User talk:Arvam

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Proofreader J-Man 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz

Hello, I'm Hirolovesswords. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Carmen Ortiz seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, criticism should be included if it can be sourced to reliable secondary sources and is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Your edit did none of these things and should not be included. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Google plus is not a reliable source because self-published sources may not be used when it involves claims about events not directly related to the source. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Kalki Bhagavan

Hi, deleted per WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of an article deleted via AfD. GiantSnowman 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The correct venus is WP:DRV. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to restore the article; however if so I will be taking it back to AFD for new consensus on notability. I hope that is a fair compromise? Please let me know. GiantSnowman 09:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kalki Bhagavan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kalki Bhagavan 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/Kalki Bhagavan (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. GiantSnowman 17:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Kalki's Article's Update

• My Reason to Ask/Arguments

I am one of those users without a reliable/authority registered account @ WP; of which fact I am turning to dear Prodigyhk, askng him to keep-up (again) the good work @ Kalki_Bhagavan's article; so with that said, here are my requests:

• My Requests
  • General Argument for Journalism : Please note that any kind of info is easily gathered by their own recorded/archived statements around the web of which here should only meet those reliabilities.
  • Kalki Bhagavan's 'deadline' has already been issued, as the December_21rst has been reached already and his Oneness University will no longer operate;
  • Once an individual is targeted by media, he/she gets a very strange fame;
• Last Thoughts Neutrality :-)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.158.129.70 (talk • contribs)

The problem with the article is that it user:Mathew Timothy Stone has made this WP article his private blog . Based on his contribution history for the last many years, he seems to be an unscrupulous fellow, focused on throwing any dirt and controversial issue against Kalki Bhagawan. And does not allow any other user to add any comments, that do not meet his biased stance. Thanks for dropping in. Prodigyhk (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to make a Consensus too. I've been reading your conversations on Kalki Talk page and I agree with you in come points. But the thing is, how are new refferences going to work if some users are insisting that they have to be NEWS refferences? Ive read the comments above and I agree; as the user above tried to say, in fact, in journalism, you just need to provide information gathered by a archived Press_statement, of which here we will consider a statement archived in the web that would meet the criteria of Journalism_ethics_and_standards, and that mean, NOT NEWS CHANNEL/JOURNAL links ONLY. Do you understand what I am saying? So, of course the Arjuna Aardag book sometimes will not meet the criteria; but some blogs and pages will. The Article has to be neutral; if some people are preaching like a lawyer around this one should immediatelly be warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.135.5.171 (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:177.135.5.171 have posted my response here on the subject page [[1]] thanks Prodigyhk (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to Kalki Bhagavan As noted recently on the talk page at Kalki Bhagavan, this man is a highly controversial person, and any contentious biographical material must be supported by genuinely independent sources. Your recent edits were to reinstate a WP:OR external link and delete material that was well supported by independent sources. Please discuss such edits beforehand, on the Talk Page. Recently, you requested that other editors provide feedback on a biographical section that you were proposing. I have provided such feedback in quite a detailed manner. I request that you address the issues raised in my feedback, not least being your own potential WP:COI. Thanks M Stone (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Conflict of interest at Kalki Bhagavan

Based on your editing pattern, and the conversation you recently attempted to delete from your User Talk page, you appear to have a conflict of interest at the page Kalki Bhagavan. I believe some explanation is called for. M Stone (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to your query posted here [[2]]Prodigyhk (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi

FYI - It is not normal to initiate conversations on other User's talk pages and then delete both them and the Talk-page-owner's reply. Other editors may not be as relaxed about such things as I am. As I said, you do seem to have nice format and copy styles. So if you know anything about Andhra Pradesh then there are a number of Islam articles that need improving, from Telugu or Urdu sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk with Mathew Timothy Stone

