Namaskar. Your contribution to the following discussions could be helpful: "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion and "Neohumanism in a Nutshell"-Discussion for deletion. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bob,
Please see this. As you did, I would also have removed that part of the sentence as it's the lead and the lead should focus on the book itself, rather than referencing to other writings of the author. And it is a more balanced writing when it's removed. Thus in the summary, you could've simply written "removed irrelevant info" or something similar.

However you've written "removed sarkarspam". And I've just seen that you've written the same sentence in many other places all over again and again. Are you aware of what you're doing? Are you aware that by doing this, you're actually insulting a spiritual leader who has at least tens of thousands of followers all over the world? Could you dare to write anywhere "removed mohammadspam" or "removed jesusspam"? It is very and very very rude to do so. You're insulting and defaming someone reverred most highly to many people. So please stop offending!

It doesn't matter what you believe and what I believe. Because respect comes first. I hope, you'll take my friendly advice, step back for a moment, take a deep breath and then return to WP refreshed, with a more neutral state of mind and continue in a non-belligerent fashion to your work. And aggression never solves anything in life. Everything in life can be solved by discussing gently and with a sweet and smiling behaviour.

Brotherly,

--Universal Life (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That content was spam. It was no declaration of faith; it was systematically advertising the work of a distinctly human author, across many pages. (And we have somehow got articles on everything he wrote even though there's rarely evidence that each text is notable). However, I will change wording in future. bobrayner (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad that you've decided to change wording. The founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales states, as a principle that we should treat anyone with the utmost respect and dignity. That's a sign of positive change and I'm happy about it. :)

However, coming to the issue of specifically this, it is not considered to be a spam in Wikipedia. There are three categories of spams in WP, namely advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. This was none of it, rather it was a passionately written phrase, going against the impartial tone policy under NPOV and more important than that, it was partially irrelevant. It could be removed or re-worded and re-positioned to a more relevant place.

A third thing, I want to express, is what WP says about "achieving neutrality" in it's NPOV policy.

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.

The reason of this quote is not the above removal, but to shed more positive light in order to change your removal attitude in general, while other much better ways are present in order to effectively improve our Wikipedia, even in the domains you want to contribute. Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the complaints of Universal Life. You are using a language and a way of doing not at all suitable and collaborative. I understand that you haven't any sympathy for Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. But here we are on a group and we have to maintain a collaborative and pro-active way of doing. It's not using this language and askin the deletion of all the articles related with Shri Sarkar like Caryacarya, Namah Shivaya Shantaya (and other articles too) or trying continuously to delete the sources that you solve the problems. You have to respect the work of the other editors and the persons. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to edit collaboratively when you keep on misusing sources and Abhidevananda keeps on reverting legitimate edits as "vandalism", whilst sniping at other editors. "Collaborative" does not mean that the rest of the community must stand back whilst you push through your desired content unchanged. "Collaborative" does not mean that you always get your way. "Collaborative" does not mean that anybody who disagrees with your version is prejudiced, biased, and bigoted. bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew,
I was following through my watchlist, the conversations going on in the deletion discussion of the book series Caryacarya. I wasn't involved until now, but I saw that the period was extended another week. So, I was planning on voting and pointing out some points and even editing the article for its betterment. As a WP editor, my prime aim is the betterment of WP and I have no CoI. I'm myself an admin in the Ladino WP and I translate the interface.
The User:Abhidevananda, is actually a newbie of a few months. I think he means to contribute well to the WP, however without being well-acquainted to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, he used primary sources extensively to create or to edit neutral-looking articles. He is bold by behaviour but means no harm. Some other editors, instead of explaining him and/or trying to cooperate with him, used a bureaucratic language and challenged what he was doing. He felt personally attacked, especially due to the not-very-gentle language they were using, even though the intentions of the other party was probably not so. And as a result first he reacted back and then got cold-feet to WP.
I don't know whether it is considered canvassing or no, both parties (no need for names), went to ask others for help. As the other party, knew better the rules and the functioning of WP, got the upper hand in creating a bad image for almost all articles in which Abhidevananda was involved. The tones of "passion" in other editors siding with him, made the show case seem worse. This is my observation of what has been the unvoiced events in this conflict until now.
Quoting from WP:Trifecta, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created by the community through collaboration." The two words out of three (namely, community and collaboration) is what I'm referring to. The responsibility always lies with the older and more-experienced party, the have to be wise and welcoming, especially to the new editors of WP. What they had to do, instead of edit-warring, constant content-removal and propaganda, was (and still is) what those two words - community and collaboration - requires. My message is not to you personally but to all involved parties.
While this is the case, I believe that the points that Keep parties were making were under-represented. The point, "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." was never properly contested.
I believe that a temporary undeletion, would be for the best interest of Wikipedia, so it would give some more proper time to both parties to sort out things "in civility". And on the while, I can have more time to gather some RS and edit the article, so it has a neutral tone and doesn't look like an advertisement. If, at the end of a week, ther aren't any RS, I believe it is best to redirect the article to Ananda Marga, as it's the holy scriptures of it.
Most sincerely,
And friendly, --Universal Life (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Per your previous involvement in the discussion, I thought you might be interested in commenting in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#Proposal to replace current content. Thanks! Location (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Location, I didn't have time until now. But today, I'm going to get involved with it. Thanks for the reminder. --Universal Life (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. GaramondLethe 14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like to have a conversation with you about notability, and this is probably a better place than AfD.

