Problems with upload of File:Sri ChandraShekara Bharathi Maha Swamin.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sri ChandraShekara Bharathi Maha Swamin.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Darkness Shines. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. I saw your post on Darkness Shines talk page, and since he cannot explain the issue, I posted here instead. You removed the following two sentences; "Since their foundation they have espoused an Anti-Muslim agenda and have taken part in a great many riots." and "The RSS carried out acts of violence against Muslims when founded in 1925." Now although neither of these is perhaps an ideal sentence, they are both thoroughly sourced. Therefore, they should only be removed after consensus has been obtained on the talk page, and I can tell you right now, that is unlikely. Moreover, you removed the changes without any explanation; this is the actual change you made. On the occasions when you are removing sourced content, you most certainly have to provide an explanation. Just because you don't like it, does not mean you can remove it. I hope that was helpful. I have watchlisted this page, so you can reply here and I will see it. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, this is n the response for your update on behalf of Darknessshine. Well , Which source told you that RSS was involved in "Great many Riots", can you atleast mention some of the riots? Was it Direct Action Day called by Zinna? , Moplar Riot by Kerala Muslim Fishermen against Hindus in the name of British treatment of Turkey's Khilafat?, Was it the KAshmir intrusion by Pakistani terrorists, Was it the riots during the partition?.... there are many thousands of riots done against Hindus by muslim miscreants.... But do mention in which riots RSS took part and created havoc? and you say it is thoroughly sourced. So u should spell out the source too.
Another Junk, "It carried acts of Violence against Muslims when found in 1925". Man, have brains... 1925 was the time of British Raj, and they were busy appeasing Muslims to uplift them against Congress and Majority Hindus... This way they could rule here for another century.... If RSS had committed such atrocities, the British would be the most happiest people to Ban it and arrest the founder....
The first ban on RSS was after the assassination of Gandhi and that too was rebuked by the Hon.Court against the wishes of ruling Congress. It is well documented.....
So in which thoroughly sourced documents you saw these junk facts which are far from truth but also superficial.... I am sure may be in some waste left centric books, which are dejected in most of the scholarly institutions for their prejudice, anti national and self centric writings.
In both the case, RSS was never blamed by the people, instead RSS grew strongly during these times. This should suffice for removal of those inflammatory lines.
I have verified the page 187 mentioned in "Women And The Politics Of Violence|year=2007|"publisher=Har Anand|isbn=978-8124108475|page=187|editor=Taisha Abraham}}
She is a peculiar lady , where each page contradicts the other statements. In page 187 She mentions the formation of "Simithi" on request of Mrs.Kelkar to train the women both physically and culturally. It talks about the inclusion of the women in the male dominated Sangh, separate training for them in martial arts (Which martial arts- she does not mention but says "including shooting", come on man,as if British kept quiet on a private organisation using arms in public). Reason for training..some imaginary fears against muslim thugs.( She forgets to say self defence). What a junk of writing, even after independence and 50 years of that RSS is not given permission to use arms for training, she says it was done in British times.... What RSS is prominently is training with sticks and encourage Kalaripayattu an earlier and original version of Karate.
In page 187, women were prominent union workers and working class militants... She herself calls this on women. Which women?, a working class society in Bengal which also participated in revolutionary freedom struggle, and she calls it militancy and terms women as militants.. She forgets comfortably that only a small, a very small proportion of women ( may be less than 2000 all over India ) participated directly, but this author does not fall short to call entire women as militants...
If you start publishing articles based on these waste of authors and junk of books, then pls find some better things to to... as you are misleading people who depend heavily on Wikipedia....and they deserve truth.
- It does not matter what you think you know. Your last paragraph, especially, is completely off the mark. Wikipedia does not care what the "people" think; it cares what reliable sources say. In this case, the statements in the article have been sourced. I am not providing the sources here, because they are in the article for all to see, and I don't want to waste time copying them. Even if you have a problem with the sources, you should never remove them without explanation. If you wish to have them removed, you have several options; you could start a discussion on the talk page, you could open a request for comment, or you could take the source to WP:RSN. Or, you could find a reliable source saying that the RSS never took part in such activities, and bring that up on the talk.
Greetings, Sorry for that and does not mean it personal. Iam presuming you for an Indian and hence assumes to know the Indian pre independence history. If you are from a foreign origin , I retract it and apologize for that words.
Iam from India and know RSS from past three decades. My entire family are in touch with RSS for more than 8 decades and knows much more about it than some self describe d authors.
Well I Am emailing RSS head quarters on this matter and ask them to get involved to get this stuff corrected.
Anyway , I Am in the opinion that, there is no need for these allegation ot be mentioned in Wikipedia which have never stood in the court, nor any court in India has convicted the organisation. There is no need for the people to include it solely based on some books.. To also note, you it has not mentioned of the several huge charities maintained by RSS even though there are many books to mention them.
- I've explained this once before; it does not matter at all what you know, you need to have reliable sources for it; otherwise, it will be promptly removed. Also, you should probably read WP:COI, since you have admitted a connection with the RSS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Saffron terror, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)