User talk:Abecedare

.

Infobox maps

Hi! You reverted my edit on the India article which used a map of India without its claimed territories. It was suggested on the People's Republic of China article that I should not use a map which shows claimed territories in its infobox. I argued that to be neutral, we should show the controlled territories in dark green and the claimed territories in light green simply to present greater information and more inclusive of the various points of view. Why is it that the infobox on the China article may not depict claimed territories but the infobox for the India article may? (Talk:People's_Republic_of_China#Map) --Shibo77 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As you no doubt appreciate, wikipedia is edited by a team of volunteers, often without wide coordination, and articles (especially handled by different projects) are not always consistent. If I am understanding you correctly, your own viewpoint matches the current consensus on the India page that we show both the controlled and claimed territories, but differentiate with them on the map. Is that right ? If so, your point may be better discussed at PRC/Taiwan pages, or at WP:Countries if you wish to establish a wikipedia-wide consensus. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lok Biradari Prakalp

Comment added Also since I have seen what you are talking above, It is illegal to display the Map of India in any other way except the Survey of India, Map. PoK and territory ceded to China is territory lost as a result of aggression, it is not a hypothetical "claimed territory", please be careful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

New comment added Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Slcok

Sure. Can you keep an eye on User:Adil your. He's disrupting massively. An admin who doesn't know anything unblocked him recently. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Review Request

Hello, Can you pls review the article Sarada Devi and share your comments? This has undergone lot of changes and I am the only major contributor. So I want others to review it. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to reading the article this weekend. I don't know anything about the subject, so I doubt that I'll be able to comment on the comprehensiveness and sourcing quality, but I'll add my comments on the style and grammar if I spot any issues. Abecedare (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

response70.112.4.25 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Lucille

Hi,

Thank you for the feedback,Appreciate your valuable comments. I see that you are using the comparison of number of books found in library. Very logical and true. but in my opinion ,spirituality is very different from other fields. For example --There are less number of Ferrari's on road ,that does not make it less notable.

Please compare the article with any of the existing topics under similar category -- Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta. There are not as many Readers/viewers[compared to viewership of romantic novel orviewership of baseball game] for this subject and hence you will not find big publishers.

If the article is deleted ,I am afraid that new users will not be able to enter and modify the existing article.

Just wanted your suggestion on ,how to improve the article.Amarhindustani (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Amarhindustani (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)