Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 14 January 2013

no use of ths;lllk' ${\displaystyle ]]]]}$</math>re${\displaystyle rew--~~~~rwe<math>rewe----reeerw}$</math>

Reminder

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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

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 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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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

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

Talkback

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

Talkback

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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

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 Misplaced Pages'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 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nopes, incorrect notice. Check 3 and 4 here: Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages's guidelines on this. Regards. Correct Knowledge 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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)