakrishna Mission category that can be found among the Wikipedia Categorization guidelines? I am open to persuasion, and would look forward to learning something if it proves that I was following an overly narrow and therefore erroneous understanding (perhaps I jumped to a conclusion that all of your reasoning for deleting categories was of one type).


 * With regard to the Neo-Advaita category, it sounds like you are arguing from a substantive basis rather than a category structure basis. I haven't thought about the issue from that perspective. So (unless I think about it and find I disagree) I am neutral about the possibility of deleting the category on that substantive basis. Regards --Presearch (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"Éditions Fides" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Éditions Fides. Since you had some involvement with the Éditions Fides redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"Ser Amantio di Nicolao" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ser Amantio di Nicolao. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 22 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mantram-Handbook-front-2009.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mantram-Handbook-front-2009.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:EEBogie.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:EEBogie.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dylsss(talk contribs) 16:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mack (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Mack. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Unifying-Hinduism-2014-paper400x400.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Unifying-Hinduism-2014-paper400x400.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record: Okay to delete, as it has been replaced by a higher-resolution image --Presearch (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Tapovan Maharaj for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tapovan Maharaj, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Tapovan Maharaj until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Kristubhagavatam
Hello, in the moment I'm working on the project "St. Thomas Way", not literally, e. g. from Oberfeldkirchen, though this is my place of birth, to Chennai, but metaphorically: I think that the ties between the Christians of the West and the East could be strengthened, and this with the help of Sanskrit. So, because I've had some problems with my E-mail connection, you can contact me under sturmibundsturmibund@gmail.com Greetings from Hellsepp

By the way; if it works I just send you the translation of a German song, "Die Rasenbank am Elterngrab":

श्मशानगोचरी

॥१॥ दौर्जीवित्या कन्यास्मि द्रौपदी । कुपक्कणे वसामि । नना ततश्च बत स्वर्गतौ । कियच्चिरं सह्यामि ॥

रहः किंचित्किं तु ज्ञात्वा तत्रातिनिःश्वस्तुं गत्वा निदं शृणोम्यहं दिवे दिवे । असौ मुग्धा श्मशानगोचरी ॥

॥२॥ भविष्यवादिनी पुराब्रवीत् । निराशिनी त्वं कृत्स्नम् । परं त्ववोचन्मां पुरोहितः । किं वेत्सि नामुमृषिम् ।

यथा शक्त्रायतिः क्षिप्रे सौभाग्यं परिववृते तथा त्वं तद्वन्मम तारुणि श्लाघिष्यसे श्मशानगोचरि ॥

॥३॥ धृषद्विन्येधि भोस्तन्व्यावयोः । द्युभक्तं तव भाग्यम् । दैवं निहत्य कुरु पौरुषम् । इत्यम्बितातवाक्यम् ॥

उल्लेखने नित्यी कृता पूर्णायुः संस्थिते भूयाः । कुटुम्बकसमाकृता कनी शेतेऽत्र सा श्मशानगोचरी ॥ Hellsepp (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Good luck with your project. My Sanskrit is fairly mediocre, and my time is limited, so I doubt I could be of much help. The copy of the Kristhubhagavatam that I used when writing the Wikipedia article is long ago returned to the library. But your project sounds worthy. I imagine that if you keep looking you might find others with needed skills and time to help you with your project. (BTW, I don't mix Wikipedia and email, but I don't think that matters here, since I can't offer much help anyway.) Best wishes --Presearch (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Josh Hammer - Joshua Hammer
Nice to meet you! I wanted to change the name of Josh B. Hammer to Josh Hammer, but this page currently redirects to Joshua Hammer. I'm writing to you as you implemented the redirect in May 2022. It happens that the page of the other Josh Hammer was created in June 2022 and so they created it with the middle initial as Josh Hammer was taken. It appears that the Joshua refers to himself as Joshua and the Josh as Josh. Would you be ok if it no longer redirects to Joshua Hammer and the Josh B Hammer page be moved to Josh Hammer? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that the Josh B. Hammer page needs a hatnote (WP:HAT) alerting readers to the Joshua Hammer page, even as the Joshua Hammer page already has a hatnote to the Josh B. Hammer page. If such a hatnote can be added, it's okay with me to move the page to Josh Hammer. What seems most salient is that the search engines show that "Josh" and "Joshua" are not simply how these individuals tend to refer to themselves, but that those do seem to be the common ways that other also refer to them. Best --Presearch (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok cool. I'll add that note. Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. If you could please undo the redirect - I don't know how to undo redirects. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @MaskedSinger, I think you need to request a Wikipedia administrator to delete the redirect. Once it is deleted, I think it the article could be moved without problem. The alternative would be to copy all the content of the article to the redirect page. But that would lose all the editing history of the article (or more precisely have it buried elsewhere), and inappropriately attribute the entire article to you and me. So I think your next stop should be to contact a Wikipedia administrator and request them to remove the redirect now at Josh Hammer. Perhaps you will want to link to this present conversation as support for the validity of removing the redirect. I don't think my agreement is necessary, but perhaps seeing this conversation will give the administrator context that will make it easier for them to do their due diligence of making sure the deletion is desirable. Best --Presearch (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks! MaskedSinger (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)