User talk:Ganesh J. Acharya/Archive 1

B2CJewels an orphan?

{{helpme}} Why is this put up? [1]Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is an orphan - it is not linked to from many other articles. — Deon^talk 09:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a huge list of references for this article http://www.b2cjewels.com/b2cjewels-in-news.aspx. I have added more references to the wiki article as well. Can the orphan tag be removed now? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Being an orphan is nothing to do with references: it means not many other Wikipedia articles link to this article. In fact, no articles contain links to B2C Jewels. The tag shouldn't be removed until appropriate links to B2C Jewels from related articles are added. Algebraist 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Paid Ref

{{helpme}} Can this paid reference be used? [2] as seen here [3]. The complete open article is anyway available here http://www.b2cjewels.com/NorthJersey.html Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can be used - because what is being referenced is an article in a published newspaper. The fact that it happens to be available online for a fee is besides the point. When you cite a publication, you are not citing the website - you can provide the URL as a 'convenience link', but that's all it is.

In the same way, you can cite a book. The fact that the individual reader who wants to verify the information would have to pay for the book is beside the point.

I hope that makes sense. For more help, you can either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use another {{helpme}} here,; OR
• Talk to us live, with this or this.

Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  08:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Poor diamond reference

Almost any "poor" link can be appropriate to demonstrate something, thus my answer is a guesswork as I don't know what it is all about. This link [4] would be poor for many WP pages and facts, for several reasons: (i) too much trivial commercials around the text make it look unreliable, (ii) It seems like a news site, yet the story is unsigned (iii) the message is focused on how to buy which would not look good at most WP articles on diamond, and the only name supporting it is of a website owner, which website again focuses on selling. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ratna Pariksha

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

This article does not meet the general notability guidelines - for inclusion, an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only source here is a primary source, hence the article is not verifiable.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  04:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, Ganesh J. Acharya. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  09:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The above has been archived; it is now in User_talk:Chzz/Archive_15#Ratna_Pariksha  Chzz  ►  21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Recreating TalentSmart

I was coming across this company TalentSmart in google.com as I wanted to know it's review, Negative comments, and information by wiki is very important for me. But, since this page was deleted before I do not know if it was advise-able to re-create this one again. To check the credibility of this company I checked http://books.google.com/books?q=TalentSmart&lr=&sa=N&start=10 where I found good amount of references. But, again since the article was deleted before, so I wanted to was it safe to re-create the article. But, again since I am not following this company I do not know much of its background. So, would it be OK if I re-started the article?

{{helpme}}

Could you please write it in User:Ganesh_J._Acharya/TalentSmart - that is, a page in your own userspace, not live - and then use another {{helpme}} to get it checked over, before moving it to the live area? Thanks!  Chzz  ►  06:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

okGanesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use

{{helpme}} How much of referred content is considered as fair use? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a specific amount above which it would be counted as unfair use! Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text says that "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes.". Perhaps if you gave an specific example, I could be more precise - but without knowing what you intend on using (and how much), I'd say a couple of sentences are OK, but probably not much more than that. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ganesh_J._Acharya/TalentSmart "TalentSmart is a EQ training provider to corporates, and as on 22 Oct 2009 it claims to be serving more than 75% of Fortune 500 Companies." the line is getting adopted from http://www.talentsmart.com/whoweare/ so does that fall under fair use? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case I would be referring (but not copying) to content directly from the copyrighted website and adding that to wiki, so does that fall under fair use?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is best to phrase words in your own writing, whenever possible, or to include short quotes (which is covered under our non-free content criteria). The former is preferable as we wish to use free content whenever possible. And when including quotes, always remember to source them back to where they came from. —Dark 06:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is adapting about 300 words from a copyright text in my own words considered Fair Use?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No it is not considered fair use because fair use only applies to things that can be copyrighted and ideas and information are not part of that equation. It is the order of the words; the uniqueness of phrasing; the particular syntax and so on that is copyrighted. If you take information from a source and *truly* state it in your own words, that's called 'research and writing'. You should absolutely cite your source and your source should be reliable, but copyright doesn't even enter the picture and so the fair use doctrine is not applicable (or needed). That having been said, note that taking a source's content and closely paraphrasing it by copying and superficially modifying it will not meet this mandate. It must really be your own words.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Adapting content from wikipedia

{{helpme}} If I use content from wikipedia on one of my webpages, do I need to add a link back to wikipedia, and state that I've referred the content from wikipeda?

Full details can be found at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. AJCham 06:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Per our licensing policy, whenever you include excerpts of our content on a different website, you must reference (or link to) Wikipedia. To do so, feel free to use Special:Cite and choosing the format of your choice. —Dark 06:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just copied Cricket to our newly created http://cricfaqs.com/Cricket page at cricfaqs.com. Just adding a <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket&oldid=325163947</ref> to the page http://cricfaqs.com/Cricket, justify the policies? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently I've added a section at the bottom.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

From my reading of the policies, that would probably be sufficient - however, if I was using it, I would probably mention the fact that material was from Wikipedia somewhere at the top of the page - mainly on the principle that if a reader didn't get to the bottom of the page, they may not see the notice, whereas if it's at the top, everyone can see it! However, there is no requirement to do this. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind that too, http://cricfaqs.com/Cricket#Original_Content_Source so long as everyone's happy about it. The content out at Cricket is only because of wiki's efforts so far. Please have a look at it and let me know if it looks good now?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of editing it! I hope you are happy with the way I have done the notice at the top of the page.

Another thing to note is that on Wikipedia, we are kind of spoiled! We have a lot of templates which are not standard on Wikis. To get things like <ref> to work, you need to have the templates on your wiki. When you edit the "Cricket" page, you will see there is a list of templates used on the page - below the edit summary. If they are in red, then they aren't on your wiki! You can, however, copy them over to your wiki. (You may find, however, that they in turn need other templates... etc)! To see the source for a template, copy it from the list on your Wiki (e.g. Template:Abc) and then do a search on Wikipedia for that template (exactly as written, including the Template: bit). You can then either Edit this page and copy it (then paste it on your Wiki with the same name template) - or if it is protected, you can View source and copy and paste. I have done this for a couple of the templates showing you examples of how to do it. I hope this helps - it may be a lot of work for you though (and that's before you even copy other articles for your red links!). Good luck! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the explanation you've added here. I'll start fixing the Templates 1 by 1. I've changed the GNU message you wrote a bit. I had selected GNU licence when installing, I do not know why that is not seen now. I think I might have to modify some code to fix the licence problem.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not know if this is the right place to ask this

I get some templates those are not on wiki http://www.cricfaqs.com/Template:Reflist Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the revenue model of Wikipedia

{{helpme}}

1. I heard wikipedia runs only with donations as it does not support advertisements, so where does it arrange the funds from?
2. What if there's insufficient funds to run wikipedia?
3. Were can we get all these references from, are there any other backups?

Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:About. Intelligentsium 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We accept donations year-round, but we have an annual fundraising effort that aims to raise most of the funds we need to support the 35 people who work for Wikimedia and the server clusters. The current fundraising effort can be viewed here; the financial information and everything can be found in the FAQ, here. Hope that helps! Cheers, m.o.p 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is in a very open way that you people are working. It feels very great that there are people with great though living in this era too when everyone is after money at any cause. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish from my heart, success to wiki. May you enjoy all the good times, and may GOD give you the strength to face all the adversities, so long as you are doing them the right way.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of B2C Jewels

I have nominated B2C Jewels, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B2C Jewels. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Psychonaut (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding AFD deletion

I am not happy with the way the article was recently deleted.

The following concerns were raised. I have an ex-emp status!

For everyone concerned, this is my linkedin profile http://in.linkedin.com/in/ganeshjacharya and I stand by it. I have worked for other notable companies (check HTS), but I never added them, as they were not falling under the criteria of being a wiki. I play the same role with most of my previous companies.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the conscience WRT the deletion, but I would like someone to really explain the entire process. It would be helpful for me with my later updates. The question that stuck into me was, in-spite of being covered in TV and Press media why was this company not fitting into the criteria of being notable? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

SilkTork *^YES! has already explained "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content. The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following: * Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies. * Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." but I see B2CJ under the same lines.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The topic B2CJ was covered by [5] Better.tv and many more [6] e.g. WNBC-News4, ABC7 Covers, Catch CW11, and more.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So, should I add references from all these news channel into the article in order to make that notable, or still even after adding the same the article would not justify the notability criteria?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki considers negative to balance

Wikipedia considers every company that has a negative concern raised by customers is only notable. What if a company like B2CJ who are customer centric try their best and do not let any negative discussion held, are they not notable?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming you have read WP:ORG. The key to your first article is references. If you can find reliable sources as mandated by policy, then I'm sure you can get this article on the wiki. If you require any further assistance, please join the editors on IRC by clicking here. Please insure you join the "#wikipedia-en-help." This is the default channel. Hope this helps. --Mikemoral♪♫ 19:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology Twasta

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishwakarma_%28caste%29&action=historysubmit&diff=346816144&oldid=346721105

Twasta I do not know if it is a Gotra, I commented wrong "twasta is upgotra, not the main 5 gotra".

But, it is not one mentioned in Yajur Veda among the 5 important Risi that is generally believed.

Also, we can see Abhuvanasya Risi is already equated with Tvashta by someone else. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding AFD B2C Jewels

I've responded back wrt the deletion. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ganesh_J._Acharya&direction=next&oldid=348203937 Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear on what point you are making, or what you wish me to do. There were four !votes for delete and two for keep, so the consensus was to delete. Added to that, I examined the sources cited, and did my own quick research, and found little substantial evidence of notability - not enough to satisfy the criteria in the relevant notability guideline: WP:Company. It may be worth reprinted the criteria here, so you can look yourself, and see if you feel the sources used satisfy the criteria:

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story. Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.

Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.

The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:

* Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.

* Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.

If you wish, I can WP:Userfy the article for you, and advise you on reliable and appropriate sources. SilkTork *^YES! 07:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can do that it will be great. It will help us learners understand the process. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Done - User:Ganesh J. Acharya/B2C Jewels. SilkTork *^YES! 09:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for WP:Userfy of User:Ganesh J. Acharya/B2C Jewels.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Under the terms of Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses and Wikipedia:Userfy#Userfication_of_deleted_content, we cannot keep User:Ganesh J. Acharya/B2C Jewels indefinately. I note that there has been no progress for over two months. Do you have any plans to continue working on the material, or shall I now delete it? SilkTork *^YES! 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As there has been no progress I will delete the page. If you do wish to continue working on the article you may contact an admin on this list - CAT:RESTORE - who may restore the page for you. If you have any questions, please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 21:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Not finding enough time. I will contact the admin if I would need to restore that article back. Thanks for your help so far.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:B2c_logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:B2c_logo.gif. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Melesse (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

SEO

Hi. I reverted your edits on search engine optimization because the source appeared very dubious. This is one of the most heavily link spammed articles on Wikipedia. Please feel free to edit, but make sure to use best available sources. When in doubt propose new sources on the talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 11:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cow Milk Moral? or Sin ? - Brahmand Pujan by Naresh Sonee http://vegetarians-cows.blogspot.com/2008/01/drinking-milk-moral-or-sin.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dralansun (talk • contribs) 08:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

APPEAL TO YOU Reg: [BRAHMAN PUJAN] , [UNIVERSAL PRAYERS] . written by [Naresh Sonee] On wikipedia , These above two pages are far older than the present article [Brahman] References of above titles are also available on New York site - http://www.printasia.com/BookDetails.aspx?Id=445813482 Meanwhile, Can your good selves in Wiki Project Indian Community re-create a precise pages on [Naresh Sonee] & his book [Brahmand Pujan] – [Brahmaand Pujan] . However, Sonee is the writer of this book [Brahmand Pujan] written in 1999 . registered with Government of India- HRRD. Details of the registration is provided here on http://brhmaandpujanbook.tripod.com/ . More than sufficient, news and reviews are there on http://brhmaandpujan-news-reviews.tripod.com/ Since 5-6 yrs, for one or the other reason pages of [Naresh Sonee] & [Brahmand Pujan] are faced by communal bias from outside India so these articles over and again get deleted here in Wikipedia for minor reasons. However, many hits of - Naresh Sonee reflects on google search engine also. So, I request Wiki Indian community to kindly come forward and generously help these two pages to grow, as I am fed up to fight my case alone here [left] and moved out long back. Meanwhile, such an important info/issue on ‘Indian literature’ which adds & spell ‘new meaning /dimension’ to Brahman -should it stay lost else ignored? Your community panel has to judge at last. Myself, will not be on Wikipedia, for the same i apologise, but- pls. help these two pages to get reinstalled, reap, sow and grow, if you too feel so, I appeal to do this munificent favour. Regards- Dralansun (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Capgent (now coAction.com)

It this business establishment notable?

