User talk:Jijithnr

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Excellent work. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 02:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Jijithnr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Bahlika Kingdom

Please provide context for this article, or it may be in danger of being Deleted. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 11:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello and welcome again. Sorry that I welcome you on your user page. Please write few words about you on your user page. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference

Bahlika Kingdom and Surparaka Kingdom - it is always a good idea to give some reference. --Bhadani 15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

India quick links

-- utcursch | talk 06:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hindu mythology

Have you visited the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hindu mythology. We have a category dedicated to Category:Hindu mythology. maybe your could help in improve the articles and give references and sources for them.--Dangerous-Boy 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

xyz Kingdom

Why did you create so many articles named "something Kingdom" that overlap with other articles that already exist? For instance, Magadha Kingdom and Magadha, Yaksha Kingdom and Yaksha, etc. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I understand what you are doing. Two things: 1) I think it would be a good idea to make sure that new articles are integrated with the existing articles, so people can get all the information about them in one place. So, I think it's a great idea to document the many kingdoms mentioned in Mahabharata, but I still think Magadha and Magadha Kingdom should be one article. 2) If there are kingdoms that we don't know much about, especially if they are only mentioned in Mahabharata, maybe they don't need separate articles. Maybe there should one article that discusses numerous obscure kingdoms. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kurukshetra War

Great job on that article. Keep it up! It would be good to see it on the Main Page as a featured article. deeptrivia (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Hindu kingdoms Category:Exotic tribes in Hindu scripture

I've organized your articles here: Category:Ancient Hindu kingdoms and Category:Exotic tribes in Hindu scripture--Dangerous-Boy 07:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:EpicIndia.jpg

Hi,

The image (Image:EpicIndia.jpg) uploaded by you has your name as watermark in it. Will it be possible to upload a version without the watermark so that the image can become totally free. Thanks, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism

Welcome to WikiProject Hinduism

WikiProject Hinduism — a collaborative effort to improve articles about Hinduism Discussion board — a page for centralised Hinduism-related discussion Notice board — contains the latest Hinduism-related announcements Hindu Wikipedians — Wikipedians who have identified themselves as Hindus Portal — a portal linking to key Hinduism-related articles, images, and categories Workgroups — projects with a more specific scopes For more links, go to the project's navigation template.

--D-Boy 07:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometric Software Solutions Private Limited

Hi, in your zealousness you edited this to remove my vote and comment. Please restore what you removed immediately.

Also, this is a discussion. Please make your point sensibly. This means not spamming the discussion with links, and repeatedly asserting "this shall not be deleted". Thanks for your consideration.

Akihabara 23:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient kingdoms

You have done an excellent job on Ancient Indian kingdoms. Interested in ancient Indian history, I find it really interesting to read. Kudos. Your work reminds me on S.L. Bhyrappa, a novelist in Kannada. Gnanapiti 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pushkara Tirta

I just wanted to let you know that I have requested speedy deletion of Pushkara Tirta because it is a redirect to itself, and I have been unable to find any other article on Wikipedia that appears to be a potential target of the redirect. If you are aware of another article to which this title could redirect, please feel free to fix it. --Russ (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kuru and Yadu familytree

Hello Jijithnr!

my name is Made Adiputra (please call me "Madé"), I am Indonesian Wikipedian, can't speak english well as I am not a native speaker. I have interest to Mahabharata. I have created Kuru and Yadu Familytree for Wikipedia Indonesia (see here).

It has references from Bhagawad Gita (from my Indonesian-Bhagawad Gita version) and Mahabharata (Adi parva).

It is corect? or wrong?

