User talk:Jethwarp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep.
Robert Frost

Should Anumarana be merged with Sati (practice)?[edit]

Hi, Jethwarp! Thanks for proving to me through your excellent work that Anumarana should definitely have its own extended discussion, relative to Sati (practice). I was wondering how you stand versus to keep Anumarana as independent article, vs. being merged with Sati (practice). The thematics are extremely closely related conceptually, and my intitial view is that they therefore ought to be emerged. However, another closely related practice, Jauhar does have its own page (although that page is a wholly unsourced mess at the moment). Thus, it can be argued for that for the sake of not making Sati (practice) too big, it is perfectly in order to have a separate Anumarana article. Personally, I am unsure about the whole issue, and would value your opinion relative to merging.Arildnordby (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arildnordby. I would prefer to keep it as a separate page considering the fact that the article size is big enough to warrant its own page. Further, anumarana practice pre-dates sati practice was banned before sati practice (sahamarana) also validates it's separate page. Also there are points like practice was not restricted to widows only for the reason for it separate article. The separate article on Anumarana is also valid as per WP:SPINOFF. There are certain infos which I wanted to expand in Anumarana article, whenever I will get time. I think it is perfect as it is today - with a small section of it on Sati practice page and link to main article, as you have done it. Great work done by you also on both Sati practice and Anumarana articles. Jethwarp (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You are good at spelling out clearly those points in favour of keeping it separate (rather than being merged), points that were just floating about in my own neural mess. So, I agree, it is good enough for separate keep. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu[edit]

Asaram Bapu has not been convicted as yet. The case is running in the court. Please remove the category Hindu Gurus with criminal convictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cologo (talkcontribs) 07:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP and convictions[edit]

You added this controversial category to a BLP when the article does not offer anything to support its use: [1]. Second Quantization (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tagore family[edit]

Greetings Jethwarp, I suppose I am a member of the Genealogy WikiProject, though I admit that it has been quite a while since I've contributed much to Wikipedia. I am mostly a passive observer these days, though I will likely be adding a lot of geographic information over the next few months due to a project I am working on regarding local railroads.

Anyway, I agree mostly with your stance on this issue. Generally speaking, a genealogical family is comprised of male-line descendants of the founder, though sometimes a distaff branch is included for various reasons, usually involving an inheritance such as the case with Habsburg-Lorraine. I do not know enough about the context of your articles to help much in the actual dispute over who is or is not considered family. In some instances, I would considered spouses members if there is not some other better place for them. For example, (I am a European historian, BTW) I would probably add Stephen of England to a list of members of the House of Normandy even though it is through his mother, but I would not include his brother or father because they played no part in English politics.

Regarding your specific issues, I'd first ask yourself (and maybe the other person) why those specific individuals are being added despite not being literal descendants of the founder. Secondly, if you still find issue with it and are unable to resolve it with the author, I'd suggest bringing the issue up with administrators under the Wikipedia:OWN umbrella, since he clearly has stated his intent to defend his work and not work collaboratively. Regardless, stop the reversion war, think about motives, then try discussing the issue with the user first. If neither works, then elevate the dispute to the next level.
Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 02:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your opinion. Have a Good Day !! Jethwarp (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jethwarp, I would say that being a spouse legitimately incorporates one into the Tagore family, especially if the point made by Whaleyland stands, that being that there is not some other better place for them. In other words, being married into the Tagore family is what gives them their notability. From a more genealogical standpoint, you are right in saying they are not genealogical descendants. However, the template headers themselves are not referring to genealogical descendants, but simply to members of each subsequent generation. If the template were to serve exclusively as a genealogical tool, it could be argued that blood were all that mattered here. As it does not, the spouses, in my opinion, deserve to be included alongside the rest as part of a "generation" of the Tagore family. OlliffeΦObscurity 12:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, too. That clears my confusion. Good day!!Jethwarp (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks to you that you makes Lalkhani Landlords pages. Good Job. Jschauhan2013 (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Dear Jethwarp, thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your creation of the article about the Multan Sun Temple]. You are making a difference here! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing and the barnstar. Jethwarp (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Hotgi Junction railway station[edit]

Your recent edits at Hotgi Junction railway station are much appreciated especially finding out the year of establishment of the station. Many thanks for your effort. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 10:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks a lot for Barnstar.. :) -Nizil (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)