Referenced from

• (google books)
• http://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22coaction.com%22 About 2,490 results?
• http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/viewListing?productListingId=5550+11238046601760502927&hp=recentlyAdded (Google Marketplace)
• http://software.nasdaq.com/online-crm-software/spotlight...
• http://www.insidearm.com/daily/collection-technologies/collection-technology/dun-bradstreet-selects-coaction-collection-management-application/
• Capgent renamed to coAction.com (http://www.prlog.org/10806677-coactioncom-launches-new-on-demand-business-collaboration-solution.html)
• http://www.business-software.com/crm/crm.php

Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you write up an article as a draft on this company using the above references in your userspace, then it would make more sense to ask for comments at that point. Otherwise it seems to me that you are asking other editors to write your article for you and to "pre-vet" the subject. If I have misunderstood your query, I apologize in advance. --Shearonink (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I just finished writing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ganesh_J._Acharya/coAction.com Kindly let me know if this article can be included into en.wikipedia.org Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is, at best, a stub. The entire "Products and Services" section reads quite a bit like an advertisement.

I'd suggest that you let someone who's not as closely tied in with coAction.com create the article if, in fact, it is notable for other reasons. Jsharpminor (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to suggest article addition here. May be I just leave it for everyone's discretion to decide that.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk)

I tried fixing the article a bit. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of CoAction.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CoAction.com 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/CoAction.com 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. Psychonaut (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of CoAction.com

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 CoAction.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Sayan's commentary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Speed_of_light#Speculative_interpretation_or_a_religious_text.2C_not_a_scientific_result_at_all. Can this interpretation from Sayan's commentary be included. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi - You appear to have received a number of opinions on this matter on the talk page for Speed of light dating from February. If you disagree with the comments there, I would suggest you begin a request for comments to gain outside views on the matter. Regards, --Kateshortforbob _talk 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Mamuni Mayan

I've restored the comments you removed from Talk:Mamuni Mayan. Generally, it's inappropriate to delete others comments from discussion pages per WP:TALK. Specifically, comments should not be removed just because a concern has been resolved. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BalanceRestored is my own id. What I cited seems to be a misunderstandings based on some error-ed assumptions. I did not want other readers to get confused. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for removing the very old comments. Given your editing history, it's probably best to just leave it and move on. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Vishwakarma

My point regarding sourcing to a book rather than a website at Vishwakarma (caste) was that there may be doubts about the reliability of the website publisher. Your posting of a link to the book equivalent, published by the same body, does not remove that doubt. We try to avoid advocacy groups etc as sources, except when for statements that concern the group itself (eg: "the X group was founded in 1900 and is based in Delhi"). In addition, the source that you have provided is very, very confusing to people who are unfamiliar with Vedic terminology etc. Is there no alternative? - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a from the same community, these are very common things those I cite. You should find 1000s of citations in Southern India regarding the same. Again with regards to the relia what is it that is bothering you?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The five Risi's are the initial descends of Brahma. The Sapta Risi's are the later born manasputra (mind children) of Lord Brahma himself. These are some common topics those are often spoken between our community members.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As a general rule, you are not writing for your own community but rather for the overwhelmingly larger number of people who are not of that community but who would some comprehensible information about something. Many of those people will never even visit South India. Think of the dear reader, who has already been confused by that passage because for a long time it said that there were four but listed six. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I put up a reference. Again, since it is about my own community I have a richer idea about the subject. The same way as a science student has more knowledge on the subject of science than a student of commerce. It does not mean a science student necessarily has a bias about scientific developments.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that your are biassed. I was asking whether there were any sources that were more accessible. You say that there are thousands, so perhaps there are some among them that speak in simple terms that a layperson might understand. Having said which, I almost religiously do not edit anything with which I have a connection: the nature of Wikipedia only occasionally demands a degree of expertise in a subject area, since we are mostly just reflecting what the real experts say. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Karnataka State Gazetteer: Bangalore Rural District by B. N. Sri Sathyan, Karnataka (India) [7]. A part of the book is seen.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you... the statement tough "I almost religiously do not edit anything with which I have a connection:" might have been honestly made... sounds inappropriate. At least as far as I am concerned, I can only write things those I am connected to. E.g. You should be connected to your field of education, so you might know more about it. You might be connected to your place where you were born and brought up so you might know more about it than me who stays far away from that place. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I presume that you are referring to my use of the word "religiously". No offence was intended, and I have no religious belief. It is a use of the word that perhaps does not cross over very well from one place in the world to another. I do disagree with you viewpoint regarding connections, but that is just me. It is easier (& arguably more educational) to delve into areas about which you know nothing. It works, provided that you stick with the Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability, reliable sources etc. I have an inquisitive mind, a rather high IQ, a decent education at Cambridge University and a lot of time to spare (born somewhere between profoundly and totally deaf, more or less unemployed because of it), so I am certainly not the typical Wikipedia contributor. Nonetheless, to go 50,000+ edits here, mostly in the India sphere, without getting a block must say something, when those who are too closely connected hit problems time and again. Of course, all it might mean is that I have learned quickly how to avoid the pitfalls in this weird WP world!

Do you fancy having a go at a halfway house situation? I am about to start some serious work on Lepel Griffin, who was a British Raj administrator & wrote that book (Panjab Chiefs) etc. I know a lot about the subject matter & can do a decent job of it solo, but if you fancy stretching yourself slightly beyond your normal boundaries then perhaps it would interest you? I have a gut feeling that you and I could get on very well, and I appreciate your patience etc in dealing with the issue that we have been discussing. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Throwing my 2 cents here, for 'religious' read about systemic (more than religious) bias [| systemic bias]. About Wikipedia, reliable sources count more than IQ/Education etc. In fact, many problems do come across due to lack of information in secondary sources or biased sources even. I would rather suggest that the editor should also work on simple articles rather than 'that book' per Sitush. About not getting a block, just mentioning here that Sitush has been involved in many votes etc where many editors do get blocked.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 15:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just take your 2 cents back, TT2011? Systemic bias has nothing at all to do with my use of the word "religiously" & you are just coatracking your Indo-centric political POV again, even without the support of some of your dodgy colleagues. You are the one who has problems, including the Hindutva tendency, a recently expired topic ban, and some truly appalling editing practices, lack of neutrality & general crap-stirring. The article is about Griffin, not the Panjab Castes book. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

