User talk:Amitrochates/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Which image

File link please! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

At your talk page. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Image sizes need to changed.. I think! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Much better! See if you can add one image in theme section)! Find images in Commons category! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, take a look. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Good one! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Got a bit lucky there. It looks good in the allegory of war section. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Independence Day FAC comments

Hey, those were really amazing comments. Improvement of prose is quite difficult to do. Thanks to your suggestion, we have achieved some. Please continue to provide more feedback and suggestions. The complex sentence on the post-WW I history may need some more thinking before changing. Let's see what we can do.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Making suggestions for prose improvement is a really hard job. Now I truly appreciate your suggestions in the Bhagavad Gita GAR. I have added more comments to the FAC, will try to get back to it tomorrow. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I may be delayed in responding to the new set of comments in the FAC page, as I will be busy this weekend. Other editors involved in the article may respond. Please continue to add more comments, I will resume work by Monday.

Looking at the comments made by you in the FAC, I was actually filled with joy! Finally we have an India-related editor who is able to do excellent copy-editing. There are others editors with great prose-improvement capaciy, but often very busy. We need more like you. I think we are going to need you frequently during prose-improvement of articles. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not that good at copy-editing, it's just easier to spot mistakes in someone else's article. :) I'll be busy on the weekend too, so I'll try and finish the review today. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 03:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would like to thank you for reviewing the article. Your suggestions are indeed awesome and have added quality to the article. The article's prose has improved a lot now! Cheers! BPositive (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A few tougher corrections to the prose remain. I'll see if I can make any more suggestions there. Btw, the prose looked good before the article came to the FA. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian philosophy - western view

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I have added a new section to describe the western view. I would like to add reference to the U-turn theory by Rajiv Malhotra later. If you have time please watch his lectures on U-turn theory.--Skbhat (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is looking nice now. Thank you very much.--Skbhat (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

GAN for Bhagavad Gita

CorrectKnowledge, I apologize for taking so long with the review due to pressing RL responsibilities. I appreciate your patience. The first thing I did today was go through the article's sources. Please see my comments at the GAN page before we can decide on how to best proceed with the nomination. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have replied at the GAN page. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 00:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Icche

No, I generally don't nominate articles for DYK. Recently I have talked with Crisco who is a DYK expert with many DYKs under his belt. Though he gave a detailed reply my concentration diverted there. And about DYK, this article is not the best with some inconsistency. The name of Manasi's son is "Souvik" according to website and Shamik according to Times of India (something like that). I have created few more articles (most probably 6) after Yesterday's Icche. Some of those may have DYK components. reply in my talk page or addd tb --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The name is actually Samik or Soumik according to most sources. If you haven't seen the movie, it will be extremely hard to complete the plot. Otherwise, the article has a lot of scope for expansion. For DYK, the articles need a minimum 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists etc.). This article has about 950 or so characters. So it could have been a potential DYK if you or some other editor had actually seen the movie. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. When you recently edited Samkhya, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tantric and Siva (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) 11:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Amitrochates. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 09:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Need help

Two well-meaning editors have, I think, misunderstood my edits on India and reverted it twice. Please neutrally comment on the talk page here and help me navigate through this gloomy phase. In your judgement, I trust. The reverter did not look closely at my additions and that's what spurred the argument I guess. I simply don't understand why my edits were reverted in the first place. Yes, I know what I could have done but I just don't get what I did wrong. Help! Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

IMO, you should have started the discussion by posting the diffs to the changes you made to the content. I don't think it will be hard to get a consensus on the updated GDP figures or the net change (after RP removed some of your content) in the society section. Your changes to the content were positive, so start from there and then move on to the images. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback at Talk:India. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why Chipmunkdavis is complicating the matter further. I asked him specifically whether or not it will be okay for me to implement the changes 2 (article 17 of Indian constitution) and 3 (India's nominal gdp) he says discuss it there. Man, what does he expect me to do more? I told him I already initiated the section which clearly states the changes I will bring. Case 1 is still under consideration because it's somewhat controversial, but case 2 and case 3 are objective and factual. BTW, I am still awaiting a reason as to why not make the change. Should I go without his permission, I don't need it anyway because nobody is the owner of the article. What do you say? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 06:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You can go ahead and make changes per Case 3. Wording of Case 2 is still under discussion along with Case 1. But Case 3 was discussed, all the issues were taken care of and no further objections were raised by anyone. I would call this consensus. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 07:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I retract my proposal 1, as it seems now it won't be solved due to Fowler's forum-like way of discussing that are to some extent impertinent to the topic and quite digressive. Has it passed the "no-turning" point? He is protracting the hassle gratuitously. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Check out my new proposal. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My undo

