Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:29, 17 December 2010

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria

Shortcut

WP:NEWCSD

Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be

Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.
Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully.
Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. These processes are more discriminating because they treat articles case-by-case, and involve many points of view; CSD sacrifices these advantages in favor of speed and efficiency. If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible, and avoids instruction creep.
Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise.

If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page.

this header: view • edit

Is G5 a "must"?

This is not in response to any incident in particular, but I would like some thoughts on when to apply G5 (creation by a banned/block user in violation of his/her ban). In my opinion, if a sock of a banned user is making solid articles, there's no reason to destroy perfectly valid content (not a copyvio, etc.) for the sake of following CSD "rules". The content would have been licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and thus acceptable if it were to have been written by ... any other other person. I think the point of G5 is to let admins easily get rid of new crap introduced by banned users, and I know that this has been discussed before, but I'd like to introduce some clarification into the CSD policy for G5. Now, some might argue that "banned means we don't want you here anymore", but there are cases such as a sock puppet creating pages when the main account is blocked, and then the main account is unblocked later—should the page be deleted still? etc. I'd like to hear if any such clarification is desired by the community, and how to word it, so comments are, as always, requested :) /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well my opinion is that it is not compulsory at all. If any other editor at all wants to keep the article then they can reject the speedy delete, or the admin can decline to delete it if they think it is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Our point here is to make an encyclopedia, and not to inflict maximum punishment on socks or troublesome users. Speedy delete is for non controversial deleting so if G5 is controversial for an article, it should not be applied. The focus should be on the ban and to stop the behaviour or clean up the mess related to the negative aspects that led to the ban. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, but I'm trying to figure out how best to clarify this in the policy (if even necessary), as I have seen (not recently) people claim that we can't allow banned users to edit no matter how good their edits are. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me, and I stick by it. I discuss further below, but in short, everything created by blocked and banned editors needs to be deleted without regard for quality.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling has always been the criteria is meant to be used when a banned/blocked user is recreating a deleted article in a manner that defeats the ban/block. (i.e - a sockpuppet account or an I.P) I never really thought in violation of their ban or block meant anything else. However the deeper issue might be how does one know the article is being (re)created by a banned/blocked user? If that is the underlying issue that maybe it does need clarification, although I agree with what Graeme said above: Speedy delete is for non controversial deleting so if G5 is controversial for an article, it should not be applied. For one extreme example take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 31 and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99. G5 clearly did not apply for over a year, but once the depth of it was uncovered and actions taken, G5 clearly applied, and I don't think the criteria would need any sort of further clarification if it happened again. As I said, an extreme example, but by the time that had all played out "perfectly valid content" was not really an issue, it was more of the "context" of who was behind it. Also G5 isn't, at the moment, specific to recreations, it is the more general "creations". In that sense G5 might not be the only criteria that could be used, however I feel the context is the "banned or blocked user(s)" wording. Are G1, G2, G3 and/or G4 more of an issue if it is also a G5? If context is the material was created "by (a) banned or blocked user(s)", than yes. Similarly, for example, A1, A7 and A9 are all subject to an admins reading of the articles presentation but a G5 on the same article would place it into another light all together. And for the wider question: I don't believe it isn't that "we can't allow banned users to edit", but, rather, what the user was banned for and, if banned, they should not be editing. In that context "we can't allow banned users to edit", or more correct - while banned a user cannot edit. (And if a user is not currently under a ban there would be no need to invoke G5 as they would not be "in violation of their ban or block.") Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a broader view of the criterion than Soundvisions does: I see it as a way of enforcing the ban/block and getting rid of anything written by a banned/blocked user. I would be open to deleting a page tagged for G5, no matter how original it was, if the creator were proven to be a banned/blocked user. However, I agree with the original poster and everyone else on one thing: it's not compulsory. How will deleting those solid articles and destroying perfectly valid content really improve the encyclopedia? While all pages created by banned or blocked users are subject to this criterion, I'd apply WP:IAR and decline speedies for solid articles with no problems other than G5 eligibility. Of course, the creating account should be blocked as soon as possible if it's not already been done, but that doesn't mean that the contributions must be excised 100%. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am missing something in what you said but you seem to have a more narrow view than I do. While I feel that if someone is blocked and/or banned they should not be able to edit anything while they are blocked/banned you seem to be saying you would invoke WP:IAR and decline a G5 for "solid articles with no problems other than G5 eligibility." The core polices that G5 are based on explicitly say the opposite: Wikipedia:Banning policy (The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good - Bans apply to all editing, good or bad) and Wikipedia:Blocking policy (Blocks may be implemented as a technical measure to enforce a ban. Such blocks are based around the particulars of the ban in question. Bans which revoke editing privileges to all of Wikipedia—that is, they are not "partial" — may be backed up by a block, which is usually set to apply for the period which the ban itself applies. - Blocking policy - Enforcing Bans). I don't see that G5 is meant to amend them in any way, only aid in enforcing them at an article level. However if it turns out the overall consensus is a block or ban should only apply to poorly written articles than clearly this criteria needs to be clarified (and the core policies will need to be reworded as well) because as currently written the words "in violation of their ban or block" imply that any user who is banned or blocked can not edit - period. Doing so it would place them in a clear violation of the guiding policies, no matter how "solid" or "valid" the article might be. (And before somebody brings it up - yes there is a clear difference between a topic/subject ban and an overall Wikipedia ban but one would hope the admin will look at the content *and* the context before enforcing or declining a G5 to make sure it is used in the correct context of the users block/ban.