Cornelius383

no use of ths;lllk' $][<math>jguggtgn[[Media:gbgb----fv[[sdseerw]]]]$</math>re$rew--~~~~rwe<math>rewe----reeerw$</math>

Reminder

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to cloud computing, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. For example, replacing an accepted definition with WP:OR and adding your own controversial content is disruptive. -- samj _in^out 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ananda Marga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Enlightenment, Minister, Network, Carbondale, Instruction, Master, Movement, Founding, Offering, Jamalpur, Disciple and Georgetown

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ananda Marga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Creation, Diet, Dhyana, Center, Core, Point, Action, Good, Tale, Spiritual, Mental, Rule, Effect, Synthesis, Production, Technique, Flow, Board, Conduct, Dynamism, Service, Barrier, Devotion, Disciple, Universal, Point of view, Practitioner, Ideation, Guidance and Race

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ananda Marga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Creation, Dhyana, Egg, Mustard, Spiritual, Mental, Bliss, Atman and Sentiment

Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Job, Trip, Jamalpur and Disciple

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose! Talkback!

Hi, Talkback here: Talk:Subhas_Chandra_Bose#Recent_edits! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Image license

You are having some trouble with your commons images. Let me know if you think I can help! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied in my talk page! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary!

Add edit summary in your edits! --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied in my talk page! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You are not wring edit summary still! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

P.R.Sarkar Free Book!

Is there any free digital book of Sarkar available in world wide web? Do you know? --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

See Commons file talk Tito Dutta ✉ 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hope you will like it! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 17:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I like it very much!! And Indian sweets (like rasagulla) too thanks!--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mirror Link

Hi Cornelius, since you are a technology research person, thought that you may be interested in reviewing & perhaps improving my AfC on Mirror Link. You can find a link to it on my talk page. Look FWD to ur comments. -Ambar (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

See also

I think you'll be interested to learn this– links which are present in article body, should not be added in See also section, for example if you have "Ananda Marga" linked in article body, do not add it in See also. Please make changes accordingly in Sarkar related articles! Best, --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks!--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You also need to split notes and references using refgroups! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

The article is in a very poor condition! It's advertisement type tone etc are huge problem. The whole article needs to be rewritten! See if you get help from WP:GOCE --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neohumanism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blind and Propriety (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) 10:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cornelius383. You have new messages at MatthewVanitas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

P.R. Sarkar

I have a strong wish to delete everything in that article and do a clean start, of course which I am not going to do. See this article Swami Vivekananda, we have more images and more information there, but almost everything in order. You can start with cleaning up references and deleting unreliable references (yes remove all self published and unreliable references), we can add later from some GB RS. You can create a new section in the talk page of the article for clean-up related discussion! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Titodutta it seems that Blofeld has done a great job on Sarkar's article.. Hope you are happy like me. It seems a very professional starting point!--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use Naveen Joshi as a reference in the article. AuthorHouse is a Self-published source. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 13:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

We have started a template on Sarkar Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Help there if you can. Feel free to add/remove/rename groups/entries. --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, that's large!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cornelius383. You have new messages at Talk:Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar#Controversies.21.
Message added 13:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit to "Nonviolence" section of PROUT article

Hi. You added some sentences to the "Nonviolence" section of the PROUT article, but you did not offer any citation for what you claim that Baba said. Frankly, I don't even fully understand what you are claiming that Baba said, much less recognize the remark. However, please note that uncited claims of what Baba said are entirely inconsistent with the way I have constructed the article (as such claims could reasonably be challenged).

Moreover, I do not understand what your addition adds to that section. As I see it, it tends to contradict the two references that I gave. It also tends to contradict what is written in the section entitled "Change". (The fact is that the use of force not only "can vary" but inevitably "must vary". That is the nature of relativity (time, space, and form) as set out in the fifth fundamental principle and as explained in the section on "Change".) So, for now, I will revert the section on "Nonviolence" to its former wording.

If you feel that your addition is necessary for some reason, please explain why you think the change is required and the source of your information (exact quotation from a book). That would be a good use of the Talk page. But, let me just say that the point of that section is only to clarify the position of PROUT on nonviolence and not to discuss the various types of violence that might be used under different circumstances.

In any event, I do appreciate your help, but please discuss changes on the Talk page before making them. This will make it easier for me to complete the article as early as possible. I have already been working on it for over a week, and I expect that it could take me another week to bring the article to a place where I think it is sufficient. This is a lot of work for me. So please respect my effort, and kindly use the Talk page before modifying what I am doing. That would also make it less likely for unintentional rewrites to occur, as I periodically update the entire article by copying back and forth from my sandbox.