'Indo-centric political POV' could you elaborate please? Per my reply above bias are more about systemic rather than religious. About 'colleagues', etc - are there standards on Wikipedia to use these terms as such? I don't think there are such standards. About 'some truly appalling', 'general crap-stirring' - are these defined on Wikipedia or just editor-specific views? Do I need apology to take back all these accusations?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 16:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone sees the world from their end, but how does one ascertain which one is accurate and which is inaccurate? I think every view needs to be cited irrespective of them being accurate or inaccurate. Many a times something that seems inaccurate reasonably starts seeming accurate later.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are of course free to think that, but please do not put this into practice here. If we mentioned and cited every conceivable fringe theory and minority opinion on a given topic, then their very inclusion would be tantamount to legitimization. Please see Wikipedia:WEIGHT for policies on when to include minority viewpoints within an article and how they should be treated. In particular please note the point that "if you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof", and the entire subsection on "Giving 'equal validity'". —Psychonaut (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it only a minority that always spoke right, when we looked back into the history? e.g. Galileo. How many in this world go against the majority view even if they are right?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not the case that the minority was always right, but even if it were that is not a reason to add fringe theories to articles against consensus. If you continue to do so you may find your editing privileges revoked. If you wish to argue against Wikipedia's policies on whether and how minority viewpoints should be covered in articles, the right place to do it is on the relevant policy discussion pages. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I fix my sentence... Wasn't it a minority **many a times** that spoke right at the start, when we looked back into the history? So, were they all fringe theories? Also, how does consensus at wiki work? WP:WHATISCONSENSUS cites "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority." So, how does one determine the group has arrived at a Consensus? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ganesh J. Acharya, I would suggest that editing some content such as some content on pages like a state of India, say Madhya Pradesh, Tamilnadu, etc.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:thisthat2011 thanks for suggesting. With the amount of mistakes I made with some of the resent articles I think I rather stick to topics I know about well. India, Tamilnadu and Madhya Pradesh are much broader topics. I think I would mess up even worse with them. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Or you could begin with something scientific in nature that are already proved, so that there is clarity in material and little difference of opinion as observations can be proved.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Refactoring

Editing a talk page message that is several days old, as you did here, is extremely confusing for other readers and you really should not do it. Add another message instead, please. - Sitush (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I wrote half hearted and unresearched things (tough I had discussed the same on other forums https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.philosophy/tjIZEi8skjI) to justify. Which I later realized was not the right way, so I made those edits. But I retained all the points those that were already discussed by others. I will ensure to justify my stand the way you say and will take appropriate precautions. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Ganesh J. Acharya, I apologize again. The more closely I look into the history edits, the more I realize that none of what I initially thought was your edits was actually by you. This said, I hope that you and other concerned editors are interested in participating in building up consensus, so that whatever happens has some stability in time. I read the page as a casual reader and wish to improve its quality. I do not live in India and feel no connection with any local or caste issues. This does not mean that I want such views and aspects discounted from the article, just that they do not cause a discontinuity in the flow of the article, that they move to a proper section, and be in balance with other existing claims and with the rest of the article. Hoverfish Talk 12:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)\

Hoverfish Talk There is no need to apologize, I understand you did not cite that deliberately. Mistakes do happen. Thanks for visiting. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

{{cite book |authorlink}}

I am tried authorlink for the first time [8]. Is it the right way to add it?

Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ganesh. The authorlink field is used when there is a biographical article for the author here on Wikipedia. It is not intended to be used for external links. For an example, maybe take a look at, say, citation #13 at H.H. Risley. Feel free to ask any further questions: these things are tricky until you get the hang of them, then you wonder what the problem was! - Sitush (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I really should say that I am glad you are sticking around here. You've not had the easiest of rides but you are doing much that is right. Most importantly, you are being bold, you are asking about things when you are unsure, and you are invariably polite when dealing with other people. These things count for a lot and I do hope that you do not become disheartened. Wikipedia is a weird world and some aspects of it can be confusing: just remember that all of us are confused sometimes. - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And you may get a pleasant surprise if you look at Dichroscope now. You'll see how to add two authorlinks, and you've gained a source for your article. :) Sitush (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all the wikipedians who have been guiding me to think well. Also thanks to you for cross checking and taking pains into keeping the information relevant. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Hi Ganesh J. Acharya, finally there is discussion in Talk:Adi Shankara about the caste issue and I have some questions in need of clarification. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 12:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is perhaps a common knowledge among Nambudris and Vishwakarmas that Adi Shanakara belonged to both the communities.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Vishwakarma is nominated for protection. I am not sure about Vishwabrahmin if they are SCs as the IP claims because the article lies a lot. If you are sure, please nominate for protection. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Lies like? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Vishwakarmas are the composer of Vedas. If you notice carefully here... it quotes "HE who sate down as Hotar-priest, the Ṛṣi, our Father" [9]. Lot of facts are not known to everyone. But once you have carefully studied will know them. Why would the composer quote Vishwakarma as their father otherwise? Also, as far as I know the SC quote is not accurate.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't past text without pasting the references

Ganesh, for the pieces you've added in that have the "[3]" style footnotes, are you just going to earlier Wikipedia drafts and copy-pasting text? If so, firstly you should explicitly mention such in the Edit Summary (e.g. "copying 'Etymology' section from version of 16 May 2012" or similar), and secondly, don't just copy the text as shown in the reading mode, but hit "Edit" on the old version and paste the full editing code into the current article. Otherwise we get the "[6]" footnotes everywhere but don't have the actual cite; also we lose all the wikilinks if you just copy the reading text instead of the editing code. It also appears you separately copy-pasted a bunch of footnotes which are now simply cluttered at the bottom of the page.

I'm glad you're interested in improving the article, and have dug up some interesting material, but you really have to ensure you bring over data as cleanly as possible. It's too easy to say "Let me get the data here and I'll clean it later", but then we end up with an article that looks a mess for days or weeks, the promising editor might get busy in real life and just never clean up his own work, and in the meantime it's hard for others to work on improving the page while it's "in progress".