Sorry, I undid your subsectioning because I was getting confused. I am tired and about to go to bed. If you want you can recreate that section. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I've also created a new section for your proposal on Talk:Caste. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 06:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Amitrochates. You have new messages at Talk:India.
Message added 11:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 11:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That fowler guy is not behaving well. Replied to the posts. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied, what to do then? Except for fowler I think everybody seems to agree on the proposal with some modification. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply here. It's not going to be easy. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 06:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What are your views on this removal of content? - a highly acclaimed illustrated book with text 'India Unveiled', probably the only book ever published in the Western world to have been officially recognized by a Prime Minister of India, a book written by Robert Arnett categorized as "Hindu nationalist garbage" (without any discussion)? wow? This is by the way backed by another book "The Role of Native Culture and Language" according to which, Will Durant says, "India is the Motherland of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages." So I don't think it's entirely baseless, yet it was reverted.

In the article Caste in one of his edit summaries (check the edit) he wrote, "I'm sorry India remains "the" paradigmatic example" of caste system, although we know that it is far from the truth.

He also writes in Talk:India that "Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years, is the burden of Hinduism alone".

Is he not the classic definition of anti-Hindu, anti-India or what? Check his contributions and you will hopefully see that there is something disingenuous. This fowler&fowler is behaving awkwardly, to say the least. See this discussion for more knowledge about the mode of thinking of this editor. He has experience and that gives him a certain amount of leverage but that leverage is being abused, I think, to pursue a more disingenuous agenda. He labels anybody who disagrees with him as either "Hindu nationalist", "Biased" or something like that. He is unnecessarily brusque. Why is that? Why is he so filled with spite against Hinduism? Does it sound similar to a group we know? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 06:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"All this seems as bit wasteful for an addition of one or two lines to the section." - what do you mean? I couldn't fathom it. Explain it here to avoid clutter in the discussion page. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 08:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It means you won't have it easy. This discussion will last longer than Talk:Caste and will require lot of hard work in terms of collecting sources, arguing from them etc. Remember what you said We need to do something about it and it need not be so painful. That is what this is going to be. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest then? (I am willing to test my tenacity.) Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I created a a list of 20 largest cities in India. Feel free to modify or change it with care. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 11:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on this. I made the change about adding the template. Others who are opposing apparently have no other reason apart from "it looks aweful/ugly". Your feedback is needed. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay I posted a copy of the new template, tell me if it's okay or not. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Neo-Advaita

Hi, I believe the concept is a hoax created by one of the user and is now adding links and references to main article to make it look as real , I have already asked for deletion of the main article , how to go from here ? Shrikanthv (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a hoax. Sorry, I didn't bother to check the main article. I have deleted the section from the article for now. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Neo-Advaita. The term "hoax" seems inappropriate to me. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Neo-Advaita. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 09:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for notifying me , It seems that lot of self published sources and blogs are trying to build a philosophy of western advaita concept and coining it as neo-advaita ubelievalbe but qouting sayings from some of Indian philosphers (who never imagined this term ) , however as wiki is concerend they have not got any suffecient coverage yet in any media or other sources , they may have to wait until it is wiki notable ready Shrikanthv (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at Talk:Neo-Advaita. IMO, Neo-Vedanta is a more popularly used term to describe the philosophy of Swami Vivekananda, Radhakrishnan and even Brahmo Samaj. Neo–Advaita is probably just a neologism used to critique modern gurus in the west. Let's wait for Joshua Jonathan's final word on this. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 13:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added WP:COUNTRIES to my watchlist. I'll wait for other editors to comment. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 11:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Amitrochates. You have new messages at Talk:India#Discussion_about_the_looks_of_the_template.
Message added Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Amitrochates. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 06:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yoga (Lead Section)

Greetings, thanks for taking the time to add content to the lead at Yoga - however you have removed the WP:LEAD template without any discussion. I have added it again pending the outcome of further discussion. I have also reviewed the Quality Issues (Lead) section on the talk page about some of the issues. Thanks. --Yoga Mat (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing the issue on the talk page. Please don't add templates in the middle of the lead section of a GA article because you don't like it. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, firstly I feel that posting a Edit war notice on my talk page is inappropriate in these circumstances. My action was to simply bring notice to the quality issues in the Introduction and you in fact turned it into a battle by removing the template without further discussion. Please note 1) I did not remove any of your contributions which are still there 2) GA status can reassessed at anytime and 3) I was very careful only to add the notice to the lead section - not to the overall article which I think is good. Your tone is overly hostile and I refute your idea that my edits were due to my "Not liking it" which is unfounded and seems like a very juvenile attitude to me. Please - let us be civil - remove the "friendly" notice from my talk page which is deemed as an aggressive action in terms of etiquette and let us work together to get the introductory section representative of the entire article as per WP:LEAD. I have no axe to grind here and look forward to making further improvements. Thanks. --Yoga Mat (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I request you once again to give specifics as to what is wrong with the lead. See the article talk page for further details. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the process is getting spiral and exceedingly time-consuming. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:India".The discussion is about the topic Template:Largest cities of India. Thank you! --Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Mind taking a look