Finally, please keep in mind that this is an article about PROUT. Our job is to present PROUT accurately, not to interpret it or sell it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is just to let you know that I have added a paragraph at PROUT#Nonviolence that I hope will meet your concerns. Thank you for your patience on this. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ananda Marga

References after punctuation, you probably know this, but noticed the intro alone has a few issues. Not sure if it was you though!! Thanks.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cornelius383. You have new messages at Abhidevananda's talk page.
Message added 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abhidevananda (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: P. R. Sarkar' photo

The image is copyrighted. See here. You have to either proof the image was published before 1953 in India or show permission of Ananda Marga to use the photo with exact license. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cornelius383. You have new messages at Abhidevananda's talk page.
Message added 09:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abhidevananda (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Idea and Ideology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jamalpur

Subhasita Samgraha (all parts) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jamalpur

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cornelius383. You have new messages at Abhidevananda's talk page.
Message added 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abhidevananda (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cornelius383. You have new messages at Abhidevananda's talk page.
Message added 22:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abhidevananda (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cornelius383. You have new messages at Abhidevananda's talk page.
Message added 09:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abhidevananda (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Yama Niyama

That template does not fit into the article unless you expand the article or you redesign the template for that article only! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That meant, you copy the code of the template and in that article redesign it. Better expanding? --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Namah Shivaya Shantaya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kashi (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) 19:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: New Year

Happy New year --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For writing articles on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's books! -- Tito Dutta (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Brothers and sisters

Please search in Google Books and JSTOR first! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

New message!

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.jpg --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply Book

Then don't write article --12:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies 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/Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies 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. Shrikanthv (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of A Guide to Human Conduct for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Guide to Human Conduct 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/A Guide to Human Conduct 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. Shrikanthv (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Diet and Journals (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) 11:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Neohumanism in a Nutshell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neohumanism in a Nutshell 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/Neohumanism in a Nutshell 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. bobrayner (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) 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/Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) 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. bobrayner (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism

I have moved the book page to its correct name. As you may recall, I asked you to leave the title as I gave it. The artwork on the cover of the book is misleading. The actual title is known from the inside pages of the book. That title is "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". I also corrected the link in the PRS template and modified the change you made to the Neohumanism article. Let's try to avoid this double work in future. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Cornelius383. You have new messages at User:Titodutta/Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar resources.
Message added 16:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. I am specifically referring to this and this, there might be other similar instances. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nopes, incorrect notice. Check 3 and 4 here: Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the whole paragraph: ... The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. And who made the canvassed editor an expert on Swami Vivekananda? How many edits does he have on articles related to him? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your iExpand is giving you an alert? , then your this example is incorrect! That is not applicable here! These two editors are working together in a project (and only in this project), this is just "discussion". I have also asked 3-4 editors (most of them are admins) to help on Bengali film disputes, none of them edit those articles. Though they should be more careful in future about wording! But, I fear if we ask them to stop these normal conversation they'll take it off-wiki where it'll be untraceable. And I did not ask them to post in those Vivekananda discussions! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is amazing! The editors will start canvassing off–wiki so let's allow it here. You know the context of this edit very well, but let me repeat it for you. Uncomfortable with my edits to Ananda Marga Cornelius decided to take the matter to another editor, instead of discussing on the talk page, knowing fully well what his opinion would be. The conversation was incivil and resulted in tag teaming. I don't see how this is similar to the example you quote. Don't make this unnecessarily complicated, the advisory note was justified and essential. Besides, I never claimed that you had asked them to post in the Vivekananda discussion. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He he! Ya! You ignored the point they are editing together in same articles, and continuously planning, discussing, preparing new articles... if you see the other editor's talk page Cornelius383 has posted after creating every article... just discussion... they need to be careful in future about wording.. arey give them some time. They are doing some constructive work (after all). But, I fear I'll have another conflict here in near future on article's POV--Tito Dutta (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just an advisory note, not an ANI warning , that too on two very specific occasions. I have no objections to both of them improving articles together. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge: Since we are working together on a project we use to publicly discuss any topic related to it (sometimes exposing our disagreement on different points as usual in WP and as you can easily see from our talks). If you have something to say you can of course talk with us here or in the article's talk pages in wich we are involved on a constructive way, as Tito use to do, avoiding polemics that seem to me frankly unnecessary on this case.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not about constructive edits etc. On two very specific counts you were canvassing. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on this. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge: of course I agree with you, I have a lot to learn in WP and I think that Tito can confirm this...

