User talk:Vasudharini

Your submission at Articles for creation: V Aravind Subramanyam (May 12)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:V Aravind Subramanyam and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:V_Aravind_Subramanyam Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NickW557&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:V_Aravind_Subramanyam reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 18:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: V Aravind Subramanyam (June 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:V Aravind Subramanyam and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:V_Aravind_Subramanyam Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SwisterTwister&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:V_Aravind_Subramanyam reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  21:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:V Aravind Subramanyam


Hello, Vasudharini. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "V Aravind Subramanyam".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

V Aravind Subramanyam moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, V Aravind Subramanyam, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sastha Aravind


A tag has been placed on Sastha Aravind requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11956659/profile-of-shri-v-aravind-subramanyam-subramania-samajam. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The profile of this person was copied from the original draft of Wikipedia 6 years back. Plus, isn't this an information based on a person?? Vasudharini (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Please retain this article Vasudharini (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

AFD
What is the basis and what else is required? Vasudharini (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of V Aravind Subramanyam for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article V Aravind Subramanyam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/V Aravind Subramanyam until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you sir.! I think retaining Sastha Aravind with the same details would be a better choice than Retaining Aravind Subramanyam. Vasudharini (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sastha Aravind moved to draftspace
I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — Sago tree spirit  (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Added, few more citation as per the review, where another person talks about the author. One is simplicity, where the royal. Member of pandhalam talks of his book. And in the interview of sinu Joseph, she mentions his work on shat chakras(Ayyapan) Hindu Tamil, had interviewed him regarding the entry of women, Shabarimala. So added that also up. Vasudharini (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sastha Aravind (October 14)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Sastha_Aravind Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Praxidicae was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: We really don't need to continue to do this again. Articles for deletion/V Aravind Subramanyam

Praxidicae (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

How do you categorise not ability? 3/4 references by third party, that has been added, still if this page is going through this. Can't help. Vasudharini (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sastha Aravind


A tag has been placed on Sastha Aravind, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think 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. Praxidicae (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sastha Aravind has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sastha Aravind. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Sastha Aravind


A tag has been placed on Draft:Sastha Aravind, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Praxidicae (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Cannot be deleted before clarifying the exact reason source by source. Vasudharini (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Hello, Vasudharini. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.Deb (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What is your connection with the subject of this article? Deb (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably you can say, that after meeting him, after reading his books, my perspective about Shabarimala and the diety shastha changed. From then on, I have been following him in social media's, interviews and things like that. And I have been friends. That's all. Vasudharini (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Friends, like my inspiration. I first read his book in 2012,the book was released in 2009, Immediately I wanted to create the article and I saw that someone had already done and the same was in articles of creation page and was rejected for notability.

Then in 2012, when I got the archives of the journals online and the interview online, I tried to create it. But that was declined. Until then I was following his journals in magazines such as Bakthi, ananada vikatan and Hindu.

Later, I observed that shastha is a diety who is connected with Ayyapa,this research is something unique and I wanted the Indian world to know the importance of this unique lord which also has a connection with Mt. Sastha.

The case came about in 2017,and I tried to contact him as he was in the media giving clarification with regard to why women should not enter the shrine. It was insightful.

The UNIndia article, which says he released book on this women entry was written by a lady advocating for the case of Shabarimala. That author Ms. SINU JOSEPHs book on it was a inspiration from Mr. ARAVIND. this even happened in Delhi in 2018 and that's when I who happened to be in the same auditorium spoke to him and started taking him as an Inspiration, collected his number to know details about him.

Beyond the fact, that he has been so many youngsters who go to Shabarimalas inspiration. There is no personal / professional relationship. Vasudharini (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If he is a friend of yours, you have a conflict of interest, and you should not write about him. Deb (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what I already told u, what kind of relationship I maintain.. And why I am eligible to write, more of a fan girl and being my inspiration. I have already explained.

Can u please clarify, which article shows that its being promotional? Vasudharini (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't at any cost have any conflict of interest sir.