Made Adiputra 08:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work Sir

Hello, Im really happy to see your work. its really sad to hear Indians themself telling Ramayana Mahabharata mythical and even doubting the existance of Rama, Krishna etc. I wonder nobody never even thought of telling same about Budha or Chrst, such is the power of British educational system and the Marxist(read ant-hindu) historians. I sincerely appreciate your works. Are you at SAT/ISRO Ahmedabad? Sreekanthv 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GeometricLogo.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Great work. Especially the map. I was wondering if I can get a copy of it in a higher resolution. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KanaiPathak (talk • contribs) 03:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

your various illustrations relating to the Mahabharata

They should not include text, especially your name. Historical illustrations better serve an encyclopedia article, I think. --Lukobe (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:MahabharataComparison.JPG needs references, the image can be suspected as image WP:OR--Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:OR#Original_images, the image MahabharataComparison.JPG introduces unpublished ideas or arguments, of the size of the epics. So can be challenged, needs references. Removed Ganesha image because the text was getting sandwiched between template and imag. Found no appropriate place where the img could be moved. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Illiad is misspelled as well. --131.107.0.69 (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Chandrayan-1 picture

Hello. I copied your image on Chndrayan to Telugu Wiki. It is here - te:చంద్రయాన్ - And the picture is under consideration for weekly featured picture. I hope you like to hear this. --Kajasudhakarababu (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. would like to connect with you. can you email me I have a great idea for you. Amitp27 (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)amitp27

Nice to know that you found it interesting --Jijithnr (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism and Hinduism

Article Buddhism and Hinduism could profit from your learning. Please pay attention to that article if you can find time. Wiki rules have been gamed on the article to sabotage the very basis Hindu textual sources. Please keep the article on your radar. Thanks. --History Sleuth (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added it in my watch list. Will try to review and edit it in my limited bandwidth and time. --Jijithnr (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Kinnara Kingdom up for deletion

The article Kinnara Kingdom has been prodded by someone, and it seems to have been created by you, so bringing this to your notice. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

Hi Jijithnr, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011. You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form. But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach. As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions. We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

File source problem with File:Kasmira.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Kasmira.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Understanding "Epic India" Images

Fantastic work with the maps of "epic india"!! Your work on wikipedia in general is fantastic. I am building a chart of "Indic Traditions" (cut off on the ends here [1]), and would like to create a map using your work. I'm not clear - what sources have you used? Did you do the original research, or did you use some reference to the ancient literature? Also, what program did you use? Could we have a link to the file? I'd love to make a GIS version, so that it can be viewed in Google Earth/maps, etc... Thanks

NittyG (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Characters of Hindu mythology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Characters of Hindu mythology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Hindu mythology 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 good 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. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kerala Kingdom

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kerala Kingdom, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Akhil Bharathan 11:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Kerala Kingdom

I checked Mahabharata (Book 1, Chapter 177), given in th article, from Mahabharatha but was unable to see any reference to Kerakas, Udra-Keralas, Keralas, Kerala or Kerala Kingdom. Since there is no varifiable reference provided I recommend deletion of these paragraphs. If anyone disagree please provide varifiable references (Prefers links to the exact section, it won't be difficult as there exists a very good number of online copy of Mahabharatha). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil.bharathan (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Saka Kingdom

An article that you have been involved in editing, Saka Kingdom, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Khestwol (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas the Apostle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Iranian and Persian (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) 12:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thoma's Twin Brother

Dear Jijithnr, I very much enjoyed reading your user page and ideas. Be well and blessed. I understand you have immense interest in Thomas in India . Was he accompanied by Jesus (being a twin brother)... as we read :

"“And the King requested the groomsmen to leave the bridal chamber. When all had left, and the doors were shut, the bridegroom raised the curtain of the bridal chamber, that he might bring the bride to himself. And he saw the Lord Jesus talking with the bride, and having the appearance of Judas Thomas, the apostle, who shortly before had blessed them, and gone out from them ; and he says to him, " Didst thou not go out before them all ? And how is it that thou art here now? And the Lord said to him, " I am not Judas, sur-named Thomas; I am his brother." And the Lord sat down on the bed, …

Page. 234, THE APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF PAUL, PETER, JOHN, ANDREW and THOMAS BY BERNHARD PICK (1909) The Open Court Publishing Company, CHICAGO."[2]

I would very much value your views. Be well and blessed my friend. (Dr Muhammad Ali)

--Drali1954 (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank You Dr. Ali for your kind words! But the Christian falsehood worshipers in Wikipedia are not relenting! They are busy propagating their 2000 year old lies in Wikipedia thinking that they can sustain all their lies in this information age! Jijithnr (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Historicity of St Thomas

Historical St Thomas

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Historical St Thomas, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.christianity-guide.com/christianity/st._thomas_the_apostle.htm.