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the reason for the block/ban. There are people who can be very uncivil but write darned good stuff or do good housekeeping. On the other hand there are those who have been blocked for repeated DE, vandalism, CCI, and socking. There's no excuse for systematic socking and CCI of the kind that is used to fake consensus or FA or DYK. We have a couple of major issues at the moment, for example, where one sockmistress really thought we hadn't noticed all her 11 accounts, and had written dozens of articles and made hundreds of edits, every one a blatant plagiarism, and blithely continued. And see also Singing daisies where incredibly, the sockmaster has been allowed to roam free! The best thing to do there, IMHO, is to delete the lot, and anything else s/he writes from those IPs in future. Stuff from known socks is always suspect. The time spent trying to unravel all that would be better spent on going forwards, making new content in new(er) articles, and policing the new crap that comes in every five seconds. Just my two cents :) --Kudpung (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely everything created by a blocked or banned user should be deleted. The purpose is to make it fruitless for the editor to continue editing, and make him eventually leave. The level to which people tolerate socking frustrates me ... if all of us would be diligent in undoing and removing the edits made by socks, the problem would be greatly reduced. It's the fact that a sock's edits have a chance of sticking that encourages people to sock around blocks in the first place. Examining the edits, as Fetchcommms and Nyttend suggest, is extremely counterproductive: it encourages the socks to stay. I think of G5 as absolutely mandatory: if it was created as a result of block evasion, it has to go, even if the block evader managed to produce an FA quality article all on his own.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is no way for a persons viewing an edit history of an article to know if an account is a sockpuppet, no matter how blatant, if they haven't been following sockpuppet conversations. Perhaps there is a way to automatically note an account as sockpuppets in edit histories so reverting all their edits is even possible. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, our goal is to create a good encyclopedia, no to punish people. If a guy was banned for spamming, delete their spam, but never a good article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- G5 is a way to bypass WP:AGF when dealing with a banned user, given that the ban violation has to be regarded by itself as an act of bad faith. However, any contribution that is unquestionably constructive is to be kept. There's no point in deleting a contribution just to see someone else reinsert it shortly thereafter. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec)Although CorenBot does a good job, nothing beats gnoming around a lot and opening a tin of worms by coincidence from recognising editors' styles. The problem right now is what to do with the thousands of edits and the perpetrators where it is being discussed that WP:COPYVIO's If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately. is not being implemented harshly enough.Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 100% disagree, Blanchardb. Everything created by banned or blocked users should be deleted, no matter how constructive. The point is to drive the banned user away, and that is important. It's critical. The reason we are awash in socks is because of admins that try to treat them like editors. Don't do that. Delete, revert, block. Religiously and thoroughly. Eventually they will go away, even if it takes time and effort. If people won't process a G5, they should ignore it, not undo it and subvert the process by enabling socks.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting point, but if their work is non-copyvio, etc. and has been released under the cc-by-sa 3.0, why shouldn't we use it? (Even if another user posts it, as in the Ottava Rima text donation controversy a few months back?) If a banned user posted some original text on a blog, maybe, under the cc-by-sa 3.0, and someone saw it and added it into the article, but didn't know that the blogger was a banned user, would we delete it, even if it had been in the article for a year, or would compromise the article's quality, or something similar? I agree that we should not tolerate socking, but what if a user had been banned for something totally unrelated to their article writing? If a user who wrote 10 FAs was indef'd for making racist attacks, for example, but they then submitted text through another user that later became an FA, would we still delete it even though their block was not related to the writing at all? I agree that in cases like users who violate copyright often, we'll need to assume much of their writing is not OK and can be removed, but what about other cases? /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - We shouldn't use it because we want the editor to go away. That's the purpose of banning. We want them gone. Not kind of gone, or approximately gone, but gone. Using any of their material for any purpose encourages them to evade blocks again and contribute again. If you think an editor should have been topic banned instead of banned, that's fine: take it to Arbcom or ANI and make your case. But if they are contributing in violation of that ban, the contribution needs to be eradicated.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fetchcomms, it should be noted that porting text to this project from anywhere else requires that strict rules of attribution be followed; in at least one case that I am aware of, the text of a banned user that was imported was deleted because it was not properly attributed. More particularly, we need to avoid the concept that if a certain edit is made, and it's the same edit that was made at some point by a banned user, then that edit needs to be reverted and the account must be the banned user returned; that happens remarkably often. On the other hand, there are certain banned users whose edits may look fine, but because of the reasons for that particular ban, all of the account's edits should be reverted (and in some cases deleted, even if they appear to be fine). There's no single answer. Risker (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly an argument for saying that you shouldn't delete things if there is a reasonable doubt that it is actually the banned user making the contribution. That doesn't justify keeping it when there isn't reasonable doubt. If the edit is actually valuable, a legitimate editor will eventually make a similar edit.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's precisely why all constructive contributions must be kept, regardless of where they came from. Take a look at Pastor Theo (talk · contribs), who managed to become an admin before it was discovered that he was a sockpuppet of the banned Ecoleetage (talk · contribs). Are you going to unblock every vandal that Pastor Theo has blocked?