How else do you want me th o prove it? Vasudharini (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I have written the details of how I knew him, and through which event I interacted. Vasudharini (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Your editing history makes it clear that a major focus of your editing is a desire to promote your views on certain matters, and especially on one person. Your comments above confirm that: you say that you "wanted the Indian world to know the importance of this unique lord", which makes it perfectly clear that you are editing for the purpose of publicising a person, and that your intention is not to present that person from a neutral point of view, as required by Wikipedia policy, but to extol and promote that person. Your use of the word "fan" adds further confirmation. Wikipedia seeks to present topics from the point of view of a neutral, uninvolved, observer, not from the point of view of a "fan". You may have originally come to Wikipedia sincerely believing that such editing to publicise and promote a person whom you admire would be acceptable, but you have now received several messages making it clear that it isn't. Almost all of us, when we start editing Wikipedia, know little or nothing about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so nobody can be blamed for starting out doing things that are contrary to policies and guidelines that they don't know about. However, continuing to do the same things after being told about the relevant policies and guidelines is a different matter. You are very welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia in a neutral way, without praising, lauding, extolling or in any other way promoting anyone or anything, in ways which comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines if you would like to. However, if your only interest is in telling the world your view about the "importance" of someone whom you regard as a "unique lord", or to do any other kind of promotion, then there are many web sites where you can do so, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Please do take note of this, because if you continue in the same way there is a high likelihood that you will be blocked from editing by an administrator. JBW (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, is not "sir". JBW (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Unique lord is Shastha, the diety, not him. Can u please go through properly.

Ayyapa of Shabarimala is equivalent Lord Shastha, yes I want the world to know about the diety, as the case has heated up the beleif of a lot of Hindus and even Article 26 of the Indian Penal code.

Its ok if I am blocked for saying what my conscious says it right. I have no intention to publisicise something which is nothing.

I dint see, the details of the person whom I was communicating. Sorry Vasudharini (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

And please don't equate a mere human to Lord Ayyapa or Shastha! He is eternal, the person Aravind is probably just a spec who knows a little more than a common man who knows about Swamy Ayyapa as his research in on that. Vasudharini (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to reply, I understand what "Wikipedia" is. Vasudharini (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Frankly I couldn't care less whether your stuff about a "unique lord" refers to a person, a "god", a giraffe, or a loaf of bread. What matters is that you have been editing for the purpose of publicising and promulgating your views. That is unacceptable, no matter what those views are. If you don't understand that, then no you don't know what Wikipedia is, because that is one of the absolutely fundamental pillars of what Wikipedia is. JBW (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been editing, to just ensure that the person gets a space in Wikipedia because he deserves to be so. If it is considered that way, fine, I tried my best. May be someday, if not me, some other person would do it with further citations. It is absolutely OK.

Well if you don't care, then you cannot write about what my views are about. If you want to comment on something that I wrote, then I think, it is to be read properly. I very much know what "Wikipedia" s, I have been trying to only discuss and understand to better it. There is nothing beyond that. If you are willing to help. Thanks. If you are criticising and badmouthing I shall also reply that way. Vasudharini (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Now my worry drops, so it seems like I have been trying to get a encyclopedic content, in a place of editors who do not know the subject at all!.

I edit and comment only on the stuff I am aware of fully. Vasudharini (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "If you are willing to help". That is exactly what I have been trying to do. However, helping does not necessarily mean saying what you wish to hear; encouraging you to carry on in a way which will lead to failure is not helping you, but explaining why it will not be accepted, so that you can avoid following that path to failure can be helping, if you are willing to see it as helping, and think about how to benefit from that advice. Here is my last attempt to help you to understand what the issues are. I do hope it will help, as I did when I posted my previous attempts to help you, but if I fail again then I'll leave it at that.