Please make sure that whenever you copy-paste text from Wikipedia, you mention where you're copying it from, and you copy the editing code rather than just the words themselves so we preserve the footnotes and the wikilinks. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you kindly show the instance where I have copy pasted, I guess you are mistaking it for someone else's edits Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked into it, and I'm half-right, half-wrong. Turns out it was an IP who brought in the "[3]" style footnotes from who-knows-where. However, with this edit you re-inserted the text. I think my confusion is that there are a block of your edits, a block of IP edits, then you came in and reverted much of the IPs edits and resumed editing. So since the text wasn't in the article before your back-forth with the IP, but was later, I'd thought it was yours. But you did choose to keep the "Origin" section and other sections that were copy-pasted. So I was mistaken about the edits being yours originally, but since you made the decision to keep rather than delete those additions, we do need to figure out what to do about them, mainly "Origin" and "Panchal Movement to Reclaim Brahminical Right" (which is itself as POV title). Do you recognise the text the IP pasted as being from some earlier version or other article? Any suggestions on cleaning up the article thus far? Your efforts are very much appreciated since we're getting some IP drive-by editing, but the recent blocks of IP-added text are causing us some work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"but since you made the decision to keep rather than delete those additions" the reason is I am not aware whether they should be taken away or kept. I am not entirely aware of wiki requirements. Things like "(which is itself as POV title)" etc are not known to me, so, I am not in a good position to judge these as of now and I decided to keep the original edits as it is. I would hereon try to spend some time until this article is brought in a good shape. I will try consulting knowledgeable editors for every section and fix them. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Wikipedia does take some getting used to. One thing that may be worth doing is to use the "History" tab of the article to check out earlier versions of past years: it is very possible that by checking past drafts we can find where that IP copy-pasted that data from, and be able to re-capture its original footnotes. Thanks for your good work on the article overall, we're getting a lot of IP tampering, uncited edits, opinion, etc. So glad to see we have a body of responsible editors helping to improve the article. Forgive the confusion, and if there's anything I can do to assist your efforts to clean up the article, let me know. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kondeshwar.jpg

I see a notice here "This is a candidate to be copied to Wikimedia Commons.", what is this about?

Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is another Wikimedia project, separate from the English Wikipedia, which holds free images that are available to all the Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedias in other languages. If an image is available under a suitable free license, it is transferred to Commons so as to make it more widely available. JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added the required "|human=username". Is that placed appropriately? Is there anything else I need to do since I have uploaded that image? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I think that's OK. Someone will contact you if there is a problem. I don't know how rapidly the transfer to Commons will take place, but its use in the Badlapur article will not be affected. JohnCD (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It had a red icon with the message "Repeat violators will be blocked from editing.", that made me worried. So, I wanted to confirm if everything was right about the image. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Where did you see that notice? I do not see it in the history of that image. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Kindly apologize. Please see red the icon http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Imbox_deletion.png just before this note "Notice: This file was flagged by a bot" at the bottom of the the large rectangle here [10]. In the same rectangle this note is written "Repeat violators will be blocked from editing." Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I see them. The red warning triangle is only there to highlight the fact the transfer to Commons was proposed by a "bot", an automatic system, and therefore a human being should check that all is well before the transfer is made; and the warning about "repeat violators" is there because many people try to transfer to commons files which are actually copyright. This is your own file, so that does not apply to you and you have nothing to worry about. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolving Vishwakarma issues

Ganesh, we keep butting heads over these Vishwakarma issues: exactly what are your concerns about my edits to the article?

Your comments to me, as I understand them, seem to oppose my requests for footnotes. When you state Next is you want physical records? What is the rationale behind the same? are you stating that you should not need footnotes to make assertions that the Viswakarmas are master builders of all the great temples, that they are descended from Vedic deities, etc? An absolutely fundamental principle of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if you, or "everyone" claims to know something, if you cannot provide proper sourcing to a credible source of information (ideally news journalism or academic research), it simply cannot go on Wikipedia until the sourcing is found. This does not mean that everything unsourced is false, just that unsourced things cannot be presented on Wiki. So yes, we do need to see sourcing for claims about the history and impact of this caste. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A. "ideally news journalism or academic research" I am now a bit aware of how "current" scientific principles work. The only reason to point out the same is, the same seems flawed, and destructive in its nature as it is ignoring important domains (possibilities) with flawed reporting practices. Wish some day reporting practices address WP:Verifiability, and truth. If wikipedia and journalism is about WP:Verifiability, and lie, it is not something to be proud about. It is obviously a noticed bug in the process that is getting followed without reasoning. AFAIK as per the logical practice every statement has to be considered "True", unless and until it is 100% proved "False". Because the former ("True") holds back information intact and the later ("False") destroys every information. By quoting a "LIE" as "NOT Truth", does not change a "LIE to TRUTH". I have started a discussion here [11]... please join Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

B. Now with regards to the first part WP:Verifiability, the whole truth is, nothing in this world can be ever verified from a materialistic approach. That is because, when a person is born and opens eye for the first time, sees this world and eventually "assumes" that this world to be true. Is there a way for any person born to verify this world is not a staged drama just played for that particular person? Is there a way to know the same? If there is no way to know the same, why assume one as true and another as false? So, to be honest when a person cannot ever verify whether they are in a staged drama or a real-real world what materialistic verifiability are you now talking about? Please explain? So, with this materialistic verifiability approach if you want to hold on to one truth as truth? why? And if wiki or journalism is all about verifiability why ignore some and assume some possibilities? If a researcher is honest and is genuinely researching not a single possibility is to be ignored or assumed? But unfortunately without "Assuming" nothing can start? The first bug with verifiability begins right at the start, and the same can never be overcome. So, it starts with "Belief?". So is wikipedia and are wikipedians truly-true about this WP:Verifiability so far? Is it actually possible to override this hurdle without assuming or believing? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to get into some grand philosophical argument with you, and you appear to completely misunderstand the WP:Verifiability, not truth policy I linked you. The point of it is: Information on Wikipedia has to be cited to some sort of reliable source, making it "verifiable"; that is, it must be a piece of information where the reader can assure himself that some academic or journalistic authority has made this statement. Now, not all verifiable things are true (even academics may make mistakes or have controversies), and there are many things that may be quite true but simply aren't documented anywhere ("I have a pitcher of ice tea in my referigerator").

The practical upshot is, no matter what you may personally "know" about a given topic, you cannot add that information to Wikipedia without some kind of footnote. Otherwise we just have to say "Well, we'll take the word of this Ganesh guy, I dunno, maybe he's an expert on the South Indian caste system". Can you see that sounds a lot less convincing that footnoting to a book about Indian social history by a PhD from a major university?