IMO socks of banned users can be dealt with the way you propose by looking only at their less solid contributions, that is, the ones where we can't tell right away whether or not they're constructive. Don't forget that a ban violation is quite sufficient to ovelook WP:AGF, but that does not mean all contributions are to be, in and of themselves, regarded as made in bad faith. G5 gives us the tools to deal with such contributions, but just because a rule exists doesn't mean it must be invoked in every single situation where it can apply. Common sense must prevail over rules. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is common sense to revert all contributions of banned socks, regardless of merit. It defies common sense not to. If you allow the banned editor to contribute, you encourage them to stay. Please do not encourage socking by retaining contributions by banned editors, and, most especially, don't remove G5 tags. If you personally wish to abstain from processing a G5 because you believe the contribution had value, fine. Don't remove the tag and interfere with the deletion process, though.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kww is correct in that It defies common sense not to (enforce G5). I wanted to also jump in down here because I think some key items I brought up in my response to Nyttend above are being overlooked down here. The idea with the thread was Fetchcomms wondered if G5 should be enforced for the sake of following CSD "rules" but I believe it goes beyond only *this* CSD policy/criteria - it is rooted in both the Wikipedia:Banning policy and the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. To possibly feel that a block or ban should only apply to poorly written articles and WP:IAR should be invoked for others (i.e - "perfectly valid content", "solid articles with no problems", "any contribution that is unquestionably constructive", "delete their spam, but never a good article", et alii) goes against the base polices, in particular sections of them, including, Blocking policy - Enforcing Bans and Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. They are fairly explicit and give a rather strong indication, without explicitly saying so, that WP:IAR should not be invoked. I don't see that G5 is meant to amend these policies in any way, only aid in enforcing them at an article level. In other words we can't have a root policy that indicates a zero tolerance for evasive editing and an enforcement criteria that implies, or explicitly states, some variation of "Only enforce if the article is poorly authored." While it is the G5 deletion criteria being discussed here, if any sort of "exemption" to the overall policy happens it should be changed at the source/s first and than G5 can reflect that change. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment on the contributor, not the content" - is that how it goes now? Removing sound material based on who contributed it is vandalism, nothing more, nothing less. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With banned and blocked editors, it has always gone that way. The vast majority of my edits are removing edits and articles by block evaders. I don't appreciate being called a vandal.—Kww(talk) 14:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't appreciate people removing sound content - especially if (by their own admission) they do little else. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should determine a more effective way to deal with socks, then. I personally would prefer it if the source of all edits was readily apparent, including the IP address of all editors. I would also like to be able to protect articles against IP ranges to make using socks to edit articles more difficult. Until then, we are stuck with cleaning up socks after the fact. If you want to refuse to clean, fine. Don't insult those of us that take up the task.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sound content, simply because of who contributed it, is vandalism. Deal with disruptive behaviour by all means - but the addition of sound content is not disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop referring to my edits as vandalism. It is not appreciated. The encyclopedia is improved by discouraging socking. That benefit outweighs any trivial improvement caused by an individual edit by an individual sock.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a general point, which I do not withdraw. That you chose to personalise it is your problem. If you don't like different opinions about the value of particular types of edit, then you are on the wrong website. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't appreciate people removing sound content - especially if (by their own admission) they do little else" is hard to interpret as not being personally directed.