 * You said "Well if you don't care, then you cannot write about what my views are about". The whole point that I was trying to make was that I don't need to write about what your views are, or even to know what they are, because what your views are is utterly irrelevant: writing to promote or promulgate any views is unacceptable.
 * You said that your aim was "to just ensure that the person gets a space in Wikipedia because he deserves to be so". The point there is that editing in order to ensure that a person gets coverage in Wikipedia because your view is that they "deserve" such coverage is contrary to the whole purpose of Wikipedia: we seek to provide information about a topic because it already has substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, not because we think that a person "deserves" coverage, which is editing to promote or publicise.
 * You refer to "criticising and badmouthing". Certainly if you are making mistakes then pointing out those mistakes in the hope of helping you avoid making the same mistakes again may be called criticising; if so it is constructive criticism. Criticism is not always a bad thing. As for "badmouthing", Wiktionary says it means "To criticize or malign, especially unfairly or spitefully". I can offer you my assurance (which you can accept or reject) that it was not spiteful; I have far better things to do with my time than composing, writing, and revising messages to Wikipedia editors in order to spite them. As I have already indicated, it has all been done in the hope of being helpful to you. If I have failed in that attempt then that is unfortunate, but not spiteful. As for "unfairly", I have simply tried to let you know what Wikipedia policies and guidelines require. I don't see how doing that can be regarded as unfair, but if there is some justification for viewing it that way then you are welcome to explain it to me.
 * As I have already said, I hope this may help you, but if not then please accept that it was a good faith attempt to help. JBW (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This helps, The words, I don't care what it means, gave me a different meaning initially, thank you for clarifying.

"Substantial Coverage", What is Wikipedia looking at, when we mean, substantial coverage? Because, I had cited many references with regard to his articles being awarded a special prize. ( The Hindu, Personality of the week). He being invited for a book launch (in the capital along with the current party spokes person, and the article referred him as a researcher who is well versed in the practices of Shabarimala. A reference with regard to another book, where his blogs where inspiration, I had shared that news log which had come."UNIndia"

Then apart from these, I had given reference to his detailed answers in this subject as a question answer format in Ananda Vikatan and dinamalar which are popular dailies, in which he had featured. (His photo, his achievements and why he is eligible to answer them was mentioned.)"vikatanmag" and "Dinamalar"

Then there was a magazine by name swarajyamag.com, it is very popular, but Wikipedia had blocked them I couldn't cite it.

Then I had given references to where he was invited to speak about the diety along with eminent speakers who also have a Wikipedia page, This was due to his popularity, he was invited. I had cited that. "Sirfnews" and simplicity coimbatore in which, the apparent heirs of the temple had quoted him for reference.

Apart from this, His research work and the articles he had written and which was circulated had been shared for reference, when I mentioned the particular research clarification.

These citations are media citation, which is very popular.

I am writing in detail, because I don't understand what and how else a person's popularity is perceived? How else do u improve the citations? What is required?

When the main article was deleted, I wrote it again in drafts, so that I can improve it. Nothing to promote my views. It is irrelevant and I have no personal interest in doing that. If someone can tell me how each news bit and citation will qualify and disqualify, It would be grateful for gaining that knowledge in my future articles..

The first edit, I did was a mistake, because I had copied the profile which was in another website about the author. Which had direct links of his achievements. It is some researchers domain website. Which carries profiles of researchers. That was cited for deletion for being copied. That is when I kept editing it in my own words adding all media references.

I only edit in subjects I am fully aware of, so with that thought, I had always wanted a clear reply with regard to what each citation meant and what was considered and why it was considered wrong. I had posted in everyone who tried edit, the talk page asking for what and how it needs to be improved, why the references I cited were not enough, what was the mistake, unfortunately no one gave me a reply, I kept re doing in the view of it being re viewed by another person who would be able to guide me better.

Thank you so much for taking this much time to reply to me, I appreciate your efforts and time taken to clarify. I shall write out better articles in future with the guidance you have given.

I would be very happy if the article references that I had done for this previous article is read and given a better clarification on what was lacking in the references cited, because I read the Wikipedia space before reading and submitting the page for approval. I had asked a few members, they told me, if u feel it is qualifing, you can go ahead and submit it. That's what I kept doing, may be that's a mistake, I sincerely apologize and will try to keep up the standards. But I also sincerely request the editors to point out the lacking in the article for better understanding. Vasudharini (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)