User talk:MBest-son

Reliable sources for ISKCON related articles

I have added some ISKCON related websites to the reliable sources notice board at [1]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ism schism for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not so and the notices related to it will be removed on substantial resolution of the above. MBest-son (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON work group

MBest-son, any thoughts on creating an ISKCON work group for biographies and ISKCON related articles? An example is, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will try to look at it shortly. Sorry for the delay on it, there quite a few undeveloped articles. MBest-son (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

It is important that you do a Google and Google News search for sources before nominating an article for deletion. In many cases, the sources exist, but the article's creator neglected to add them to the article. Please take another look at Howard Beckman and that article's AfD page. --Eastmain (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be care not to commit Vaisnava aparadha nominating valid pages for deletionSyama (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madloku Ganapathi

The article was not eligible for a speedy close, and the non-admin closure you performed was improper. Please undo your close. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was unclear about it. 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, the only vote for redirect was refuted. Of course, your actions have been questioned before, and this isn't the first time, so you're likely just trying to be disruptive.-SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Can you please undo this closure ? The decision between deletion vs redirect was not clear and early, non-admin closure does not seem appropriate. Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect is the obvious choice, but try for another few days on that one. 17:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a started a discussion on your recent closures at ANI. Please feel free to respond there. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Abe.I will follow on the link. (User) Mb (Talk) 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Urmila Devi Dasi

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Urmila Devi Dasi. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urmila Devi Dasi (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Swami B. A. Paramadvaiti for deletion

The article Swami B. A. Paramadvaiti is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami B. A. Paramadvaiti 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. Wikid ^as© 22:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrage! I should appeal it! --(User) Mb (Talk) 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD comments

I have noticed you getting challenged at AFD due to the often brief nature of your initial comment. The reason for this is simple, just saying "this is notable" and leaving it at that has long been considered an invalid position at AFD, and such comments are more or less ignored when evaluating consensus. When questioned you seem able to provide a more detailed reasoning, I would suggest you go ahead and add that reasoning in your initial remarks or you can expect to keep getting challenged like this. Note that this works both ways, we would be having the same conversation if you said "not notable." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]