Talk:Varadaraja V. Raman/Archive 1

We don't

summarize the contents of someone's columns in news-dailies and mention them over an encyclopedic article. No reason, as to why this shall be an exception. ∯WBG^converse 04:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Contributing a chapter each to two books (one of which has been produced from a dubious predatory publication) is hardly a deed mention-able in prose; it might go to a listing of works, though. I see that you have been already given sage advice by David Eppstein in this regard. ∯WBG^converse 05:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Biographical detail of the sort of work done, and in a reliable source. You edit war to remove these for bad, emotionally driven reasons. Restore them and step away. You are compromised. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 05:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Gandhi assassinations

Restored summary mention of Raman's response to assassinations of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi due to additional source for reporting (Mississippi newspaper, so multistate reporting of Raman's response). Any thoughts? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please

discuss reverted edits. Two versus one and an involved closure does not a consensus make. ∯WBG^converse 14:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed. Let us discuss before you remove anything further. That you seem willing to do this now. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Did that a section up, which you thought to have generated consensus in your favor .... ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Fact that he was honored by highly notable peers and colleagues would be relevant even if no named award. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Are you fucking crazy? Irrespective of merits of our individual points, this was being discussed a section above.

  Once you got the canvassed creator of this page to break the one-one stalemate, you declared consensus to be in your favor and re-inserted the stuff.

  This is ABUSE of process. ∯WBG^converse 15:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Burden is yours to establish consensus to remove long-standing material. Accept that responsibility. And what canvassing? Hyperbolick (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Facts are published in reliable sources. “No one cares” seems not a good reason to remove. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• @Winged Blades of Godric: Look to articles generally on those appearing in televised works. Common practice is to both list in prose and have a table at the end. Conveying different information. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  How many GAs and/or FAs have you written? ∯WBG^converse 15:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Most Wikipedians haven’t. Not a reason to discriminate. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Hyperbolick, I have reverted your edit as I found it promotional and not supported with third-party reliable sources. Also, If you have conflict of interest, you must declare it. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 16:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for asking, I have no conflict of interest. Have edited dozens of articles in diverse fields no differently than this one without issue. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose to add to Raman's list of books, Glimpses of Indian heritage, 1989

Propose to add to Raman's list of books, Glimpses of Indian heritage, Popular Prakashan, 1989.

It is cited or noted in:

• Govind Vinayak Karandikar, Oṁkāra: four representative poems, Nirmala Sadanand Publishers, 1996, p. 91.
• Jaydipsinh Dodiya, Indian English Poetry: Critical Perspectives, Sarup & Sons, 2000, p. 29.
• U.S. Rukhaiyar, Studies in Indian Poetry in English, Sarup & Sons, 2002, p. 231.
• Elizabeth M. Dowling, ‎W. George Scarlett, Encyclopedia of Religious and Spiritual Development, Macmillan, 2006, p. 203 (suggested reading following an article by Raman).

Hyperbolick (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)