I understand you're frustrated that a topic you care deeply about isn't represented well on wikipedia, and your attempts (and the attempts of others) to rectify this are being consistently discarded. I'd like to suggest a different way of approaching the problem that should lead to substantially more success.

I'm guessing you're beginning the article creation process by finding a book that's important to you, writing the article and then starting the search for citations that will establish notability. That leaves you in a position where you've already put in the time in article creation but the article is pretty much defenseless against deletion. If you reverse the last two steps I think you'll find this process to be much easier. If you have three or four independent reviews of the book already in hand, then writing the article is as simple as summarizing the review and, at least from a notability standpoint, the article is bulletproof. If, however, you can't find any independent reviews, you don't write the article and save yourself the bother of having the article go through the deletion process.

I do want to clear up one point: a source that merely cites the book or quotes a brief passage from the book does not contribute to establishing the notability of the book. The guidelines are unequivocal here. A book may be very important to a large number of important people, but absent independent reviews of the book it simply does not belong in this encyclopedia.

I hope this help make your editing here a bit easier. If you find a few sources and want someone too look over them before you start writing the article I'd be happy to do so.

Best,

GaramondLethe 13:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP was born to spread the knowledge. A distorted interpretation is that WP should represent only a part of it. On the contrary everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. The notability criteria of WP seems not to be a firm rule rather a guideline. Anyway, if you want to use it as a rule, the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria states at point (3) "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement":note that the author of the book is the founder of PROUT and of Ananda Marga. At point (5) "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply means that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.": now the point is that Sarkar was considered from Giani Zail Singh, seventh president of India, "one of the greatest modern philosophers of India." (Inayatullah, Sohail. (2002) Understanding Sarkar: The Indian Episteme, Macrohistory and Transformative Knowledge. Leiden: Brill.).

Dear Garamond_Lethe, censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. As I said above some expert users on WP are not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand. Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.

This is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cornelius. First, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm only going to respond to a few of these points, but I hope you find the replies to be useful.

WP was born to spread the knowledge. A distorted interpretation is that WP should represent only a part of it.

Let's back up a bit.

Wikipedia exists within a community and like any community it has its many, many norms and expectations of behavior. Being an effective editor is largely a matter of learning what those norms are and how to adhere to them while going about improving the encyclopedia.

If you lead off an argument by establishing that you're outside the norm (and/or don't know where the norms are) then it's going to be very easy for other editors to ignore you. We can have an interesting conversation elsewhere about the rightness or justice of this, but for the moment I want to limit the conversation to what it takes to be an effective editor, meaning an editor who isn't constantly having to rescue articles from AfD.

Getting back to your first point: you may have an excellent argument that "WP was born to spread knowledge," but an effective editor knows that people who hang out at AfD and on the fringe boards swear by WP:NOT. If you want to change their minds, you need to do so outside of the context of defending a particular article (and it will help if you understand what they believe and why they believe it).

I've addressed WP:NB 3 & 5 here, but let me add a few further thoughts. Reading and quoting WP:NB is good, but far more important is understanding how the community has decided to interpret those guidelines. If, for example, I wanted to write an article on Vita Amlethi, I could claim notability because it is thought to have been a source for Shakespeare's Hamlet. As the notability of Hamlet is unquestioned, this is an easy argument to make and falls well within the community norms.