Hi CK, I saw your mssg on Sitush's talk page, in reply to my posting there. Do you mind taking a look the the draft Kaul article in my sandbox here. Do leave some comments on the draft articles talk page. Also, in case you feel that minor edits can help improve the article, please feel free to change or modify the draft. Any suggestions on furter improvement of the article are most welcome. -Ambar (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi CK, please see if you can drop in to my sandbox-Ambar (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read this yet?

Since you're already on that page. Have you read the following?

There are four images and a few lines which can be scrolled by easily. I'm sorry but I'm having trouble accepting the Sacred Cow argument. It certainly adds information. Looking at the table I also have trouble seeing it as a distraction much less an eyesore. There is no comparison between the template and this: complex graphical map of urban population centers. I've reviewed this: File:Political map of India EN.svg and again there is no comparison with the template. Clicking on a state or territory brings up no population data. Right now the only feasible compromise made so far is a collapsible template or another template. I find the collapsible idea a brilliant compromise if feasible. I still find it difficult to understand how such a small template with nothing but facts and four images can create this much entrenchment. Are the parties willing to investigate both these compromises? [Jobberone (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)] Well, Jobberone, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The only compromise I, personally, will agree to is a the collapsed template below (without images) as a stop gap until the heat map (per Planemad and Saravask) is ready. (Obviously, the Political map was only given as an example to illustrate that Saravask knows how to make clickable maps (no easy programming job, by the way); it doesn't bring up population numbers, but someone who can design it can also do a map with population numbers. ...[Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)]

The no image collapsed template isn't good enough for fowler. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Also check out what Steve and AVC wrote on talk of India. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A collapsed template without an Image is tantamount to having no template. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the change fowler is trying to bring. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

They are going to close the discussion. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We are close to a compromise there, closing the discussion will put all our efforts to ruin Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We can choose/pick images later. This is just a demonstration:

seems okay? Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to withdraw the WP:DR case. it is a colossal wastage of time and energy. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Amitrochates. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 10:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

replied. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem I see with some of the images proposed there, (intentional or not) misplacement of images and undue weight to contextually insignificant things. I think if you want to assert that "There are some 1.5 million potters in rural India, most of whom have no landed property" — which by the way may or may not be best suited for economy section of a summary style article — what is the need for highlighting it with an image of a potter and his wife in Madhya Pradesh? Won't a link to the article about pottery suffice?

Again if you wish to focus on Indian railways why not focus on one of the largest railway termini in India? There is far more than enough focus on the sheer rurality of India and the half-nakedness of the poor population. Why is this needless predilection? Why this maniacal focus on the gloomy-looking portions of the country/populous when there are numerous better alternatives available about the same subject/category? India is getting urbanized and westernised, this article must depict this fact along with every thing else. "India is the world's second-largest producer of silk" as well as "the largest consumer" — but the one shown in the picture is half-naked....I am wondering "why???"

"The Indian silk industry employs some 6 million workers" - seems fine? "some of whom are child labourers" - there he goes, see? Why not simply state the facts and somehow refrain from shoehorning POVs in Image captions?? I think this is getting a bit too much. I am telling you. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a process underway for selection of images. The same points can be raised then. In any case, the images will only be selected after votes and some hard bargaining like in DRN (I'm guessing here). Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a straw-poll in a discussion where you were involved. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I will not be taking part in any more DRN nonesense, sorry. I'll leave a more detailed reply later. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian religions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saman (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) 09:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 09:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN Closure notice

Like I told you it's a wastage of time and energy. The DRN failed, how about that?? Hahahahaha!!!! What a surprise, right? The DRN was closed with the following.

Three of the main parties in this dispute, Fowler&Fowler, AVC, and Mrt3366, the filing editor, have expressed a desire to close the DRN. Any thoughts? It looks like the filing editor has gone ahead to create an RfC on the issue. The discussion is currently spread between three locations (Talk:India, the DRN case, and the RfC page), which is a practice that is not encouraged.
— User:So God created Manchester

I thought you should know this. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a pretty decent close compared to what was being proposed when I walked out of the discussion. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback on my talkpage. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler is in a huff, because he thought we were exchanging marriage vows maybe and could never have got out of that "bond" (predicated on the highly intimate dispute resolution) no matter how hard we tried.