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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Historical St Thomas

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Historical St Thomas. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Thomas the Apostle. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Thomas the Apostle – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cindy(talk) 06:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Historical St Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dravidian, Pliny, Egeria, Clement, Malabar, Lazarus and Transfiguration

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Historical St Thomas, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Cindy(talk) 23:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Historicity of St Thomas

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Historicity of St Thomas. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Thomas the Apostle. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Thomas the Apostle – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cindy(talk) 17:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Cindy(talk) 18:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Historicity of St Thomas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historicity of St Thomas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historicity of St Thomas 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. Cindy(talk) 18:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Iswar Sharan

Hello, Jijithnr, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Iswar Sharan, appears to be directly copied from http://ishwarsharan.wordpress.com/about-us/. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Iswar Sharan if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Iswar Sharan

The article Iswar Sharan has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created 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 ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bihco (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Historicity of St Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Didymus and Lazarus

Abbanes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Greek

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Iswar Sharan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Iswar Sharan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://ishwarsharan.wordpress.com/about-us/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cindy(talk) 13:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Abbanes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abbanes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbanes 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. Stalwart111 05:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also nominated Misdaeus on the same basis, bundled in the same nomination. Stalwart111 08:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Thomas the Apostle. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The fact that the article does not conform to your literal reading of the Acts of Thomas does not make the article "non-neutral" and your tagging it as such is clearly pointy; aimed at making a point in defiance of those who have suggested your related original research elsewhere be deleted. Stalwart111 05:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To Stalwart111. Christian falsehood has destroyed that great Greek civilization and Greece is now devoid of the grace of Apollo and devoid of heroes like Achilles. A dozen of pro Christian editors including you have ganged up and are deleting my articles, using the pretext of upholding Wikipedia rules. Remember that you are supporting falsehood and are trying to prevent the truth from coming out. Be assured that despite all your attempts truth by its inherent property of self-revelation will eventually reveal itself and falsehood will be defeated. Jijithnr (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to go back and have a proper look at my contributions if you think I edit with a "pro Christian" bias. I have an interest in Christian history and the history of the Catholic Church in Europe but I have created and contributed to a good many articles that the "Church" would be horrified by - gay cardinals, wiccanism, apocryphal gospels and more. The difference between you and I is that I base my edits on what reliable sources have said about events, people and places and not what I personally believe about those things. I attempt to remove things from Wikipedia that are contrary to Wikipedia rules, yes. Want your theories to be taken seriously? Find some proper reliable sources that agree with you and start citing them. Simply spamming quotes from the apocryphal Acts of Thomas into Wikipedia won't get you very far. It isn't, in and of itself, a reliable source just because it happens to agree with your world view. If you continue down this path you'll end up at WP:ANI and you'll probably end up blocked, which will be a not particularly productive end to your work. Why go down that path? Read what the other editors are telling you and you'll find a way to contribute much of what you want to contribute. If you think I'm telling you lies, take a look at the history and talk page of Roza Bal and the history of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife. Stalwart111 11:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You seems to be a reasonable man and I exclude you from the list of editors with a pro-Christian bias. But I would really like to see how long your article Gospel of Jesus' Wife is going to last as it stays now. I know pro-Christian lobby is forming an army of Christian evangelist freelancers to edit Wikipedia articles and remove contents that are not in line with the dominant Christan view. I am a PhD student and I do not have much time to edit and edit Wikipedia articles for eternity and my recent edits are due to the hope that some freequent Wikipedians would pick up to restore some balance in the articles I see as having blatant POV violations. You neither allow me to edit it nor create another article which can balance its POV, stating rules like POV-FORKING, Original Research, Copyright violation etc. I hope I can entrust you with the task of finding a solution to this problem by creating a better article, by properly adhering to all Wikipedia rules. If you can do justice to this problem, one billion Hindus will be endebted to you. The St.Thomas Apostle page is abusing the Hindu community by accusing them as murderers of St.Thomas, where as it is very clear that St.Thomas never came to India but died in Indo-Parthia (now in Pakistan). The South Indian Hindus were the ones who gave assylum to the Christians who came here fleeing thier persecution in Iran in 4th century CE. But the South Indian Christians are not ashamed of abusing their Hindu brethren, dispite this magnanimity and mercy shown to them. Instead they are trying to destroy Hinduism in India by planting false stories, like the St. Thomas in Mylapore story, Jesus in Kashmir story, Adam & Eve in Srilanka story, by editing Hindu Vedas (saying Rig Vedic hymn Purusha sukta is actually praising Jesus!), by copying Hindu festivals (Shivaratri as Mishiha Ratri, the night of Jesus and many other activities abusing and hurting Hindus. Please do something about it. Please!!! Putting POV in St.Thomas page is only a symptom. Instead of focusing on the symptom, cure the greater problem. Jijithnr (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, solving that "greater problem" is not really the role of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Trust me when I tell you that the fringe theorists who support the views you are concerned about (like Jesus in Kashmir, for example) are having a pretty tough time injecting their POV into Wikipedia too. The reality is the Thomas the Apostle article "attacks" Hindus no more than the Jesus article attacks Jews or Romans. People from Rome aren't tarred with that brush (in fact the Catholic Church is based there) and only the wackiest Christian fundamentalists blame modern Jews for the death of Jesus. Stalwart111 12:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting your point with 'Unfortunately'. Your position reminds me of the Mahabharata hero Bhishma who sided with Adharma (falsehood) due to various compulsions and family ties though he was highly concerned with upholding Dharma (truth). You are obiviously winning this battle but loosing the greater War. The credibility of Wikipedia is fast declining because of its blatant neutrality violations, especially in articles dealing with history and religion. I can tell you this, because in scholary community, if you are submitting a thesis, not a single Wikipedia article is admissible as scholary, thanks to various Wikipedia editors and administrators who abuse various rules of Wikipedia to hide their bias and erode Wikipedia's credibility. Scholars are not affected by Wikipedia articles. Yet I bothered to edit because its target is the common man, in the case of Thomas the Apostle article, the poor Hindus of Tamilnadu who live in the streets. Jijithnr (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would question how many "poor", "street-dwelling" Tamilnadu would have access to Wikipedia, let alone to the English version, though I'm sure many have tried to use the text contained therein (or at least related material) for their own means. But the point I would make is that Wikipedia is user-generated and while it might require reliable sources, it doesn't even consider itself a reliable source, and with good reason. I'm not surprised lecturers and academics don't considered it reliable. That relationship is a one-way street - we will accept their scholarly work as sources, but they won't accept our work in return. I, personally, think that's a good thing. It should be that way. Wikipedia has never been a credible source of scholarly material, so I disagree with the idea that it's reputation as such is "declining". Stalwart111 13:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Thomas the Apostle. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The text was removed as a copyright violation. That applies to talk pages too. Do not reinstate it. Stalwart111 10:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jijithnr (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC):- This is the content you have deleted. What is the copyright violation here?:-

