Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:35, 20 July 2015

Welcome!

Hello, Mohanbhan! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 05:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Misplaced Pages The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Nomination of K. Satyanarayana (academic) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K. Satyanarayana (academic) 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/K. Satyanarayana (academic) 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. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Iyothee Thass page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Hindu philosophy#Jainism, Buddhism, Carvaka and Ajivika part of Hinduism?

Thank you for your extensive reply; highly appreciated, and very clear and claryfying (that's not exactly correct English, but soît. I do know where to find the "special characters"). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua! I enjoyed the exchange too. Glad we could appreciate each other's efforts after that little misunderstanding. :-) -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional ref of possible interest

I may have rounded up a bit excessively when I said 1000 years, but use of terms similar to Hinduism enormously predate the 19th century, despite claims to the contrary. I think you will enjoy Unifying Hinduism, which I think you told Joshua Jonathan you'd likely read. Whereas the UH book deals with philosophical unification, another source that, if you can obtain it, is much shorter and thus a quicker read, deals with vernacular usage: Lorenzen, David N. (October 1999). "Who Invented Hinduism?". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 41 (4): 630–659. doi:10.1017/S0010417599003084. BTW, what is listed on the journal webpage as the abstract is actually the first paragraph. And there's an epigraph that somehow didn't get swept into the supposed abstract:

"...moreover if people of Arabia or Persia would ask of the men of this country whether they are Moors or Gentoos, they ask in these words: ‘Art thou Mosalman or Indu?’" --Dr. García de Orta, 1563

Best regards --Presearch (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link but I have read David Lorenzen. His thesis is that what we know as Hinduism was constructed in opposition to foreign religions, first Islam and then Christianity. The popularization of vernacular religious texts like the Puranas helped people see a family resemblance (similar gods goddesses etc) in other Indian sects and this was the direct result of -- or a means to withstand -- foreign invasion and the imposition of a foreign religion. So everything that was not Islam came to be identified as Indu, and later -- much later -- Hindu. But the term Hinduism was only used in 19th century. And philosophical unification, regardless of how it was done or how substantial it was, does not really signify a unification of different sects---Hindu philosophy being a elite activity conducted mostly in Sanskrit. But yes, I will read UH. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you've read Lorenzen. A good deal of your characterization in the paragraph above is accurate. He does speak of family resemblances, and suspects that the challenge posed by Islam played a key role. However, your characterization is mixed with other things undiscussed by him, at least in that cited document. He adduces evidence showing that very similar "models" (he calls it the 'standard model') of Hinduism were showing up in reports of Europeans from their earliest arrival ("Hinduism, if it was in fact constructed by the Europeans, can be traced back to the very earliest European accounts", p. 646); and Lorenzen clearly argues that words related to "Hindu" had a long precolonial history of designating religion, not just an ethno-geographic group, so the notion that "everything that was not Islam came to be identified as Indu", is not his argument in that citation; rather, Lorenzen notes that "virtually all of the more scholarly observers among the European visitors and residents in India before 1800 had identified Hinduism as a diverse but identifiable set of beliefs and practices clearly distinguished from Islam and, less clearly, from the Sikh and Parsi religions as well" (p. 638).