If you don't like citing things to published sources, and you want to add things that aren't citeable, then you're simply not going to be able to get anything done on Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A. "I'm not here to get into some grand philosophical argument with you" what is the reason? You quoted about sticking to "Verifiability" I am trying to stick to the same and don't see that possible? If you see it possible how is it? With verifiability, assuming is not possible and everything has to be verified? So kindly let me know how to verify? Or, do you want me to "assume" and start with a "belief" that I was born in a real world without verifying the same? So, if you want me to assume some and verify some, that is, adopt a bias, then why?. The global audience might want to know about them, hope to get an explanation.

B. MatthewVanitas you quoted "Otherwise..."? please don't force people to adopt bias. I don't know about wikipedia, but these are not ethical standards. Rationally a person can only research in an unbiased manner only after overcoming these "Otherwise..." or on not finding these "Otherwise..."s. It is good to expect people to over come this, but it is also ethical to not present one.

C. " Can you see that sounds a lot less convincing that footnoting to a book about Indian social history by a PhD from a major university? " Don't get you?

D. Adequate references are already provided over the concerned article. Please go through the same carefully. It was also my duty to highlight the above bug in "verifiability" which I did. Whether readers consider these or do not consider these are left to their own conscience. And if they do not consider they must be ready to answer "why"? This bug also clearly proves "Science of Verifiability" has no on chance as everything has to start with a "belief". Truth is some times hard to digest, the sooner digested the better. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Emailing me

Ganesh, I would prefer it if you do not email me regarding the Vishwakarma Brahmin claim. You can say anything that you want to say on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought you wanted help in understanding merits of the arguments. I have clarified to you way I am avoiding to quote them publicly. Why do you insist me to talk over those publicly? Understanding merits of the arguments are not enough? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative environment and pushing arguments off-wiki is not conducive to that. If you have a valid argument for your position (you haven't, so far) then you need to obtain consensus and that will necessarily mean discussing it on the article talk page where everyone with an interest can see it and comment. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There are down sides to doing those publicly. Addressing those are more important. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, in that case you have a problem, don't you? We cannot build consensus as a cabal, excluding the opinions of those with whom we disagree. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to address those without them. It is possible. I have resolved your query back at the article's talk page.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding multilingual translations

I notice wikipedia quotes the following "The Wikipedia community is committed to including any and all languages for which there are Wikipedians willing to do the work" So is it must for a primary source to hereon to be present in all the languages hosted by wikipedia? E.g. at English Wikipedia User:Sitush came up with "Also, to save a bit of time, can you find me the precise quote from the source? It is fundamentally a translation of a primary source and it is incredibly confusing". How does wikipedia resolve these "Unaware of context" [12] like issue. For me I have no doubts "Vedanga Vidvan" means "An expert in limbs of the Veda" since I come from India. A wikipedian from France might say I along with my French world don't understand what "An expert in limbs of the Veda" in English means. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Here, on English Wikipedia, English sources are preferred, but foreign sources are acceptable where there is no other choice. Translation of the source is not required but may be raised as a question by contributors when discussing the article. (Similarly on other language wikis these wikis community, including whoever writes the article in their target language and cites this source, may work on translating a part of the source to their target language.) In this particular case I can see you're denying an English term: this is undesirable as this is an English medium, so please take care to shape it in some way, even as a set of phrases, to bring its meaning to the target audience. Gryllida (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"Translation of the source is not required but may be raised as a question by contributors when discussing the article." Thanks for clarifying. I will try explaining the term from alternate sources.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Brahmin vs Claim being Brahmin?

User:Sitush seems to be lying about "Alfred Edward Roberts" being unreliable here [13]. He first cites "I have a lot of experience of evaluating sources in this particular topic area, yes. Please list a few modern academics, published by quality presses, who cite the Raj amateur Alfred Edward Roberts" he indirectly claims to know the writer being unreliable. On asking reasons he quotes "Ganesh, I do not have to prove a negative. If no-one nowadays is citing Roberts then he is obviously not considered reliable.". So I scanned to check the same, and find there are many writers [14] and publishers already referring e.g. Nelson H. H. Graburn, University of California Press [15] etc are referring him. After explaining the 1st reference. I switched over to check Dr. Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap and find only positive reviews about his. I explained Sitush all that, but then he has now resorted to warning me. I am an old editor but not a professional editor. So, kindly help. I tried to provide reasons. Again, I have only questioned and reasoned, not insisted on anything yet. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There's an entire noticeboard for determining whether or not a source is reliable, and this link directs you to it. You can also use third opinion, since it appears to be a conflict between two people. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Although since the issue is less about reliability and more about NPOV, they might be better at WP:NPOVN. Hey Ganesh, please don't accuse me of lying - that really is nasty. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not accused, I have only stated "seems to be lying" . I am not a mind reader. How do I know for sure what is your intent? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no WP:NPOVN at all. All expert opinions on this matter are unanimous. Only the people unaware about the topic in depth keep quoting other wise. On such matters only expert opinions are to be considered? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ganesh, the consideration given to expert versus non-expert/minority viewpoints here has already been explained to you above at #Vishwakarma. I suggest you reread that thread and the policies you were directed to. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Psychonaut please be specific. Looks like you realize something I am overlooking. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I was referring most specifically to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

When considering Manu of Hinduism and Moses of Christianity? Can Manu's details be primarily written over Moses of Christianity? Will Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight be considered equivocally? I see here other religious views are present at the bottom and there is no mention of Manu? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, but it clearly has nothing at all to do with this conversation. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly arriving at conscience can take months, years, or decades or even more

For certain matters honestly arriving at conscience can take months, years, or decades or even more. How does wikipedia ensure this? What to do if suddenly an editor starts to warn another when arriving at these lengthy consciences out of frustration? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are handled on case-on-case basis. You may want to either contact the other contributor asking them that, or word a more specific question here. Gryllida (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"case-on-case basis.", there aren't generalized guidelines for the same?? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There are things like WP:EQ to hold contributors from attacking each-other and to encourage efficient communication. I am unaware of any deadlines set, no; how would you do that? Gryllida (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think deadlines should be set as well. certain truths are billion plus year old. So, to know some of them it will take those many. So, quickly arriving at consciences are impossible since it becomes necessary to walk people through personal experiences with regards to certain facts. Without knowing the complete truth arriving at a conscience is impossible. In fact arriving at any inference scientifically is impossible. Again with believing others around ... yes, but not otherwise.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What you are proposing, original research, is discouraged in an encyclopedia, as it (the cyclopedia, not the research) is merely a compilation of existing verified facts. In contrast, original reporting works at a sister project, as it or the research itself also does elsewhere, accompanied by proper peer review. Facts have to be brought to a state which is deemed verified before they qualify for inclusion into wikipedia. Gryllida (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

when there are two versions of truths available and both are unverifiable how to ascertain which one is correct? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide. We just report on what other sources say about the matter. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You would have to do original something (research or reporting) and submit it to a peer-reviewed medium which Wikipedia could cite. If nobody does that Wikipedia may elaborate on both versions of truth, citing sources for each. Gryllida (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Vishwakarma (caste) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.