You're trying to make a similar argument that multiple books have influence a particular movement. However, based only on the articles in WP, this argument is going to fall outside of the community norms. The community perceives (based on what you're giving them) that Sankar headed up a barely-notable movement and there's no strong connection between whatever notability the movement has and the books that he wrote.

The quote you cite for clause 5 is an even better example. When the community sees "one of the greatest modern philosophers of India" that's a strong admission of non-notability. The person making the comment isn't a philosopher (which pretty much invalidates the quote for use in this argument) and Sankar isn't called one of the greatest philosophers or even one of the greatest modern philosophers, but rather one of many greatest modern philosophers of India. The fact that you're leading with such faint praise is telling the rest of the community that this is the best you have, and the community will conclude that Sankar is just not that notable.

So those are arguments that aren't going to work for this community. Here are arguments that will.

Find book reviews. (How does one get to be the "one of the greatest modern philosophers" in a literate country like India without having his books reviewed in either the popular or academic press?) Three of them for a given book will settle the argument for notability, and you can at least make a good argument even if you only have one or two. Quoting from the book doesn't count. Finding the book on a list doesn't count. The review doesn't need to be in English and it doesn't need to be online (but given the history here you can believe that it will be checked). The community would be sympathetic if I said I couldn't find a review for a 13th century saga that only exists in fragmentary form: that's why we have the other clauses. If a modern author isn't getting any book reviews, the immediate conclusion that's going to be drawn by the editors at AfD is that the work simply isn't notable.

Finally, you're not being censored. Only governments do that. Raising that excuse is a great way to have everything else you say be ignored. You may, if you like, download all of wikipedia (I've done this, it's easy) and set up a competing version complete with your articles. What you're being prevented from doing is using the reputation of wikipedia to bolster articles that the community does not find acceptable. You're free to improve the articles to the point where the community finds them acceptable, abandon the topic or carry on pretty much as you have been and with equal success. I would personally like to see the articles be improved and am willing to help you accomplish that.

Respectfully

GaramondLethe 18:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cornelius and Garamond, I'm going to reply tomorrow, as I'm hardly keeping my eyes open right now :) It's almost 2 a.m where I'm. Good night! --Universal Life (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the AfD process here. I can't speak for Location, but I would like to give you my rationale for the half-dozen articles started by Cornelius383 that I've proposed for deletion.

You asked, perhaps rhetorically, "How do they expect a newbie to work on six articles in a period of a week.". AfD isn't intended to be used as a prod to get a user to improve an article. That's what citation needed tags are for. I also don't expect Corelius383 to bring a GA-worthy article into the world after carefully building it in his sandbox. We have lots of stub articles here and, for the most part, it's perfectly fine to leave those (marked as stubs) in the main article space.

The reason I put forth so many of Cornelius383's articles for deletion is that I feel they cannot be improved to the point where they no longer violate policy. This is what distinguishes these articles from stubs: a competent editor can look at a stub and at satisfy herself that it could be improved given sufficient effort.

Despite that, I did engage Cornelius383 before I started proposing my round of deletions here. My overall impression was that he did not understand wikipedia policy and was not willing to hear about it from me.

If you think that any of these articles are salvageable I'm more than happy to work with you to recreate them. As best I can tell, though, Sarkar chose to self-publish his works and that limited their distribution to members of his organization. The effect has been to limit critical review of these works to members already inside the organization or closely allied with it. We can't use those sources to establish notability, and so the books (but not the man) will not end up having their own articles.

There is a possible way out that I've not been able to check. Can you find out if there have been any Ph.D. dissertations done on any of the books? Those will probably be sufficiently independent to pass muster.

I'm happy to continue the conversation and am looking forward to your response.