And speaking of family resemblance, and of timescales relative to invasion, Lorenzen observes that "From the point of view of a modern observer, one can see the family resemblance taking a recognizably Hindu shape in the early Puranas, roughly around the period 300–600 C.E.... This Hinduism wasn’t invented by anyone, European or Indian... it just grow’d" (p. 665). --Presearch (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but all these characterizations: "virtually all of the more scholarly observers among the European visitors and residents in India before 1800 had identified Hinduism as a diverse but identifiable set of beliefs and practices clearly distinguished from Islam" and "one can see the family resemblance taking a recognizably Hindu shape in the early Puranas" are still very vague since Hinduism does not -- or does not easily -- fit into the description of "religion". -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Which publication(s) are the two of you referring to? Who Invented Hinduism: Essays on Religion in History? I'd like to read them too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry; I see that Presearch mentioned a journal-article with the same title. Thanks. Mohanbhan, have you got any other recommandations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Mahanbhan Mohanbhan, with regard to your statement above that "Hinduism does not -- or does not easily -- fit into the description of 'religion'", the obvious question is "whose description"? If you aren't already, you should be aware that there is no uniform definition of religion that is accepted across many scholarly/scientific fields, and in many cases, there is no uniform definition within a field. Anthropologist Benson Saler, for example, in his book-length discussion of defining religion, suggests religion is at most a "family resemblance" construct definable at most by prototypes, an approach that is gaining traction in some other fields (e.g., psychology). Note that on page ix, Saler suggests that "religion is a Western folk category that contemporary Western scholars have appropriated", and that "In large measure... their scholarly efforts to define or characterize religion are efforts to refine and deepen the folk category that they began to use as children, and to foreground what they deem most salient or important about religion." Thus, to repeat, you should be aware that your claim is not transparently obvious, but begs the question: "Description of religion as defined by whom?" Best regards --Presearch (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's Mohan not Mahan, if you please. I don't think there is any need to get into the nitty-gritties of the concept of religion. In spite of all their complexities and evolution Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism as well as Zoroastrianism and Sikhism can be defined by their central texts and central tenets. These are very important for something to be called religion. Hinduism doesn't have these and so at best is only a pretend religion. That said, I agree that Christianity as conceived by Jesus of Nazareth underwent a huge transformation under St Paul and the many denominations of Christianity that we have today bear only a "family resemblance" to the original religion. But these are divergent developments of Christianity based on different interpretations of a single text. In the case of "Hinduism" this single text does not exist. If Hinduism is to attain cohesiveness the Vedas must be projected as its central texts (like Dayanand Saraswati did) and let go of anti-Vedic factions like Carvaka, Tantric variety Shaivism, the Bhakti cults etc. And if not the Vedas some other text which is more inclusive. Hinduism as it exists is very confusing. But thanks for the links. I will go through them.

Mohanbhan, I apologize for mis-spelling your name (it was a typo, now strikeout-corrected). Yes, in your above post you have analyzed the potential for using a central sacred text as an approach for defining religion, and found that this approach doesn't work as well with Hinduism.

But what made you choose the existence of a central sacred text as a sort of "litmus test" for what counts as a religion? That's precisely the point being made by the wave of scholarship epitomized by Benson. You didn't offer a reason why you chose that particular litmus test, and you cannot appeal to it as an agreed-upon scholarly definition (at least not in most fields). To the extent that you are a scholar, you therefore run the risk of seeking to impose your own "folk-beliefs" on others -- although one way to mitigate against the biases of such an approach (if you are doing scholarship) is to explain and defend why you think that your particular definition (e.g., sacred text-centric) is relevant to the task for which you are using it. In contrast, one (of many) conceivable alternative approaches might emphasize the coherence and usefulness of a tradition for transforming and sanctifying the lives of people of diverse temperments. That approach to defining what constitutes a religion would arguably be closer to the actual values celebrated as supreme by most religious traditions. But different jobs can demand different definitional tools. The question would be: What is the job for which you believe "existence of a central sacred text" is a worthwhile definitional tool, and why is it more appropriate and useful than diverse alternatives identified in the literature (Benson and others)? Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read Benson and others but my conception of religion is certainly not a "folk-belief". The English word 'religion' generally applied to Abrahamic religions has a classificatory function and to perform this function adequately it looks for certain features in a system-of-beliefs to class it as religion. The three Abrahamic religions would together resemble a less complicated version of Hinduism, and yet if they are three different and distinct religions it is because the features of central text/s and central tenets are identified. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are also classed as religion for the same reason: they have identifiable texts and tenets which clarify the meaning of these religions. Hinduism has no such texts or tenets, and so the English word religion cannot be applied to it without getting into problems. That is why many scholars prefer to call Hinduism a dharma rather than a religion. But dharma (no matter what it is taken to mean from 'duty' and 'law' to 'way of life') is a slippery and vague term which, in the final analysis, does not clarify the essence of Hinduism. Indeed if anything can be called a "folk-belief" exaggerated to the point of ludicrousness it is the belief of the people of India, and of Hindus the world over, that Hinduism is a religion. I am quite convinced about this but I will read Benson and see whether he says a plurality of diverse and mutually hostile traditions and belief systems can constitute a religion. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua: You can read Chattopadhayaya's Lokayata if you haven't read it already. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Apart from your mentions of it on your talkpage, I hadn't even heard of it. Fascinating! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those very interesting links. Don't know why you removed them. Also appreciate your spirited riposte. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Charvaka, Ajivika and help

Hello, I salute you for your edits on wikipedia.