You have been asked before to keep things on topic and to use article talk pages only to discuss items relating to improvement of the related article. I've removed your latest spiel on Life, the Universe and Everything. It is usually bad form to remove other people's talk page comments but your WP:TLDR meanderings are becoming too much, sorry. Sitush (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I did mention the reason " I needed to write this since established editors pointed certain things out [to] me.", thanks.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, please stop meddling with the collapsed content. It really isn't appropriate for that talk page but every time you make an edit on the talk page I have to check it just in case you are saying something of relevance. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have commented about Dharma Shastras. Since I saw you indexed it. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That is another irrelevant thread that you have started. Much more of this and you'll find yourself blocked for disruption. If you have a point to make concerning development of the article then by all means make it but otherwise just stop, please. - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Bye bye Sitush... I will not give you that chance... I am restraining myself from editing further for 5 days. I am happy ... I have answered most queries. A person remains very happy when one only and only does what heart says. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was the shortest five days I've ever experienced. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• At a wiki like this, article topics are diverse and many people don't know the topic of an article they're asked to help with well. It is essential to use the article talk pages efficiently by describing the issues in a clear way.

Unfortunately this is complicated by multilingual and multicultural environment, in which even natives resort to simple English when wording their messages, making many discussions look blunt, adding friction to the atmosphere. Try to stand out by communicating lightly. Gryllida (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You have emailed me again

Why have you emailed me again about Vishwakarma stuff? As previously, say whatever you'd like to say here in the open, please. Should I receive any more emails from you relating to such issues then I'll seek a block on your ability to use the email function for anyone. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, are threats needed? I apologise for poking you a bit abruptly, but...

The thing we see here is the transparent atmosphere of Wikipedia. Public communication via talk pages is encouraged, and e-mailing is not, unless the issue has private nature. Unfortunately this point isn't sufficiently prominent in the documentation and the software interface for each newcomer to notice. (One-to-one help is particularly discouraged, as collaboration is critical to this environment.) Gryllida (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Gryllida, no problem with the poke. Ganesh has been asked to desist previously here. I cannot divulge the content of the emails but let's just say that they were unhelpful and I refused to respond directly because I have no desire to start getting a load of such stuff coming straight to my inbox. I'm afraid that there are things concerning this general situation regarding Ganesh and the Vishwakarma topic about which you have little or no knowledge but there are some admins who do have more info. If nothing else, this is a major TE/CIR situation and it has gone on for months. There comes a point when patience runs out, or enough WP:ROPE has been given. Ganesh seems to be incapable of understanding that while I and others respect his right to a freedom of religious belief, we don't do things here based on such personal beliefs. And when there is repeated recourse to useless sources, despite past explanations, well, if you can hold your temper then you are in a minority. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ganesh is not a newcomer; he's been here since 2009. Since many years before then I've been all too familiar with his activities elsewhere on the Internet, and can very confidently endorse Sitush's assessment of the present situation. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the following are threats found on this talk page where an activity is needed to be described as unwelcome first time:

• "...find yourself blocked for disruption"
• "then I'll seek a block on your ability to use the email function"

I understand previous user history justifies such threats instead of phrasing the same ideas with a focus on the abuse being not welcome for anyone and a note* or a link to a relevant documentation page.

* (If such link or note had been provided before, I would expect the note to be factual and to detail date of previous first note and the behaviour occurrences, stressing a repetitive pattern and the fact that the first note was ignored, politely in a short way without investing too much time.)

Is my understanding correct? Gryllida (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Gryllida, I really cannot work out what it is you understand or indeed are asking me. However, there is nothing more to be said here. If you don't like it then take my behaviour to WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

From your reaction I think that what I observed isn't a recommended practice then. I apologize for misinterpreting it. Gryllida (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to apologise. I just do not understand what it is you are trying to say in your comment above. - Sitush (talk)#

• I was trying to interpret your response, in which you appear to make two points.

(1) the folk is not a newcomer. I did not mean he is, only that the documentation is not clear about a point I presented.

(2) the folk has a history. Here I understood, wrongly, that it justifies threats without prior elaboration on where the established practice of discouraging e-mails comes from.

Now I can see it was not what you meant; supposedly you're confident that not only he knows it is so, but also he knows why it is so from a prior discussion. Unfortunately I don't find it or how Ganesh reacted. It would be interesting to know what he thinks. Gryllida (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, for starters, just look above at User_talk:Ganesh_J._Acharya#Emailing_me. - Sitush (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It is a useful reference for this discussion. I again apologise for being a bit redundant and not simply asking you the essential question at the beginning; I missed it being brought before, and I heavily misread some bits. Gryllida (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ganesh, after looking a bit more, I think this is a good read that may help you settle in and overcome difficulties with public communication. Gryllida (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

ThanksGanesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Local community

Ganesh, did you try contacting local Indian community about this, a friend, a neighbour? Odds are a friend would succeed in reaching understanding with the Wikipedia community about the fields of interest. Gryllida (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but am I reading this right? It seems like crazy stuff. The issue here is not about X, Y or Z reaching an "understanding" with the Wikipedia community. It is about them providing reliable sources and being neutral, both of which Ganesh has had explained to them by numerous people on numerous occasions. There is no middle-ground here where the Vishwakarma community could somehow gain an exemption from or relaxation of, for example, WP:OR or WP:NPOV. There have indeed been other people from the community involved in this saga and they, too, could not meet our core requirements.