I for one, am not relaxed, either about the attempted deletion, or the conversation itself. The comment, particularly '…to keep-up (again) the good work' suggests that this has been happening for some time on the page in question. I have attempted to raise this issue with you, however, your response to date e.g. [[3]] has been to avoid giving a straight answer. It is very difficult for other editors to act in good faith [[4]], and to engage in discussion with you, when there is evidence you are editing on behalf of another person, or perhaps an organisation. The edits you have been making to date, certainly conform to the requests being made by the anonymous IP user. (It has also been the case for some time, when it was apparent you were not getting your own way, that you have continued with personal attacks against me, sometimes after making a show of being 'polite'. This is unacceptable behaviour for a Wikipedia editor.) Regarding COI, I would suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines [[5]], and declare, once and for all, what your relationship is with the subject of the article, or his organisation. M Stone (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User Prodigyhk asked me at [[6]] if I am the same person that used other IP´s there. In order to keep a good WP:GF tone, I am signing that response here as well. 177.159.22.51 (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@ ProdigyHK, you're still not answering a fairly straightforward question. I wasn't enquiring whether you were editing on your own time, or interest. Most WP editors are doing so on their own time and interest. I was asking what your relationship was to the subject of the BLP and his organisation. To quote WP:COI: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Regarding the deleted conversation, I fail to comprehend your explanation. If it was an innocent one, why attempt to delete it in the first place? Regarding the BLP discussions to date, I have gone out of my way to spell out what the issues are, in what you disparagingly refer to as my using WP as a 'private blog'. In fact what I am doing, is spelling out, as clearly as possible, the issues relating to this particular BLP. By doing so, I am ensuring that these are recorded on the Article Talk Page, and can be reviewed by any future editor, who may not be completely familiar with the many issues specific to this BLP. What you have not done, to date, is address even a single one of these issues. M Stone (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I currently have 122 pages on my Watchlist, excluding talk pages, and have been a registered editor for over 6 years. In that time, no one has ever conducted personal attacks against me of the kind you have been making. I will assume that you are, at the very least, a devotee of the guru – and perhaps associated with his organisation in some way. If that is the case, then attacking other editors in not the way forward. What you need to do is locate well-sourced material that demonstrates the purported 'good' work he is doing. (For example, I understand that one of the original stated aims of his 'trust funds' was to build housing for the poor. If such housing had ever been built, the press would have surely run coverage, with photos of the housing at various stages of construction. It should be a fairly simple matter to locate such coverage.) And if you want me to state my position, I have no reason to 'hate' the guru. Rather, I consider him to be a fraud. A charlatan who exploits people for his own ends. As it happens, there is a certain amount of well-sourced material that tends to support my position, which has been outlined in the article talk space. He has received such negative press, not because the news organisations are biased against him – but because there are significant question marks over his activities. For example, he appears to be lying about key events in his early life, and there are strong indications of financial impropriety by him and his family. But my personal position on such matters, or any other editor's position, is of little importance. Rather, it is all about independent sources. I can support my position with sources, and I suggest you start locating some to support yours. M Stone (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ramana Maharshi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• any living person as liberated<ref group=web name="Stripping" /> other than his mother at death.{{sfn|Osborne|1959|p=74}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ramana Maharshi

Read WP:CONCENSUS, and act according to it. I've been considering to give you a warning... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing info you don't like, without giving proper arguments depsite requests to do so, is not in accordance with Wiki-policy, and simply unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Consensus#1.3.1 Consensus-building in talk pages: "editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Take this as a pre-warning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas the Apostle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portuguese (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) 12:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tehelka may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * A tiny 0.04% of the equity is held by the Law Minister [[Kapil Sibal]. Mr Sibal has clarified that he had in 2003 only given a donation of Rs. 5 Lakh to
• http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tehelka-sting-how-bangaru-laxman-fell-for-the-trap/1/186303.html)Firstpost|accessdate=18 April 2013}}{{dead link|date=November 2013}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested a third opinion

Hi again, it less likely anyone is going to respond to our discussion from WT:IN (as usual), so I've requested a third opinion here, Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. I might try WP:DRN if this too doesn't get any...do tell me if you have any other ideas. Have a nice day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Devyani Khobragade incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diplomatic Passport (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) 09:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for all you have done with the Khobragade article. You may have seen that I moved a lot of things around. It was my intent to not remove any existing information. If you have questions about what I did then I would do what I could to make my actions easy for you to understand. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your collaboration with me to seek community consensus on how to present the court documents. You had better intuition about the community's thoughts on this than I did. Message me anytime if you need anything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Devyani incident

Actually, that tumblr link inspired a few reliable sources to cover the same news.

But matter of fact is, that Why we need it? And who cares about rejected diplomat's views that are 2-3 years old now..

I think you should simply remove that whole suggestion from talk page. I did once, but the same guy restored it back. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm Vanamonde93. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Godhra train burning seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