Well I think that you are right on those two pages. Charavaka is an extinct Indian philosophy and is almost dead. So I don't find any Charavaka defending on that page. Most of them are Hindus who even claim the same for Gautam Buddha. Its very sad but I will support you.

By the way do you know how to create a template on wikipedia? Thanks Terabar (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the kind words. Carvaka is an ancient Indian materialism and the Marxists of today must defend it, but obviusly most Marxists wouldn't know about it. But they are building consensus on Hindu template page to change the header to Indian philosophy--this is an improvement. But they want to categorize Carvaka as Nastika and I don't think that is right. Yes, most of them are completely at sea about Carvaka philosophy. All that they know about Carvaka is that it is a Nastika or heterodox school of Indian philosophy which they have read in some dated surveys of Hinduism. About creating templates: I think you can take the php code of a template (by clicking on edit template) and tweak it according to your needs. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Even Encyclopedia Britanicca defines Charavaka as an Indian Philosophy and not as a Hindu sect. . All the scholars of Hinduism claim that those Indian traditions are a part of Hinduism. They want to absorb all the Indian traditions and call them under the term "Hindu". Now the sources which are being presented on Charvaka and Ajivika pages to claim that they were Hindus are from mostly Hindu Scholars. Even Jains and Buddhists are not considered as a separate religion but thought of as an Hindu identity. In the Samaññaphala Sutta the philosophies which existed at the time of Buddha are explained such as of the Ajivika Makkhali Gosala. Nigatha Nataputa (Mahavira) is also one of them. They disagreed with Buddha's dhamma so should we call them them Buddhists? But all the Hindu Scholars feel proud who even reject their scriptures(Vedas) and don't hesitate them to call them as Hindu. I don't know how can I explain this to them. Best regards. Terabar (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Masochism and Sadism (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) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

I have had occasion to both agree and disagree with you about content at Talk:Hindu philosophy and Talk:Cārvāka and that is likely to be the case in the future too. But as I told Sarah on my talkpage editing at these talkpages would be more pleasant and productive with less bad-blood and bad-faith amongst editors. Focus on the content and sources (and feel free to disagree about that!) but avoid speculating about other editors' ideology and motives, or employing inflammatory hyperbole as in this edit and others. Belittling other editors is not conducive to collaboration and doesn't paint the speaker in a good light, as User:Joshua Jonathan had politely pointed to you before. Hope you'll take greater care in the future. Abecedare (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: As Soham321 has pointed out your intervention was sought during the canvassing by Sarah Welch and that makes you an "involved party." And being an involved party you are naturally choosing to call my very calm and considered response to Sarah Welch's outburst "inflammatory" instead of her completely uncalled for overreaction about wiki not being a Chattopadhyaya-pedia. I am not "speculating" about Sarah Welch's motives, I am responding to her allegations about my motives, and arguing, adopting the best practices, that if she does not reflect an edit she made to Carvaka article (about the roots of Carvaka being in Rigveda) in the Rigveda article it would make her bias obvious. She is yet to respond to that challenge. Does this constitute speculating about someone's motives or intellectually demonstrating that she is acting with a bias? You are an admin and a senior editor and in this case an involved party--so please don't sermonize without adequately engaging with the content of discussion. I am not interested in speculating about anybody's motives; I am discussing, citing sources, pointing out flaws in argument, conceding when the reasons are adequate and holding my ground when they are not; in short, I am arguing and doing so in a civil way. And you cannot accuse me of "belittling" an editor because my tone was a direct response to the tone adopted by Joshua Jonathan, who made these flippant remarks.

I have no objection whatsoever to including Jainism and Hinduism in this template. Who cares if they are not "strictly" Hindu? I don't, most Hindus probably don't, and most Buddhists probably also don't. How about an RfC? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Oh, and Raju is saying that, if the Ajivikas and the Carvakas can be Hindus, Jainism and Buddhism can also be called forms of Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I told him, addressing him as "bother", that he has to cite reasons for having "no objection whatsoever." I was telling them that this was a serious matter concerning lots of people and that it was not OK to discuss it in a cavalier manner. This can hardly be called "belittling" fellow editors.

