Yvantanguy

My User Talk page. (English / French)
Located also in Pondicherry (India)
where I try to be an "Even Tan Guy"(sorry for the poor pun)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For your specific contributions on Adi Dharm and to category Brahmoism in general Lillycottage (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. See WP:STAR. The way it works is that you get left one and other half stays with I. "The Half Barnstar is awarded for excellence in Cooperation, especially for productive editing together with someone who holds diametrically opposed viewpoints. Both users get one half of the star; when cooperating they hold a full one. It was thought of September 2006 by User:Radiant!, but not actually handed out until April 2007." Lillycottage (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Judaism

Thanks! I hope it is clear that the only thing I care about is complying with Wikipedia policies. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo

About reliable sources: I suggest you post your query at the [[WP:RS] and WP:V and [WP:NOR]]talk pages and request comments from editors expert in these policies.

About Paul B - no communication is privy or secret, if you go to his talk page you will see exactly what I posted which was simply that based on his own interest I thought he would find the article interesting. Personally, Paul B and I have often argued,we have no personal feelings about one another. Why do you assume this is not "professional?" He is a respected Wikipedia editor and even if I hate him I think he would find the Brahmo article relevant to his interest, that is all that matters.

Concerning Abrahamic debates, I have no idea what you are talking about. I never mentioned any Abrahamic debates.

Finaly, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and no one owns articles. ALL editors have a right to comment on and edit any article. In doing so editors whould be open to the views of others and be guided by policies. If you think Paul's suggestion would violate a WIkipedia policy, then say so, and explain why.

Compliance with policies, or non-compliance, is the only important issue. Your bringing up my personal relationship with Paul or Abrahamic debates all seem like irrelevant red-herrings and I do not know why you bring them up. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo Merge

Haha... even if I retract my comments, that won't help close the merge discussion. I didn't put the comment as an innocuous one- I meant every word. I continue to hold my opinion that the Brahmo page should be merged with the Brahmo Samaj, as a new section. Both pages have not enough content, and it wont hurt to merge them together. Plus, the fact that all Brahmos are Brahmo Samajis should force matters - there isn't really much dimorphism between the two to warrant a separate page. Another thing, if you're referring to some decision or news story, please link it, for the benefit of everyone. Otherwise, it is worse than useless, and will be construed as name dropping. Cheers. Sniperz11_{C ^@ S} 18:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Whos we?? I dont see too many editors on the Brahmo Samaj page to see cause for such a serious problem (as you say will happen if merged). In addition, all wikipedians will have a say in the discussion, not just concerned parties. If indeed the pages are merged, there are ways to fix any and all disputes.. I have seen worse problems fixed and the editors involved have continued to work with each other to improve the page. So i dont think there should be a problem. Your forseeing of such an issue largely depends on previous such issues, which I dont see. Anyway, I think it may be possible to keep Brahmo as a seperate page by changing the focus from Brahmo Adherents to the Brahmo religion. Sniperz11_@^CS 05:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brahmo Samaj. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Ragib (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Circus?

I am yet to understand properly, what you people want. You seem to have a feeling that only your group has a monopoly of pages relating to the Brahmo Samaj. Moreover, why aren't you a bit tolerant of the views of others? In many cases those not agreeing with you will do so if you show some signs of understanding. But you started off with a destructive attitude, caring two hoots about others. Wikipedia isn't anybody's private site, neither mine nor yours. Before I conclude, I must admire your excellent group work. Some one deletes, another puts in something sensible, a third one is abusive and a fourth appears apologetic. Good circus! - Jayanta1952 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a legal man and understand little of law but I certainly dislike your attitude of reverting anything that is not palatable to your view point. You are using dubious methods to do so, raising various objections through various manners, even going to the dirty extent of trying to get Keshab Chandra Sen's photograph deleted through the medium of patent rights. All this you are saying is rule-bound. Over so many months so many Wikipedians have struggled so hard to get photographs and now you are aiming at deletion of hundreds of photographs, simply because you would love to see Keshab Sen's photo deleted. I have put up a Kaliprasanna Singha quote on the Brahmo page. It is unfair of you to delete it again and again. Be fair, and you will get a fair treatment from others, but if you go on deleting like this I will upload similar quotes and go on doing it. Even if it is not on the page because of deletions, it will be there in the record files and I will call in other people for assistance. - Jayanta1952 (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The Gayatri Mantra is already there - you don't have to take the trouble of uploading it.

Move to Bodo Brahma Dharma

Your move Brahma Dharma -> Bodo Brahma Dharma is not the way Wikipedia works. If you think there is a ambiguity, you should have a disambiguity page. I suggest you implement that. Chaipau (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)