Hahahaha!!!! I admit it's a pathetic joke. Hahahahaha!!!!!!!! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Answered your query on my talk. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Amitrochates. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 08:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

again. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking it to talk:caste will inevitably mean another tiring session of consecutive twaddles by some of the more zealous editors, if you know what I mean (not including RP though). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied on my talk-page in more detail. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen this yet? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per this, under the discretionary sanctions in place for caste articles, I am banning you for 6 months from all articles and discussions falling under WP:GS/Caste. If you have any questions regarding scope, ask me and I'll clarify it for you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an explanation for each individual editor about this? Of course, I am only asking about myself right now. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you need clarified? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why have I been banned? It is a bit surprising considering I wasn't very active on the talk page and have edited the article only once. I mean at what point did it appear that I am disrupting? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed your edits, both there and to other articles in general. You have a very high level of tendentiousness in your editing, and it's noticeably slanted. In addition, some of the back and forth with Fowler&fowler is highly mistaken at best and misrepresenting things at worst; in either case, that's evidence that such a high-tension area isn't the right place for you to be editing. Take the time to edit non-controversial articles, and when the 6 months is up take whatever you might have learned with you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give examples of TE in Caste and other articles. Besides, which back and forth with Fowler&fowler are you talking about? The one at ANI? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify my your last comment on my talk page. I am still waiting for it. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I will get back to you when I can; right now I'm trying to contain something that's blown up in my face IRL, so it might be a little while. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't plan to edit on the caste namespace, but I think you've made a mistake. Please take your time, I am not asking you to rush the explanation. Here are few of the other content disputes I've had in the past, going back to 25th July: Talk:Cārvāka#Hedonism and inference in C.C4.81rv.C4.81ka thought, Talk:Samkhya#Dualism and Atheism in lead, Talk:India/Archive 37#Changes that I seek to bring, Talk:Neo-Advaita#Blatant hoax, Talk:Yoga#Quality Issues: Lede, Talk:Hindu_philosophy#Disbelieve in God .3F, Talk:Nyaya#Ny.C4.81ya. I have resolved all of them amicably (barring the last two which are ongoing). I welcome your criticism of my editing, but I also trust you will revert your actions if you find after assessing the disputes that I do not have a very high level of tendentiousness in my editing. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK; if you must know, what put me over the edge were your comments here (cluttering an RfC with irrelevant side discussions) and here (especially the sentence Fowler&fowler refers to as a doozy, which even at first glance flies right in the face of NPOV). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay the side discussion on Spinning out new articles to reduce clutter was started by Fowler&fowler himself. You can confirm this from Fowler. He writes in the section below Sorry, it was my mistake to open a new section above (in what I thought was a helpful move).... Regarding the second link, is this the sentence you had a problem with: The 914 words allotted to non-Hindu India and South Asia can start from within the India section and extend to other countries. We don't need to title sections Hindu India, Muslim India etc.... Please note Fowler actually agreed to this conditionally. The condition was: ...such as this doozy in the current lead, "Castes have been observed in societies that are, for example, predominantly Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist" where Hinduism is snuck way in the back, are removed forever. Please note Fowler is not referring to my comment here, but a sentence in the lead. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC) My replies were transcluded from User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I second the question. What exactly decided CorrectKnowledge's topic ban? That's also for 6 months! I have already read ANI discussion, User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#Regarding_Topic_Ban etc. A clear answer like "this (link)","this (link)", "this (link)" edits of Correct Knowledge shows his edits are tendentiousness that's why... Regards! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

To explain my curiosity– as far as I know about CorrectKnowledge's edits, he is an enthusiastic new editor who is spreading his wings, i.e. after doing minor, one-two line edits etc for months now trying to improve his contributions. So, you may find him (recently, in these few months) participating in some RFCs, GA, Peer, FA or some serious discussions. He may make some minor mistakes while participating in such high level discussions. I have worked with him in Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism article) which had some disputes, differences of opinions too where he worked very well. But CorrectKnowledge's edits have become so much tendentious in last one moth that it requires 6 months topic ban is quite surprising for me. And that's the reason of my curiosity! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, one test of the lack of tendentiousness is whether an editor is able to continue after a topic ban. For example, if someone topic banned me from India-related topics, I would consider it a blessing in disguise and work on other topics, and there are million I can think of. Tendentious editors, I've noticed, are usually not able to continue. After all, this is a topic ban in a small area. CK will still be able to edit in most India-related topics (let alone others). By his own admission, he is not interested in editing the Caste article; so my advice for him would be to keep doing the good work on Hinduism-related topics. A topic ban doesn't go into one's block log and 6-months will be gone before you know it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I have not gone through the recent caste related dispute and the ANI, CK is otherwise a good and productive editor. Even if this topic ban is there, I completely believe that CK will continue to do the excellent editing that he has done so far. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What's up?