As regards your assertion of Canvassing, if in this particular case for Canvassing you mean that I'm deliberately trying to create or to "guide" a group of users to support some points on a discussion I strongly disagree with you. As I said before, if you are working on a project together with another user you use to talk, to share informations and ideas with him/her (and sometimes also you can disagree with on some points..), and this is exactly what I've done. So let me openly say that your assertions seem to me really not correct in this case.

About the discussion on the deletion page of the articles on Vivekanada's books: from the Abhidevananda user's talk page (take for example the talk on "Bibliography of Swami Vivekananda" on 13 December 2012]], it seemed to me that this user, that is an acharya with a vast knowledge on Indian spiritual literature, had of course something to say in the case of Swami Vivekananda too. So, this is the only reason why, on December 29, 2012 I suggested him (and only him 'cause I'm working on a project with him) in his talk page to take a look at the articles on Vivekananda's books (which were proposed for deletion). So frankly it seems to me that you are trying to create a "case" ransacking in other user's talk pages to find your "bill of indictment".. Of course I hope that the reason does not lie in the fact that some of your edits on certain articles were considered inappropriate from some of us :).--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your high opinion of someone is not a valid excuse for canvassing and an advisory note is not ransacking someone's talk page. And there were no "some of us", just the two of you warring in two articles. All the other content disputes will be settled with consensus, like everything else on Wikipedia, don't worry about them now. Keep WP:CANVASSING in mind next time you decide to inform other editors about something you are involved in. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Shabda Cayanika for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabda Cayanika 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/Shabda Cayanika 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. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Namah Shivaya Shantaya for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Namah Shivaya Shantaya 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/Namah Shivaya Shantaya 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. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Discourses on PROUT for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Discourses on PROUT 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/Discourses on PROUT 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. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand

This is just from a quick overview, not a thorough analysis, so I probably missed something. In some articles which you created which are up for deletion you seem to misunderstand what the main wp:notability criteria are all about and so seem to be making arguments that completely miss the point and thus waste your time and detract from a useful effort to keep the articles. Roughly speaking, the core requirement is that there be in-depth coverage of the topic in multiple (like at least 2) independent sources. THAT is the important criteria. You seem to believe that wp:notability is about real world notability and are wasting your time making irrelevant arguments about things like the significance of the subject. If that coverage exists, I would recommend working on getting those in there as references and then pointing that coverage out on the AFD pages. If that coverage exists, and you do that and feel like pinging me that I'd weigh in for keeping the article(s). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I had already seen that when I wrote you; actually it's why I wrote you. But now I understand your approach .....it is to establish meeting criteria in the books sng. Long story short, that is a riskier/weaker approach. But if that is your approach, you should point out what you are saying....meeting the particular SNG points. IF you have a couple of independent sources which have done in-depth coverage of the topic (no particular claims are needed in there, just in-depth coverage) you have the stronger/less risky route available which is meeting gwp:notability/wp:GNG. In that case make sure that they are used as references in the article and then point them out and say that the are independent sources providing in-depth coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been further discussion at my talk page. North8000 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you found any (RS)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Caryacarya RS

I don't know if they establish notability but, hose court papers look good! Have you found any newspaper etc review? I know you also like me reply at sender's talk page but, for this discussion reply here and add a {{TB}} at my talk page. --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No Tito. I did'nt find online.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright! --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

article creator's comment

There is no such rule (most probably, not fully sure) which tells as an article creator you can not vote. It is my personal choice that article creator should not vote (since he has created article, it is clear that he thinks the article should be kept unless he states otherwise, so, the vote should be automatically counted) and for the same reason AFD nominator should not give a "Delete" vote. I have told the same thing in my RFA discussions too, see Support vote number 5 here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bgwhite#Support

But, that's my personal opinion. Please don't follow it blindly unless you understand and agree with the idea of not giving a "keep" vote. Also don't write "article creator's comment" before every comment. That's looking weird! Just reply using indents (::::) --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tito I always use to insert only "comments" in the AfD talks related with articles that I wrote. Anyway tanks for the notice. I've to go off line now.--Cornelius383 (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the creator should feel very free to weigh in. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Selfpublished content