MN

Maybe these sources below are useful for you in arguing that Nussbaum is not a neutral source, (and that she should not be called a "historian" when she is a philospher). --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As I continued reading, however, I found myself starting to pull back from the trajectory of Nussbaum’s analysis. I myself have researched much of the same material that Nussbaum has (see, for example, Gerald J. Larson, India’s Agony over Religion, SUNY Press, 1995), but my findings are rather dramatically different from Nussbaum’s. What began to bother me about Nussbaum’s trajectory is that she is really not interested in the general issue of “religious violence” and the manner in which religious violence links up with religious sensibilities of one kind or another, whether perpetrated by the left or the right in India. What she is really interested in is mounting a political assault on what she identifies as the “Hindu Right,” and in this regard Nussbaum takes no prisoners. As the book unfolds, the Hindu Right becomes responsible not only for the tragedy at Godhra, but for anti-secularism, communalism, misogyny, casteism, excessive male aggression, and the distortion of history. As the book proceeds, the prose grows livid. Says Nussbaum: “Domination over Hindu women and violence against Muslim women lie deep in the Hindu right’s political consciousness” (187). Or again, “Fucking a Muslim woman just means killing her. Instead of murder necessitated by and following sex, the murder just is the sex. Women are killed by having large metal objects inserted into their vaginas” (209). “The Hindu male does not even need to dirty his penis with the contaminating fluids of the Muslim woman. He can fuck her with the clean nonporous metal weapon that kills her, while he himself remains pure. Nothing is left to inspire fear” (209). To put the matter directly, Nussbaum’s analysis lacks balance, nuance, and civility. In short, it is not only unpersuasive; it is a disservice to her subject. In her portrayal of the “The Human Face of the Hindu Right” (chapter 2), she discusses K. K. Shastri, Devendra Swarup, Arun Shourie, and Gurcharan Das, but there is hardly a paragraph about A. B. Vajpayee, L. K. Advani, K. L. Malkani, Murli Manohar Joshi, or any number of other more moderate spokespersons for a conservative Hindu politics. On the other side, Tagore, Gandhi, and Nehru are eulogized with little attempt to offer a nuanced historical assessment. ....Unfortunately, however, there is very little “public poetry” or “mutual respect” in Nussbaum’s own treatment of the “Hindu Right.”

• The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future. By Martha C. Nussbaum
• Review by Gerald James Larson

in Journal of the American Academy of Religion Published on behalf of American Academy of Religion Volume 77, issue 4, pages 990-993 Published in print December 2009 | ISSN: 0002-7189 Published online October 2009 | e-ISSN: 1477-4585 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfp061 The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future. By Martha C. Nussbaum

This said, she makes huge leaps of argument without substantiating them, provides zero context and stands accused of several factual inaccuracies. This makes me query her credentials as a lawyer-academic. Nussbaum lacks the rigor one would have expected of a senior academic. http://desicritics.org/2007/05/24/024708.php

Re: Nandan Nilekani page

Hi,

I can see that you have removed the middle name "Mohan" mentioning no valid documentation.

Based on citations found by me: Times of India page. His father's name was "Mohan Rao Nilekani" and thats where the middle name comes from. Also the following confirms: The Telegraph.

And to add to it, the person himself has uploaded his Govt. Identity card in his Twitter Page.

I don't want to go into the details, please before removing any content, make sure you preview the citations properly. --Deepon (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Deepon Had explained my edits in the talk page of the article Talk:Nandan_Nilekani. We can discuss further there. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nandan Nilekani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sirsi (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) 09:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tunku Varadarajan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (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) 08:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat Riots

Hi, I do not believe that it is possible to have an integrated editorial team to work on the 2002 Gujarat Riots page. The best we can hope for is some kind of balance between the pro-Modi and anti-Modi view points.

I hope you will provide your input in the Madhu Kishwar section. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

John Michael D'Cunha

Your addition to John Michael D'Cunha has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. – Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CY Leung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lingnan University. 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) 09:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda again

If you have missed it, see Talk:Ayurveda#Eight components of Ayurveda and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#MEDRS verification Bladesmulti (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

2nd part of the discussion "Outside Indian Continent" section, Ayurveda#Efficacy' related to diabetes faced objection. Correct it? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed these edits. Do you believe you had consensus for them? If not I invite you to undo them. --John (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

regarding these recent edits that you have raised in my talk page. I started work on this section about a month ago when an IP had deleted the sentence The advent of Islam introduced opium as a narcotic.[ref name="Chopra80"> Then, one of our regular users reverted the edit here and commented "should find better sources" To understand better, I started reading about the use of Opium in Ayurveda. Interestingly I found that Opium was not used for its narcotic value. But, for the treatment of diarrhoea and dysentery !! Since, it was a major difference, I decided to include this edit. Then, as I started reading, found other information about use of Cannabis and alcholic beverages that I felt would be interesting for a reader who visits this page.

Since, you had at the same time, put in the 0RR restrictions, did request feedback from other editors for my edits here and here. It was followed by a discussion here on the part about alcoholic beverages where the word "medicine" was used in the article. Following this, the edit was modified to meet the concerns raised by the other editor.