Gryllida, your efforts are well-intentioned, I'm sure, but editor retention is not the primary purpose of this project: it is important but subsidiary and if you have any experience of caste-related articles at all then you will know that the problems that lie within them are in large part caused by pov-pushing contributors. When that becomes disruptive, it is time to call it a day. I'm pretty sure from experience that Ganesh is on the cusp of receiving a topic ban: the best thing he could do right now is drop the stick and go contribute in other areas of Wikipedia and thus gain some experience of just why and how our policies work "on the ground". - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that a break would be desirable. Ganesh, would you like to voluntarily try working in other topics? Gryllida (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Grylida. I think you need to explain what sort of "understanding" you mean. --regentspark (comment) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't explain it reliably: I only see that the article talk is filled with queries that are in poor shape. I would expect someone local could try to put them to a more readable shape with the help of the queries author. Gryllida (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sitush in the Christian pages how are WP:NPOV handled? There all the writers are from the Christian community, or considering WP:NPOV Hindu's, Muslim and Jews' point of views are considered? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've said before that these attempted comparisons with other religions are pointless. NPOV is not biassed for or against a particular religion. In its simplest form, and the one that you are still failing to understand, NPOV means that if we have several reliable sources and those sources contain different opinions about something then we have to show all of those opinions. Your position has consistently been that all opinions other than that which you believe in personally are irrelevant and should not be mentioned. That position is simply untenable on Wikipedia, although there is nothing to stop you from creating your own website and saying whatever you want there. (I'm not linking all these policies etc - you've seen them enough times). - Sitush (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

So, even after I make yet another attempt to explain you write this. You've already been told that we cannot use court rulings and certainly not ones from as long ago as this - see, for example. this note. You've also already been told, over and over and over, that even if you find a source that is reliable for the Brahmin claim, we would still show the other sources that point out (a) it is indeed a claim and (b) it is one that is rejected by communities other than the Vishwakarma themselves.

Please tell me that you understand this and will desist from further postings of this nature. I've run out of ways to explain it and others had done so before me. I really can see little option but to request that you are topic banned because this is becoming a massive time-sink and it is preventing development of the article. I'm hoping that you do now accept the situation but just in case you do not I feel that I must now formally warn you of the sanctions that apply in this area - see below. - Sitush (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Thanks for links to the guidelines. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Use something like: {{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 200K |counter = 14 |minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadstoarchive = 2 |algo = old(14d) |archive = User talk:Ganesh J. Acharya/Archive %(counter)d }} if you get stuck. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help :-) Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Something went wrong while archiving.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The only offish thing I see with your archive code is the counter= parameter, which should begin with the number one (1). Please try:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = User talk:Ganesh J. Acharya/Archive %(counter)d
}}

– Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

My fault. I've undone the archive attempt so that it can run correctly. And I'm about to change your code for you. Hope this is ok. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please change that. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Blanking Achari (community)

Hello Ganesh J. Acharya, I've noticed you've blanked Achari (community) which was a redirect to Charodi (community). The redirect was there because, currently, as it stand, the only article with a community named Achari is Charodi (WP:R). Please see the guideline regarding page blanking. It only makes sense to remove the redirect if you want to create a page about a community named 'Achari' (other than Charodi). Until such time, please keep the redirect in place.

Thank you! --CyberXRef^talk 20:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Charodi is a usage only specific to people in Karnataka and not people else where. While Achari Community has a much wider usage. There is a usage of Achari Community among Iyengars, "As a matter of fact, Chari is a shortened form of Acharya and in the South all Vaishnav Brahmins have the caste suffix Achari or Iyengar to their names" Memoirs of an unrepentant communist [16] - Page 20 and Vishwabrahmins "VISWAKARMA/KAMMALAR A community of Tamil Nadu, they are also known as Viswa Brahman, Viswakammala, Kammalar, Panchala or Achari." People of India: A - G. - Volume 4 - Page 3662 [17] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Needed to know what can be done about this? There are multiple different communities being addressed as Achari Community in India. So, I blanked the page removing the existing redirect, and it seems it is not the right way to go about this. In this case what is to be done? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I would suggest that you leave the redirect as it is until you can form enough articles related to the redirects words, to for a disambiguation page. If there are already enough articles you can begin immediately. To help you, you can read this. -Pending^{(tell me I screwed up} 13:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

I'm sure that I've advised you previously not to make changes to messages after other people have replied to them but still you persist in doing so at Talk:Vishwakarma (caste). Ganesh, you are treading on very thin ice on that talk page anyway - I suspect that you will soon find yourself banned from it - but there is no point in making a bad situation worse. If you must change something after a subsequent response then you are going to have to make it extremely clear. Usually, it is better just to write another message retracting or clarifying what ever your concern may have been. A read of WP:TPG may assist. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I will leave a note below...Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I assumed the changes were fine with fresh edits. I will take care. Also the changes did not look very serious to me. But yet they can become habits if not addressed and I might edit something serious in the future. So, I better be careful. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know (i.e. no implication of misbehaviour on your part)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio. It was a great experience understanding the | truth about wikipedia. I will keep myself informed about these. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Vishwakarma POV and breach of WP:TPG etc

If you continue the Vishwakarma campaign that you have engaged in now for several years at articles such as Adi Shankara then I shall report you to WP:ANI with the recommendation that you are indefinitely blocked for incompetence. How many more times must you be told that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, that your efforts are almost always original research and that we have policies & guidelines for a reason. Enough is enough. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion. I thought for a moment I had mixed you up with Gopalan Acharya, who shows similar tendencies, but it turns out my first call was correct. You've been indulging in this nonsense as recently as today at Talk:Adi Shankara. It really is too much. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I'm sorry, Ganesh, but I've reported the recent issues at Talk:Adi Shankara to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard in order to get additional input from the community regarding how to handle things. This follows from the warning that was issued to you here recently by Salvio giuliano. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The report can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ganesh J. Acharya. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have retired from wikipedia. I am not interested in any fake Arbitration, since I have already seen the arbitration standards during this complaint that I put User:Sitush_plus_a_group_is_possibly_trying_to_put_communities_in_India_to_a_fight. The day you all are sincere lets meet up. Not interested in this harmful (as of now) project. Everyone will have an Arbitration at a real court in front of GOD. We will for certain meetup there, everyone is answerable at that point. This lobby around wiki is continuously posting unwanted/provocative using unregistered IP Addresses and community related fake IDs (which is very apparent from the style of writing). Also, after giving substantially evident arguments here [18] User:Sitush wants to keep dragging this argument unnecessarily for the reason I have already highlighted during my complaint. Readers are requested to expand the light green colored "Adi Shankara Caste" discussion which user Sitush has collapsed. If you all notice user Sitush has pinged everyone in the group during the complaint. How ethical was the same? (please refer Thanks_for_the_ping_alert over Sitush's page.) which is very indicative of the fact that there is a lobby present. Also if you notice User:Cyphoidbomb did quote "But man, I hope there is no conspiracy because if there is I'll feel like a fool!" [19] Why did Cyphoidbomb feel this and why did he not bring this up during the earlier complaint? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)