GaramondLethe 21:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I believe that those articles can be written much more efficiently and neutrally and with proper sources. I said, give the article a chance, for a reason. I have knowledge that there are some sources and reviews of those books outside of Ananda Marga and by non-members. But most of those are not writen in English and not all of them are online. Unfortunately there is a white and western dominated bias in WP. Books such as this has been on WP since 2009 and has no reference what-so-ever. Of course, I know that such-and-such exists in WP is not a counter-argument. However what I mean is the articles you, Location and Bob marked for deletion, are quite new, have never been given a chance of improvement, neither in content nor in sourcing, the editor(s) is/are quite unaware of the style and format that we use here in WP. Nobody guided them properly and nobody tried to enrich the articles properly. We should not forget that the guidelines and policies are there so that we improve WP, not bureaucratise it. The spirit of WP is much more important than all guidelines of WP. See my draft here. I truly believe that those articles deserve more chance than the false image created by some about them in such-and-such noticeboards. If you keep an open mind and think a little bit out-of-box, you can start to search for some more info about some of the subjects, ignore the behaviours of both parties and work for the enhancement of WP. This is what I'm doing. However, in future, if I see that the behaviour of some editors really become disruptive, than it will be my duty to take the necessary steps. (Please don't take it personal, I don't mean it to you in person, but I speak as a matter of principle. I'm an admin in Ladino WP, I'm fully aware of how one's conduct should be in WP and I'm fully capable of staying neutral, non-biased, whatever my thoughts about any subject be.)--Universal Life (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at my talk page. Not sure how a copy of the conversation landed there, but I've been multitasking all day and it's probably something I did....GaramondLethe 23:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to hear that you think these articles can be done well. As to bias, I expect we might have a vigorous discussion, but at the moment I'd rather concentrate on improving the article. Can you give me your list of potential non-English, offline sources? I'm going to be on the UC Berkeley campus tomorrow and can make a trip to UC Davis or Stanford over the weekend. I also have favors I can call in at Case Western Reserve University and the University of Arizona. And if worst comes to worst, I can twist a few arms and potentially get some access to a few of the better Indian universities. But before I do this I want to be convinced that there's something out there to find. So, what do you have? GaramondLethe 22:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad that you turned towards cooperation for the betterment. I truly believe that before deleting any good-faith edit/article, we should really and thoroughly search if it's really non-notable. I'll have to make some phone calls tomorrow to some acquaintances of mine in Turkey, Israel and India before I can give you some more details about those publications. Hopefully, I'll get enough resources in no time. Take care --Universal Life (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MBisanz,
I would like to know, why you closed an active deletion discussion, especially while there was no consensus. Even, one of the delete voters had just changed his mind. See the talk here. Thank you --Universal Life (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NotEarly#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed says an AFD runs at least 7 days. By my math it ran 7 days, 17 hours, and 41 minutes. As to the other aspect, I found there was a consensus not to retain the article because commenters found it did not meet WP:NBOOK and WP:SIGCOV. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MBisanz. Hope you're doing well today. I feel like there was a fairly large consensus for delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy. I'm not exactly certain as to what material about the book would be appropriate to merge into the article Ananda Marga, an article fundamentally about a spiritual movement. If not agreeable on deletion, would it not be standard practice to merge the book to the author Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar? I suggested the redirect to Ananda Marga#Spiritual and Social Philosophy because I did not feel the book information was particularly mergeable. Mkdw^talk 23:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The specific outcome of an AFD is to retain or not retain the article. While there was consensus to not retain it, some people thought a redirect or merge could salvage the content and WP:PRESERVE is a cautionary principle. However, the AFD doesn't decide the content itself, so the exact target of the redirect or the quantity of content to merge (if any) is an editing choice that you can make. Hope that helps. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I've been working on it for the last few hours. And it has been told that it has offline references that prove notability. Some more time could be granted, as there are at least three "keep" votes. What is the rush? You seem to ignore the important conversation I made with Garamond about the subject. And I really don't understand how there was a consensus to delete the article. Moreover, see The Cretan Runner that has not been even tagged for references for years (since 2009), now with my remark, has been PRODed. You see, PRODed so people can work on it, not really proposed for deletion. This is the bias that is on the English WP. The article could even be incubated. We should try to see the full-half of the glass, not always the empty-half. --Universal Life (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if I userfy it for you and then you can bring it back through AFC or DRV when you've had a chance to work on it more? MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Universal, an AfD and a PROD share a similar timeline. They both require 7 days to lapse before they are either deleted or kept. In fact, an AfD gives an article a larger chance of being saved sometimes because it is publicly discussed whereas a PROD must rely on a much smaller group of people who patrol to fix PRODS. Mkdw^talk 23:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The moment I saw that it said a consensus has been reached, I copied & pasted the content to a user subpage, for I'd worked for it. However I still do not understand this concept of consensus. Consensus doesn't mean majority of the votes in the English language as far as I know. Unanimity or something very close to unanimity is what I defer form the term.--Universal Life (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:CONSENSUS to clarify for this reason. Mkdw^talk 00:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to merge the article to Ananda Marga#Literary production instead since there was already a paragraph about the book there as well as other writings from the same author. Hope you don't mind. Mkdw^talk 23:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I defer to your knowledge of the matter. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spa tag for User:DezDeMonaaa is legitimate in that this is a new user whose first Wikipedia edit was in a a recent Afd. Your edit summary stating "[T]his is not the place to discuss accusations" is both accurate and ironic. Accurate in that it is true, and ironic that you have shown no interest in reigning in the accusations coming from your voting block. The tag is only a notice so that the user's editing history, which may reflect bias or lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, is considered in closing. Location (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, I do not have any voting block! I do not take parts in WP. I do what I deem is the best for its improvement. Secondly, is your SPA tag, for DezDeMonaaa, without signature on purpose? --Universal Life (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Cretan Runner 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cretan Runner until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your hard work tracking down reliable sources across far too many spelling variations of Prabhat Samgiita. Well done. GaramondLethe 00:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Garamond :) --Universal Life (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garamond,