Then, when the entire section was removed again a week ago. Bladesmulti had requested editors to review and advice if the edit can go back in, here. Since there was no objection to this section, after a reasonable time I proceeded to include the text. Do, let me know if there has been any errors in my part and if any corrective action require to take.Prodigyhk (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will issue a clarification in article talk. I would prefer it if any future additions or restorations to the article had explicit consensus in order to avoid protracted disputes. Could you wait for that in the future please? --John (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

John thanks for your inputs. Will follow your suggestions in future. Prodigyhk (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arvam. You have new messages at SantiLak's talk page.
Message added 06:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SantiLak (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 December

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madan Mohan Malaviya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. 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) 09:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC for "Indigenous Aryans"

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Will need pass. Thanks for checking. cheers Prodigyhk (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Steve Hui Chun-tak) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Steve Hui Chun-tak, Prodigyhk!

Wikipedia editor Fiachra10003 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for adding the article. However, it relies very heavily on www.police.gov.hk as a source - can you find other sources to document the article's notability?

To reply, leave a comment on Fiachra10003's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AcidSnow (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow have posted my response in article talk page. We can continue discussion there. Thanks and have a nice day.Prodigyhk (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yah I know. This is just a warning. Ciao. AcidSnow (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow no need "warning". We can be civil and polite. Both of us are just volunteers here :) Prodigyhk (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lol I am not threatening you or anything. AcidSnow (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oneness Temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tirupathi. 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) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
  The edit I am referring to is here. Additionally, you did not use an edit summary to explain what you were doing. 220 of ^Borg 10:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

user:220 of Borg As I remember, there were no "corrections in others' comments". If done, was unintentional. Only had including some subheadings for easier discussion. Anyway, thanks for dropping by and letting know you were irritated :D Prodigyhk (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Prodigyhk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Prodigyhk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Massacre of immigrants from Bangladesh at Nellie in 1983 UPI 21Feb1983.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Massacre of immigrants from Bangladesh at Nellie in 1983 UPI 21Feb1983.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Prodigyhk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

David Frawley

I have reverted your edit. Please create a thread over the t/p, shall you wish to pursue further. Best, ∯WBG^converse 09:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric we can discuss on the article talk. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Coronavirus disease 2019 page is under discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--RexxS (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: thanks for the sharing this. Agree with the admin's decision. Will put my notes on specific edit in the article's talk page. This way, can work through and support one other. Wishing you and your family very good health. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparent conflict of interest at Kalki Bhagwan

Prodigyhk, it appears that you have a conflict of interest at the page Kalki Bhagwan, as per WP:COI. Please clarify the nature of your involvement with the subject and his Oneness Organization. merlinVtwelve (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi merlinVtwelve I have known Sri Bhagavan now for nearly 30 years. I first met Bhagavan in the summer of 92. I like Bhagavan's teachings and use it in my life. I also like share his teachings to other people. I am a lay person. I am married. Have children. Live outside India. Have my own source of income. Hope that answers your queries. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Prodigyhk, firstly, please follow guidelines at WP:PRIVACY and refer to me by my WP username. It doesn't answer my question, which was posted on the article talk page. I am asking you to declare to other editors precisely what role you have played in setting up and running the Oneness organization in the region where you live. I would remind you of the following guideline, taken from WP:EXTERNALREL: "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial —can trigger a COI." merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Prodigyhk, I'll continue the conversation here, rather than at the article talk page. Reading your reply above: if you've known the subject of the article for nearly thirty years, it sounds somewhat like a personal relationship. And if you "first met him in 1992", this was a time before he was particularly notable, and it sounds as though you've met him more than once. I don't think you have previously mentioned this to other editors. To me, it sounds you have a rather privileged relationship with the subject, as most "ordinary" people have to pay large sums of money just for the honour of meeting him for a few minutes – as you would be aware. I'm no authority on WP:COI, but your response is already starting to suggest that you have a Conflict of Interest. However, in your reply above, you mentioned that you like to "share his teachings to other people". Returning to my original question, what form does this sharing take? As you are aware, in most parts of the world, there are key people who volunteer their time to prosthelytize the teachings of the Oneness organization. Note: I am not asking for personal details that would reveal your identity, or the region in which you live, etc. - I am asking whether you are one of those key individuals working in a volunteer capacity, e.g. organising meditation groups, publicising the organization's activities and so on in whatever part of the world you happen to be living. You have previously mentioned that you are editing in WP:GOOD FAITH, and I would suggest that, if this is the case, declaring any such activities or involvement with the Oneness organization is essential. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Nellie massacre - UPI press report dated Feb 23 1983.png

Thanks for uploading File:Nellie massacre - UPI press report dated Feb 23 1983.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)