• And I have deleted it again. You don't deal with a copyright violation by posting it again and asking, "is this it?" The whole thing is (word-for-word) copied from this blog. It doesn't matter if it pertains to the same thing or is a commentary on things at Wikipedia. If you want to say those things again, you need to do so in your own words. You can't copy the work of others, even if others have (foolishly) done so in the past. Other people's prior stupidity should not be an excuse for our own. Stalwart111 12:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not getting it. This content is part of Wikipedia itself. See here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_the_Apostle#Historicity_of_St._Thomas_controversial_and_disputed. If you find it in http://ishwarsharan.wordpress.com/chapters/chapter-four/ it is because that blog is talking about this particular edit War in Wikipedia Thomas the Apostle page that is going on since 2008. Ths source is Wikipedia itself and Ishwar Sharan's blog is talking about it and hence qouted it. It does not come under copyright violation!!! Jijithnr (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the section included the introduction from that blogger before the quote from User:Vena Varcas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). You can quote another editor (though those are covered by their own attribution copyright) but you can't include word-for-word commentary from someone else. The quote on that page is easy to link to, so you're better off doing that. There's no need for it to be at the top of the talk page, especially since you can't use the copyright introduction anyway. Besides which, that introduction suggests a group of people used a Wikipedia username to collectively edit and push a POV. It would be unwise to draw attention to it... for their sake. Beyond anything else, you are clearly a proficient writer (being a PhD student, if nothing else) so why rely on other people's 5-year-old commentary anyway? You are capable of making your own argument (which is better and more up-to-date than theirs anyway) - I would suggest you do so. I've managed to get more coherent material out of you in the last half a day on this talk page than anything else you've produced at AFD or in your articles or on talk pages. I imagine that's because you were stressed and upset and here you're putting forward logical argument and addressing specific queries. Isn't that more rewarding anyway? Stalwart111 12:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not about me. I being upset or stressed or getting killed is not significant. All I care is that 1 billion Hindus should not be blamed unnecessarily using a fringe theory of St.Thomas's arrival in South India and his murder at the hands of a Hindu while the historical fact remains that Hindus instead gave asylum to the Christians who came to South India fleeing from their persecutors in Iran and that St. Thomas, with what ever limited historicity that can be attributed to him, was executed in Indo-Parthia (now in Pakistan). Certainly an injustice is being done to Hindus here. Certainly injustice is being done to Ishwar Sharan who braved to expose this truth in front of an army of Christian missionaries staking his life. It is cruel. When I see people like you using Wikipedia rules to silence him and his well wishers, I find you nothing better than some lawyers who use various laws which are themselves right but use them to protect great criminals and to punish innocents. You may be winning but what good is that victory? You are contributing to suppress truth from coming out and to sustain centuries old falsehood. Jijithnr (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