You've written me on four places until now, calling me for a discussion, first here, secondly here, thirdly here and lastly on my personal email. Sorry for replying late, first I was extremely busy in real life (and still am) and second the only time I found a time to edit WP, I used it constructively for building the Prabhat Samgiita article, so that the closing admin or whoever visiting wouldn't have the wrong idea, before the deletion discussion was over. Therefore, now that I could find another opportunity with WP, I want to reply you and tell you few things I'd in mind for a long while now.

About notability, in Cornelius' talk page, I tried to reply but I think it's not so relevant any more. About the third one, the one on Bijon Setu massacre, I still do not believe you gave equal weight on those sections I'd tagged, I'd seen different sources contradicting the things you say there, that's why I think a more thorough search online can help create a more equally weighted / balanced article, using inline citations. However this is also not very relevant as I don't have the time to do that kind of research right now. About the email, there is nothing right now that you can do to change my vote ;) the discussion is already closed. And even if it wasn't closed I would not change my vote on a deletion article from your behaviour, only from real proof that it's not notable. You say that you've demonstrated that you're willing to change your mind. To me, it looks like (and you've admitted yourself) your attitude towards any article related to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, is different than any other article on WP; to me it seems that you could keep vote only if you're shown with the most hardcore evidence about notability. Though it seems it wouldn't change your opinions about the subject matter anyway.

About the second one, let me copy my own words to remind us of the subject matter:

Hi Colapeninsula. Yes, it is true that according WP guideline and in order to make WP a more reliable encyclopaedia, we need to use reliable sources and provide encyclopaedic information. However, it's not so true that Sarkar's books are not discussed by other authors in reliable sources. Yet many off them are offline and non-English sources as Sarkar happens to be an Indian and happens to have originally published his books in non-English languages such as Bengali and Hindi. We should not let systemic bias to come in the way of our better judgement. Google hit counts are not always so reliable to establish notability. And we should not let a bunch of old editors systematically target and try to delete or undermine a bunch of articles, just because they happen to be related to an ideology or religion, that they do not like; especially if those articles were so recently created in good faith by newbies that don't know the rules much. They could be tagged for citations, notability etc and those who made the deletion requests could have tried to better the article themselves or try to explain those willing how to do it. If still, after sometime there was no betterment in notability and better sourcing, neutral language etc. they could be tagged for deletion, but not 8 of them at the same time! And they should not have done propaganda here and there, this and that noticeboard to canvass more people to vote. These are not good faith edits and this is part collaborative effort to destroy all articles related to the ideology of Sarkar, done by gaming the system. This kind of stuff, simply should not happen in Wikipedia. More experienced people should not game the system, against newbies who, naturally, make mistakes, that could be corrected. Friendly --Universal Life

• First of all, I did not pointed to you in this, rather to a bunch of people that included you.