Hi,
Anybody can write anything and get it "published" on Scribd or on a blog platform &c. This means that they cannot usually be accepted as sources (there are some rare exceptions; for instance if a famous person writes something on their blog, we can cite that blog for the famous person's opinion, not as a statement of fact). If you have some text that you want to put in an article and the only source you can find to support the text is selfpublished, that's a pretty good sign that the text doesn't belong in the article. bobrayner (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes in Scribid you can find all.. But you can also find something with good credentials, depends. But in the case of Caryacarya or Namah Shivaya Shantaya we have to understand that they are part of the scriptures of a spiritual movement (or a religion if you want), they are written by a prominent author, and this is proved from legal and academical secondary sources. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It feels like we're going round in circles. You say you'll bring good sources, then you actually bring really tenuous sources - in this case, a Scribd document written by a Sarkar follower - then I say that we need stronger sources, then you say we've got stronger sources... bobrayner (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sarkar follower? I said: "in the case of Caryacarya or Namah Shivaya Shantaya we have to understand that they are part of the scriptures of a spiritual movement (or a religion if you want), they are written by a prominent author, and this is proved from legal and academical secondary sources."--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have any good secondary sources, please bring them; I haven't seen them yet. bobrayner (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK Bob.. If you don't want to understand what I say.. I really cannot say nothing more!--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Namah Shivaya Shantaya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali (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) 11:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop to reintroduce inappropriate sources and unsourced content. It would be really helpful if you could read - and comply with - WP:BURDEN and WP:RS. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing in policy forbidding inclusion of a source. If it does not meet wp:rs then that just means that that source does not fulfill the verifiability requirement. I haven't gotten in deep enough to figure out this situation, but IMHO deleting sources in the middle of an AFD (if that's what's happening) is not a good thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ananda_Marga_Caryacarya_(Parts_1,_2,_and_3)

Hi Cornelius, just posting here to make sure you see this. I was mixed up with another AfD; re the above I have not changed my position (yet) but have responded to your comment in that debate. Thanks for the notice, it is always appreciated. And I am always willing to admit it when I have made a mistake! Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 15:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Policies

Is there any policy that you are able to comply with? You just broke WP:3RR on Ananda Sutram. Whilst restoring huge swathes of unsourced content. This is very disappointing. bobrayner (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the template and stop redirecting. You didn't follow WP rules before. I advised you since the first time you have done the redirect. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you have broken the 3RR it might be best to copy the article into your sandbox and self–revert. Please also discuss on the talk page. You haven't, as of yet, provided any argument as to why you keep reverting removal of content unreferenced since December 2009. Again, if you want to work on it copy it into your sandbox (or create a new subpage) and continue there. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write the article. As I've said from your first redirect you have to do that on a consensual basis. Now you have to wait that I finish my work.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"WP rules"? I was removing unsourced content; you were adding unsourced content. The first those is OK; the second is bad. Blaming other people for failing to use the talkpage when you're the one avoiding the talkpage is also bad. This is very simple. Blaming other people for trying to clean up the mess - and now pretending that you're exempt from WP:BURDEN - is not a good way to make editors cooperate with you. Really; a little honesty and cooperation will make other people much more sympathetic and is likely to lead to better outcomes for you and the content that you want. bobrayner (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what the objection is to finishing your work in your user space? Addition of the template does not allow for violation of Wikipedia's core policies. Don't edit war over this, just copy it and self-revert. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow the consensual rules and don't redirect/delete the page still an editor is working on it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ananda Marga Caryácarya Part 1-2-3-Covers.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ananda Marga Caryácarya Part 1-2-3-Covers.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Neohumanism in a Nutshell Part1-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Neohumanism in a Nutshell Part1-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Neohumanism in a Nutshell Part2-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Neohumanism in a Nutshell Part2-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Ananda Sutram

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Ananda Sutram. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Cornelius383 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: 24h). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Problems of the Day for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Problems of the Day 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/Problems of the Day 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. bobrayner (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Where are you?

Are you on a Wikibreak? Or upset for some reason? Feel free to contact me at talk! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy 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/Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy 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. Location (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Progressive utilization theory

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)

Nomination of Microvitum in a Nutshell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Microvitum in a Nutshell 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/Microvitum in a Nutshell 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. Location (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Namah Shivaya Shantaya-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Namah Shivaya Shantaya-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Discourses on PROUT-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Discourses on PROUT-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Shabda Cayanika 01-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Shabda Cayanika 01-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Shabda Cayanika 4&5-Cover.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Shabda Cayanika 4&5-Cover.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

On notability

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)

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)

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)