People like me? I'm not trying to silence anyone, certainly not Ishwar Sharan who I've never heard of. What interest would I have in doing so? You need to lay off the personal attacks and start to realise that most people volunteer here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not to push some agenda or poromote a POV. Your campaign to insert your personal view of the world into Wikipedia, without sources, won't get very far. Not because people are trying to "suppress" you, but because you are simply going about it the wrong way. Plenty of people have given you advice on how to move forward. I suggest you take their advice, rather than continuing to suggest some bizarre conspiracy theory. Stalwart111 17:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You may not be directly involved, but your actions are leading to the suppression of truth. Besides making an all out war on me and trying to educate me about the rules of Wikipedia, you have not raised a finger about the blatant POV in Thomas the Apostle page which abuses 1 billion Hindus using a fringe theory that St.Thomas visited south India and was murdered by a Hindu, as if showing their gratitude for giving asylum to these Christians who fled Persia fleeing persecution. You are dismissing my contributions to St.Thomas pages as my individual point of view. But the fact remains that same point of view is expressed by many Christian scholars themselves and also by several Hindus who are victimized by this propaganda. All of these people are not logging in and expressing their point of view in Wikipedia because 1) they do not know how to do it in Wikipedia, 2) they do not find it worth to waste their time in Wikipedia because contributing to Wikipedia is like writing on top of flowing water, with the hope that it will be preserved. Jijithnr (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no war and as I explained earlier, the article in question "abuses" Hindus in the same way that the article Jesus "abuses" Jews or Romans - not much at all. If your views on Thomas the Apostle or the Acts of Thomas are shared by "many Christian scholars" then quote them and cite them. Quoting the Acts of Thomas with your own personal interpretation won't work because you are not a reliable source and your interpretation is original research. It's got nothing to do with the "rules of Wikipedia" until you decide to break them. At that point, you don't need me to educate you. So far I've contributed to one AFD, started one other and have reverted edits to a single article because of a copyright violation. And in an area I really don't care that much about (most of my work revolves around 17th century European Church history). I'm just as happy not to come here and be attacked - I can happily limit myself to reverting your POV OR and just template-warning you for it. Eventually you'll be blocked anyway. Stalwart111 05:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Jijithnr (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC):- See my replies in detail:-

Christian Scholars on St.Thomas

Listed below is the list of Christian Scholars who have stated that St.Thomas domain of activity was in Parthia (Iran).