• Secondly, I would discuss with you today right now, about this, only if you hadn't recently nominated four more articles about the subject for deletion. You were the last one, out of the bunch of people I mentioned, to whom, I still hold the belief of working in good faith. I'm sorry but that belief diminished more and more during the last three weeks, because of your continuous patterns of behaviour.

• So maybe, we'll have a discussion about this another time, maybe some time when you'll not be extremely prejudiced about the subject.

Until then stay well,

Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've mentioned elsewhere that you're a scientist. When you have an article rejected by a journal, do you argue systemic bias and that the article should be published now and that you'll fix it later? Would you submit work to a journal that followed that policy? I wouldn't (and don't).

If you want to think I'm prejudiced against Sarkar, well, that's fine. In fact, I'm so prejudiced that I'm going to give you a great lead on where to find discussion of Sarkar's works. The philosophy department at the University of Calcutta publishes the full syllabus of required and recommended reading for their bachelor's degree. None of Sarkar's works are on the list, of course, but if you can track these books down and find a chapter or two that discusses Sarkar, that would be a great addition to the Sarkar bio article. It's less likely (but still possible) that one of those books will spend a few paragraphs discussing one of Sarkar's publications. As a source, a textbook is far more reliable than a Ph.D. thesis, and you'll have no trouble supporting articles for whatever books are discussed at length.

Good luck!

Garamond Lethet
c 00:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garamond, the presence or absence of Sarkar's works in university syllabi is not the criterion to establish the historical importance of one person. And that's not the main problem here. I really had thought (had the preliminary impression) that you were just literally sticking to some guidelines and accordingly in a strict deletionist way, you were targeting such articles that did not fit those guidelines. However, the absence of such action towards other articles (outside of the "Sarkarverse"), all those articles being proposed of deletion by you, being articles created by the same person (Cornelius), your own expressions of extreme prejudice many places and you proposing to delete articles that even didn't exist more than few days in WP, inhibiting their chance to improve and the spontaneous deletion proposals of dozens of articles. I think all of these showed me that prejudice and lack of AGF. If you and others such as Bob and Location had little bit assumed good faith and kept an open mind, instead of behaving almost dogmatically, would have first tagged those articles, would have left some serious but friendly and sincere note to Cornelius, would have at least proposed to userify the articles from the beginning so many articles wouldn't be created as stubs etc. I've seen none of those good faith behaviour. So, now, how do you expect me to see it otherwise? I'm sorry my friend, I've always acted with good faith, but you'll need more than some intellectual extravaganza to convince me that you're not biased and prejudiced about the subject. Personally, I've made my research about the subject and even though there are some controversial stuff, there are a plethora of high decency in it as well, so unlike you, I keep an open mind. As a scientist, I'm sceptic by nature, but I still give the benefit of the doubt, I think you should do the same. Good luck as well --Universal Life (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started searching through the related reading list. Sarkar isn't mentioned anywhere. So I widened my search to books on contemporary and modern philosophy. Nothing. I'm not even getting any hits in political science in the entire ac.in domain.

Well, I'll keep looking. Oh, do you have a cite for how many Ananda Marga schools there are? I haven't been able to locate a list and the impression I'm getting is that most or nearly all of them are informal, unaccredited schools in impoverished areas.

Thanks,

Garamond Lethet
c 05:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By chance I had just realised that French was not in the list of voiceless dental stop, I clicked on edit to add an example from French (the word "table" came to my mind). As I was looking under the alphabetical order, where to add the French, I realised that it has just been add by you (tordue not table though). How interesting that we thought of the same thing almost at the same! Take care, Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Universal Life. Saw your pledge at the Typo Team. Welcome to the club. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Thank you.--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Universal Life; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jesse V., could you please check the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robby_Robinson_(bodybuilder) and help to achieve fairness in materials put on article about Robby Robinson? I would like to hear your opinion if you also support that within a couple of days an article about a famous bodybuilding legend turned out into an article about a ... I do not even have words. All the previous contributions were deleted, not only those from me, and new ones are presented so misleading that people who know Mr Robinson and his life and achievements will never believe this is an article about him. Thak you. RRWM (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rarh region.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Veggies (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veggies,

Thank you for letting me know the problem with the above-mentioned file.

First of all, I would like to let you know, that all that "copyright tags" are still quite complicated for me. So, it's quite possible that I used the wrong tag, although I remember trying to use the correct one.