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)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Problems of the Day Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Problems of the Day Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of PROUT in a Nutshell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PROUT in a Nutshell 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/PROUT in a Nutshell 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. GaramondLethe 17:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism 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 Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism 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. GaramondLethe 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Prabhat Samgiita for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prabhat Samgiita 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/Prabhat Samgiita 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. GaramondLethe 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Subhasita Samgraha for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Subhasita Samgraha 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/Subhasita Samgraha 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. GaramondLethe 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Idea and Ideology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Idea and Ideology 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/Idea and Ideology 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. GaramondLethe 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ananda Vacanamrtam for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ananda Vacanamrtam 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/Ananda Vacanamrtam 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. GaramondLethe 21:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cornelius383. You have new messages at Abhidevananda's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abhidevananda (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ananda Marga Elelmentary Philosophy-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ananda Marga Elelmentary Philosophy-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Microvitum in a Nutshell-Cover.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Microvitum in a Nutshell-Cover.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Idea and Ideology-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Idea and Ideology-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Prout in a Nutshell Part1-21-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Prout in a Nutshell Part1-21-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2) 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/Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2) 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. GaramondLethe 06:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) 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/Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) 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. GaramondLethe 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of A Guide to Human Conduct for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Guide to Human Conduct 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/A Guide to Human Conduct (2nd nomination) 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. GaramondLethe 03:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Subhasita Samgraha Part 1-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Subhasita Samgraha Part 1-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Subhasita Samgraha Part 24-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Subhasita Samgraha Part 24-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ananda Vacanmrtam Part 1-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ananda Vacanmrtam Part 1-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ananda Vacanamrtam Part 34.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ananda Vacanamrtam Part 34.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of To the Patriots for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article To the Patriots 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/To the Patriots 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. GaramondLethe 07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies 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/Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies (2nd nomination) 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. GaramondLethe 07:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Yoga Psychology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yoga Psychology 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/Yoga Psychology 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. GaramondLethe 03:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Namami Krsnasundaram for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Namami Krsnasundaram 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/Namami Krsnasundaram 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. GaramondLethe 04:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:To the Patriots-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:To the Patriots-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Liberation of Intellect Neo-Humanism-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Liberation of Intellect Neo-Humanism-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Namámi Krśńasundaram-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Namámi Krśńasundaram-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:A Guide To Human Conduct -Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:A Guide To Human Conduct -Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Human Society Parts 1 and 2-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Human Society Parts 1 and 2-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Yoga Psychology-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Yoga Psychology-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing (again)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Ananda Marga. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

• I've also raised this issue at the SPI. While your message was neutral, sending the message only to people who had voted your way in the recent RfDs is partisan. Had you invited everyone who participated in theses AfDs, that would have been fine. Garamond Lethet
  c 06:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• This was not canvassing. When you ask others to partecipate to a talk is not canvassing. Canvassing is to ask someone to give specific advice to support you or an article. This is not the case. But what is interesting to me is that, in a short time you, CK and BR immediately intervened in the Ananda Marga talk, of course, to express dissent. This is quite strange... and is in addition to the coincidences that I highlighted at the same SPI. Unless of course you're all experts on telepathy :).--Cornelius383 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You invited people who would agree with you. You did not invite people who would disagree with you. That is canvassing. Cheating and manipulating just discredit you further. bobrayner (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is false I never ask support. I ask users to express their opinions. Abhidevananda f.e. didn't support my opinion, you and CK had already expressed your views.--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to convince you. I just need to convince an uninvolved admin. (And while I'm here: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.", as per WP:TALK.) Garamond Lethet
c 09:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not Canvassing but asking other's opinions: Your comment is there.. Nobody change it. Your assertion is still not correct. The title inserted was not a comment and was inappropriate. If you really like it I leave it there! Sorry but it seems to me you're trying to find the "casus belli" to then turn to an administrator. Please try to be more constructive.--Cornelius383 (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Asking people's opinions because of their slant, even if you write neutrally, but not others, is canvassing. WP:CANVASS: The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Legal terminology

Don't use wording that indicates you think something is libelous on wiki. You don't seem to be making any legal threats, but be careful of the words you use. See Wikipedia:NLT#Perceived_legal_threats. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks. I corrected the term.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations or SPI for short, is only for reporting and discussing evidence about suspected sockpuppets. Trying to look at other issues, as you are trying to do, won't lead anywhere and just makes the log messy, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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) 04:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Yogic Treatments & Natural Remedies-Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Yogic Treatments & Natural Remedies-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles: thanks for the warning! I'll look.--Goldenaster (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Proutist Economics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proutist Economics 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/Proutist Economics 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 notice from the top of the article. Garamond Lethet
c 07:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Proutist Economics-Cover.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Proutist Economics-Cover.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Discourse on Tantra Vol 1-Cover.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Discourse on Tantra Vol 2-Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Discourse on Tantra Vol 2-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. Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)