• Origen Century : 3rd century (185-254?), quoted in Eusebius; Church represented: Alexandrian/ Greek Biographical. Christian Philosopher, b-Egypt, Origen taught with great acclaim in Alexandria and then in Caesarea. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 3.1; Patrologia Graeca, Migne Edn., 20.215; Patrologia Latina, Migne, 21.478. He is the first known writer to record the casting of lots by the Apostles. Origen original work has been lost; but his statement about Parthia falling to Thomas has been preserved by Eusebius. “Origen, in the third chapter of his Commentary on Genesis, says that, according to tradition, Thomas’s allotted field of labour was Parthia". Farquhar, p. 30. 20th Century Discussions : Perumalil, pp. 50,51.E. R. Hambye, “Saint Thomas and India”, The Clergy Monthly 16 (1952). Comes, S. J., “Did St. Thomas Really come to India?”, in Menachery (Ed).) STCEI, II. Farquhar, pp. 30,31

• The Acts of Judas Thomas: 2nd/3rd century (c. 180-230) Gist of the testimony: The Apostles cast lots as to where they should go, and to Thomas, twin brother of Jesus, fell India. Thomas was taken to king Gondophares as an architect and carpenter by Habban. The journey to India is described in detail. After a long residence in the court he ordained leaders for the Church, and left in a chariot for the kingdom of Mazdei. There, after performing many miracles, he dies a martyr. Acts of Thomas

• Eusebius of Caesarea: 4th century (d. 340); Church Represented: Alexandrian/Greek Biographical Patrologia Graeca (Migne), 19-24., 20.215. Quoting Origen, Eusebius says: “When the holy Apostles and disciples of our Saviour were scattered over all the world, Thomas, so the tradition has it, obtained as his portion Parthia….” J.C.Panjikaran, Christianity in Malabar w.s.r.t. The St. Thomas Christians of the Syro-Malabar Rite, Orientalia Christiana, VI, 2 (23), Roma I, April 1926, p.99 esp. for reference to Pantaenus’ Indian visit.

• Clement of Alexandria: 3rd century (d.c. 235); Church represented: Alexandrian/Greek Biographical Note : Greek Theologian, b. Athens, 150. Clement of Alexandria makes a passing reference to St. Thomas’ Apostolate in Parthia. This agrees with the testimony which Eusebius records about Pantaenus visit to India.

Ishwar Sharan

Stalwart, if you have not known about Ishwar Sharan, it will be a good idea to know about him, since you seems to be a good scholar on Christianity and was bold enough to create an article like Gospel of Jesus' Wife and successfully sustain it resisting vandalism (something beyond my ability, considering the time at my disposal). He has become a great scholar on Church history, thanks to the continous attack on him by Christian missionaries both intellectually and physically. You can read him here:- http://ishwarsharan.wordpress.com. After reading his book, The Myth of St.Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva temple, if you come across any fault in his collection of facts, please let me know. I will be eager to understand it from a scholar like you.

Jews, Romans and Hindus

You are comparing the "abuse" of Jews in the Jesus page with the "abuse" of Hindus in Thomas the Apostle page considering both as similar in nature. Both are different. Hindus were friendly towards the Christians when they came to India fleeing the torture at the hands of Zoroastrian rulers of Iran, while the Jews were hostile towards the nascent creed of Christians. The Jews of Israel rejected Jesus. The act of abusing a friendly community (Hindus) who gave you asylum by calling them murderers of a Christian apostle is one notch above the act of abusing an enemy like community (Jews). Hindus are 1,083 million (1 billion plus) in number while the Jews are 15 million Jews. Numbers don't really matter but abusing Hindus are like abusing 1/6th of the human population, and when somebody is doing it for no fault of theirs it becomes hard to digest. Hindus have the track record of protecting the Christians persecuted by the Parsis, Jews persecuted by Christians and Muslims and finally the Parsis persecuted by the Muslims, giving asylum to all of these communities in India, when they came to live in the midst of Hindus fleeing their native lands in Israel and Persia. It is not in the characteristics of any Hindu to kill a Christian apostle by back-stabbing him while engaged in prayer. As regards the comparison of Romans and Hindus, Romans are already history, while Hindus are a live community that has, for the last 2000 years braved all the persecution by Abrahamic religions. When you abuse Hindus, it is felt on people who are alive with their culture and tradition intact unlike when you abuse Romans.