I created that image by just taking a screenshot from Google Earth, when I'd positioned it to cover the extent of the geographical area known as Rarh. Previous to that, I'd searched google images and Commons files in order to find any map showing the area, however I'd found none. That's why, that map doesn't seem to be replacable to me (except if someone recreated a better image from Google Earth in .jpg format and drawing lines separating what is historically known as West and East Rarh and may be even the previous denominations such as Northern and Southern Rarh).

Well, may be I've tagged the license in a wrong way, that's quite possible. So, may be you could help me to retag it properly. :) This way, the problem would be resolved.

Friendly, --Universal Life (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Closedmouth,
I'm shocked to see suddenly that the printscreen map I'd uploaded have been deleted. I didn't even know that it was under deletion review. I was messaged by Veggies, few days ago about an improper copyright tag. I've replied him in to his talk page that I don't understand very much about the proper copyright tagging, explained him how I'd made the image and that there was no other in Commons and that he could go on and tag it properly if the tagging was wrong. Please see: User talk:Veggies#Replaceable fair use File:Rarh region.png.
The map is not repleacable. Or if it is replacable, why do you delete it not replace it instead? Could you please undelete the file and tag it properly.
Thank you,
Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"except if someone recreated a better image from Google Earth in .jpg format and drawing lines separating what is historically known as West and East Rarh and may be even the previous denominations such as Northern and Southern Rarh". You pretty much said it here. It's possible for somebody to create a free alternative (even if nobody has done that yet) so therefore it fails WP:NFCC#1: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi closedmouth, Thank you for your reply. One question though, I also created it by printscreening on my computer from Google Earth. So why it isn't free content? What should I have done to make it "free content"? Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Universal Life. It's not uncommon that new editors add articles to the English Wikipedia that are actually not in English. So there are templated messages to notify them about Wikipedia in other languages. Usually those consist of a statement in the user's native language and the English equivalent, but there are still some templates that have only English messages. Could you please add the equivalent translation of the English message to {{Contrib-tr1}}? It should be placed above the English text. Your help would be very appreciated. De728631 (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To all editors displaying the "Vital Articles" template on their User Page.

Hi,

I recently tried to make a change to the list of Level 3 Vital Articles by replacing the entry

" [[Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems|Imperial and US customary measurement systems]]"

with a new replacement article

" [[Imperial and US customary measurement systems]]".

Although I have advertised the proposed change on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, I had no response and an anonymous IP editor took it upon himself to undo my changes on grounds that my proposal did not have a "strong consensus".

Will you please look at the discussion Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Replacement article: Imperial and US customary measurement systems and add your opinion.

Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archives  |  Suggest The Transport WikiProject Newsletter September 2013

In brief (please click):

To stop receiving this newsletter, please remove yourself here. Delivered by Rcsprinter (yak) @ 16:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	This is wonderful and sweet! :) Thanks :)) Universal Life (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Official Emblem of Ananda Marga (Pratiika).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) 14:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan, I'll add it right away to the article. However, I've one doubt about the copyright. The image might be not copy-righted, but as I was not sure if it was free, I choose copy-righted. There are multiple and multiple sources of the same image on the net and in books, and in flags and buildings as well. Is there a way to determine it? Thank you. --Universal Life (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that it might be below the threshold of originality, but it's a bit dubious. If it is copyrighted, then it can't be used on the page User:Universal Life/Ananda Marga, per WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't understand what you mean by "below the treshold of originality". Could you elaborate it a bit? And about the copyright, that's the problem, I've no idea if it's copyrighted. Is a flag of Turkey for example copyrighted? May be there are copyrighted and non-copyrighted versions of the same image. So, if this one is copyrighted, I would easily upload a non-copyrighted one. Coming up to User:Universal Life/Ananda Marga, I've just started that page to rewrite the article in a neutral, well-sourced way, so that I would copy all of its contents to the main article. If the image is actually copyrighted or no copyrighted version is not there (which I strongly doubt), I will definitely remove the image from my subpage. As I've said, I've marked the file as copyrighted for giving it the benefit of the doubt. When/If it's to be found to be free, I can change the copyright to non-copyrighted. I hope that makes sense. --Universal Life (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archives  |  Suggest The Transport WikiProject Newsletter November 2013

In brief (please click):

To stop receiving this newsletter, please remove yourself here. Delivered by Rcsprinter (talk to me) @ 14:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]