Where are you? --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am still here thought my contributions are relatively infrequent. Is my participation/help required somewhere?? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What's about topic ban? How does it affect? And which are actually caste articles? --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't contribute to Rajput, Kayastha etc. apart from the top level Caste and Caste system in India articles. It doesn't affect other namespaces. So India, Bhagavad Gita etc. are all articles I can contribute to. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 13:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And what happened there actually? After reading thousands of words I could understand only that portion where Fowler used rollback. How did you fall in there? PS. Some people are suggesting to change my signature (see my talk), I am finding some idea--Tito Dutta ✉ 13:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The decision was taken under ban first find reasons later policy. ;) Don't get me started on that. I would have appealed at Arbcom if I had enough energy to fight battles both here and in RL. Fortunately or unfortunately I cannot contribute actively here anymore in the near future or possibly even in the long term. Regarding the signature, I am no good at CSS. Your sign looks fine to me, line spacing doesn't sound like an issue that needs any correction. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 13:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Yoga". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 12:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

India Economy Section Images

There is a voting process going on for selection of Images for Economy section of the India article. Voting ends on 15th November 2012. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I'll try to chip in before November 15th. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 11:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk page archive?

Can you see my talk page archive bot configuration? For last two months I have been trying to adjust it, not working! --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to the MiszaBot configuration. Tell me if there are any more issues with it. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bo(t and ook)

• The bot has done his first archiving, but unfortunately it has archived some wrong talks too!
• Do you know any online copy of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's book? --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Use {{subst:DNAU}} to prevent archiving of threads you want to keep on your talk page. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar has written over 250 books. Some of those are available on google books. Is there any specific book you are looking for? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Any (few) books, in Google Books there is not a single book which offers even preview! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I had found one preview last time, can't remember which book it was. Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha probably doesn't want any of his works to be read for free. On a side note, Ananda Marga Yoga Society is listed as a banned violent Hindu group founded by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar here. Why is such an important and interesting fact not mentioned in the article on him? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 03:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

PS This book contains greater details of allegations against him. Ananda Marga#False accusations of involvement of three Ananda Marga members in terrorist acts in Australia does contain some details regarding this. However, the section (particularly the title) itself seems POVy. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ananda Marga article needs lots of works. Recently Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar has been copyedited (and again an anounymous editor tried to add multiple Baba, Babas. I don't know why the information is not there! I only find some users who try to flood See also and External links sections in Sarkar related articles. Sarkar was a prolific writer! --Tito Dutta (talk)

Read the second source. It says, "...Sarkar was denied entry to the United States due to Anand Marg's terrorist record". There is even a Calcutta High Court order against rituals performed by Anand Margis. It looks like Sarkar's fans have managed to coat rack the article with hagiographic content. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these articles are in a very poor condition (only Sarkar's article has been copyedited). See this talk:User_talk:Titodutta#Talkback_4. I did not know that Anandamarga is a banned group. And another problem is there is not too many free online resources! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Work for apparently workless

I happened to read above that you are sort of looking for work :)

You did great job in prose improvement of articles earlier. I would like to request you to read the article Tripura, and suggest changes for prose improvement. The article has been improved of the past several months. However, it definitely needs a fresh pair of eyes, especially for prose improvement. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dwaipayan, I'll give it an honest try. I am lacking in enthusiasm as far as wikipedia is concerned, so don't expect any prompt work. I barely manage to keep on top of my watchlist and even this is getting harder by the day. Had I not been attached to few of the articles I've made significant contributions to, I would've retired by now. Yeah I know, attachment to work doesn't suit an editor of Bhagavad Gita :) .... anyway, I'll try. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 03:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah yeah... karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana. So, do not think about retirement. Jut do as you happen to :)

On a serious note, you don't need to act promptly, but input will be highly appreciated. I have a few plans for the next several months, one is a FAC for Tripura. So, a fresh evaluation of the article would be excellent. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Amitrochates. 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)

Tripura edits

Thank you for your ongoing scrutiny of the article. Please continue to read it and make prose changes as you feel necessary. There is no hurry, so you can take your time; it is benefiting from a fresh perusal. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your observations and suggestion; will work on those. Yes, the less presence of the Tripuri kings is somewhat conscious, as reliable sources are lacking. What do,you think? Any more details are needed?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)