Historicity of St. Thomas controversial and disputed

Historicity of St. Thomas controversial and disputed

The editors of this article will have to consider the fact that all references to Thomas in Indian Christian tradition and folklore have been rejected as unhistorical by responsible Christian scholars and ecclesiastics (barring a few like Medleycott and Arulappa) for the past two centuries. The elaborate and confusing mythology of Thomas is not factual or verifiable and cannot ethically be represented as true history in an encyclopedia. These pious legends may have a role to play in religion but they do not have a place in Indian history writing unless they are identified and qualified for the general reader. The reputed Christian historian A. Mingana has written in The Early Spread of Christianity in India that "What India gives us about Christianity in its midst is indeed nothing but pure fables". This is true about the Thomas tradition in India and in the numerous other places it exists in Asia except perhaps Edessa where it originated. Any serious article about Thomas in India, or the various controversial and disputed places of pilgrimage associated with him, should be unambiguously declared as faith-based and historically unverified. To do otherwise in an encyclopedia article is intellectually dishonest and misleading and amounts to little more than religious propaganda created in the interests of a certain theological point of view. The Trichur bishop Medleycott wrote his Thomas history with ulterior motive and is the favourite scholar of Thomas protagonists who quote him at length (including the EB which is a known RC-biased encyclopedia). He has been discredited by the renouned Christian historian Bishop Stephen Neill. Neill spent many years in India researching Indian Christian Thomas traditions and the Thomas legend and wrote in 1985, in History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to 1707 A.D., that "A number of scholars, among whom are to be mentioned with respect Bishop A.E. Medleycott, J.N. Farquhar and the Jesuit J. Dahlman, have built on slender foundations what can only be called Thomas romances, such as reflect the vividness of their imaginations rather than the prudence of rigid historical critics." Bishop Neill goes on to say, "Millions of Christians in India are certain that the founder of their church is none other than the apostle Thomas himself. The historian cannot prove to them that they are mistaken in their belief. He may feel it right to warn them that historical research cannot pronounce on the matter with a confidence equal to that which they entertain by faith." The point is that this article Thomas the Apostle is a matter of Indian Christian faith, not Indian history, and it should not be presented in an encyclopedia as Indian history. Some parts of the article are neutral and other parts are just fiction propped up with facts and figures, names and dates, or some doubtful reference. In some cases the article assumes too much, and in others it shows extreme bias. In fact, the whole project shows bias in its declared intention, when it treats as proven a legend that most respected world historians declare is fiction and unprovable. What the article needs is review and revision by a neutral historical critic who has no Indian Christian axe to grind. Is this possible in the Wikipedia scenario? Would the article's administrator and watchdog with his declared special interests ever permit it? Vena Varcas (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Jijithnr (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi. notice that you are a regular editor on the page Thomas_the_Apostle. Have include my suggestion for improvement here. [[3]] Do review and advice. Prodigyhk (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Telinga Kingdom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Telinga Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telinga Kingdom 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. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

China Kingdom listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China Kingdom. Since you had some involvement with the China Kingdom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 00:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Viratanagari

The article Viratanagari has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article Viratnagar already exists for the same subject/place. Hence another articles is not at all needed. Additions, if any can be done to the existing article. However, the currents article has empty reference list.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MahenSingha (Talk) 16:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Geometric (company) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Geometric (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometric (company) 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. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Magadha Kingdom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magadha Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magadha Kingdom (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ancient Indian festivals for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ancient Indian festivals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Indian festivals until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.  » Shadowowl | talk 20:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aruna Mountains

The article Aruna Mountains has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that such mountains are mentioned in the Mahabharata

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Barbaras

The article Barbaras has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, so there isn't any proof that this is mentioned in the Mahabharata.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  » Shadowowl | talk 23:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Payoshni

The article Payoshni has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks WP:SOURCES since 2012

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Dantapura for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dantapura is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dantapura until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Coin945 (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Naga Kingdom

The article Naga Kingdom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to be mainly WP:OR, only cites the Mahabharata and a book of very dubious authorship

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)