So with all due respect to you as wiki admin may I point out that you are not in a position to take an impartial view of the matter. You may reserve your chastisement to Sarah Welch who has created all this unpleasantness with her unwarranted outbursts and ad hominem attacks. -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Charvaka view of Inference

The Charvaka view of inference described in this page may be of interest to you: http://www.iep.utm.edu/indmat/#SH3a Soham321 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Soham. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Claire Parnet

The article Claire Parnet has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Misplaced Pages policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. GLG GLG (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Proust and Signs (French edition).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Proust and Signs (French edition).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Chattopadhyaya and Needham

Please see how best to include a reference to this book in the Chattopdhyaya biography: Cosmic Perspectives. It has an invited contribution from Chattopadhyaya on astronomy in ancient India, and another from Needham on astronomy in ancient and medieval China. It would be useful to investigate whether the two have ever co-authored any paper(s). Soham321 (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Chattopadhyaya had also edited a series of volumes titled 'Indian Studies:Past and Present'. Please see if you can find some information about this series so we can add it to the reference section. Soham321 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

One other point: The 'Chattopadhyaya and Joseph Needham' section can be expanded by paraphrasing and quoting from Needham's foreword to Chattopadhyay's first volume of 'History of Science and Technology in Ancient India'. Soham321 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added the chapter in Cosmic Perspectives to Bibliography section with a link to google books for now. Will add Indian Studies. Don't have access to the HST book. There are many more books that could be added to Bibliography section; I haven't added them as I am not sure whether they are by Debiprasad Chattopadhayaya or D.P. Chattopadhayaya (also Debiprasad, founder of ICPR). We should also source a few images. The Mircea Eliade page is a good model. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. One point: The publication history of Indian Studies:Past and Present spanned a period from 1959 to 1974. Chattopadhyaya was the overall Editor for this series which was a quarterly publication. See catalogue 1 and Catalogue 2. Unfortunately the online catalogues i have seen do not explicitly state that Chattopadhyaya was editing this series. Please see if you can find evidence for the same. Soham321 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I found this and added it. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Lokayata

great job on creating the Lokayata article. I think we should try to have wikipedia articles for all his major books. Soham321 (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think we should do that. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cover of An Introduction to the Study of Indian History.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of An Introduction to the Study of Indian History.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Keith Ansell Pearson

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Keith Ansell Pearson, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/faculty/pearson.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Keith Ansell-Pearson

The licence for the image you have added to this article states that it is a screen capture of a BBC commentary and can only be used in an article about the documentary itself. Furthermore, non-free content can only be used "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". As the subject is still living, it would be possible to create a free equivalent. For both reasons, I have removed the image from the article. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. I will upload another image. -Mohanbhan (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The new image also has a licence making its use invalid here. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Photo of Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Photo of Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Misplaced Pages under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

4RR

i think you are at 4RR now. that means you can be blocked by any Admin for, i think, 48 hours. Would advise you to self-revert promptly. Soham321 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted but according to WP:EDITWAR reverting vandalism -- which is what I was doing since they were section blanking sourced content -- is exempted from WP:3RR. -Mohanbhan (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

you are probably right, but no need to take any risk since the plagiarism content is going to be included in the page ultimately. In fact i expect to see more articles on Rajiv's plagiarism in the next few days. Soham321 (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I reverted too. Thanks for the alert! -Mohanbhan (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Be sure about that. Fox has published an open letter, which also states that copyrights of Columbia University Press and other publishers have been violated. It would surprise me if there wouldn't be a response to that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

But Malhotra's claim that he hasn't used quotes as quotes aren't traditionally used (or have not been used) in ancient Sanskrit texts is one of the most flagrantly dishonest defenses I have ever read. (Plagiarizing English texts, writing plagiarized books in English and quoting ancient Sanskrit conventions!) This man is not only a chauvinist and a racist (given his views about Dalits, Muslims and "Dravidians"), he is also a psychopath incapable of feeling remorse for his wrongdoing. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! You really don't like him! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Misplaced Pages under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - India, Pakistan, and Afganistan

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

An ARCA discussion involving you has been created

{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)