—Kww(talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which was a response to your own statement about your edits, in which you interpreted my general statement as being directed at you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember the distinction between "edits made by banned users must be reverted" and "you must revert the edits of banned users". Every member of this project is a volunteer, and no one has any right to insist that anyone actively do anything. No one can force an editor to mark a G5 article for CSD, and no one can force the first admin to review it to delete it. The social question of how rigidly the policy should be applied is actually somewhat apart from the policy itself, and there isn't really any way of (or benefit from) altering that. Changing the policy only shifts the midpoint of the spectrum; reducing the spread between those who enforce it rigidly and those who are more flexible, is only achievable through individual persuasion. Happy‑melon 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI - Discussion that relates to this. A user was blocked "for a period of 31 hours for edit-warring, disruptive editing" and than continued to do it after the block expired. They received a "last warning" over one year ago but, according to the discussion, they continued to make edits that "appear to have fallen under the radar -- reverted, yes, but not reported." The question would be, based on earlier comments, at what point does lifting a ban/block become irrelevant when the editor continues to make the same form of edits? In this case how broad, or how narrow, could G5 be used? This appears to have been a block based on repeated edits to one article, but once the block expired they have continued to make the same type of edits to the same article. Is it possible to only use G5 on one article, or one subject, for a current, or previous, blocked user who was not blocked for a wider reason? If so maybe *that* is what needs to be clarified. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't meet a reasonable definition of being in defiance of a block or ban, as she was neither blocked nor banned when the edits were made.—Kww(talk) 21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course once a block or ban is lifted G5 would not directly apply, but certainly doing the same thing as they were blocked for could fall under something like G1, G3, G4, G10, G11 or G12. FOr repeat offenders a further ban/block would have to be done outside of the "speedy" deletions policy. But that wasn't the root of what I was asking. As currently applied G5 only applies to users who are editing in violation of their block/ban. But the question was raised about what to do if/when those blocks/bans are lifted. (As in does one revert all the "acceptable" edits/article that were made in violation of the block/ban? If so than wouldn't the reverse of that also be true?) And, while a block/ban is active, if it was a topic/subject ban/block there is an underlying thought that implies work *only on that subject" could not be done. Again, currently G5 is specific, but also broad. A block/ban = no editing, no article creation, no file uploads, if *any* of that is done it could be subject to G5 deletion. But blocks and bans are done for more narrow reasons. That being the case, which is why I mentioned the issue above, and it seemed outside of that one topic/article the bulk of that users edits were fine I still wonder, based on the comments in this thread, if there any need for clarification of "topic" or "subject" bans/blocks vs a wider block/ban? While I disagree that a broad exemption should exist for "valid material" (or any like wording) I can find a middle ground that would clarify *if* a block/ban based on a single topic/issue should/could be G5 enforced *for* that single topic/issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think clarification is required: if an editor is topic banned, edits on other topics aren't in violation of that ban, and G5 wouldn't apply to them. There's no such thing as a "topic block": if we could get software to do that, life would get simpler.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well there you just brought part of my point. You said there is no such thing as a "topic block" but it is very common to see blocks due to a topic/subject specific reason. The one I mentioned stated: You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit-warring, disruptive editing at Amanda de Cadenet and related articles. By policy definition, I agree, the reach of a block is much wider than the topic ("A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is not able to edit any page, except (in most cases) their own user talk page.") and I think/thought how the "clarification" comes in is due to the fact users can be blocked because of something specific, such as a specific article, as well as be blocked for something wider, such as overall vandalism. My only thought is that comments such as "deleting good content is effectively vandalism" might be softer if it was in a context of "topic" vs "site wide." I think, as currently written, it follows the guiding policies and, by default, needs to be "religiously followed." Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement that G5 should not be religiously followed. As DuncanHill explains, deleting good content is effectively vandalism. Because bans are so useless, any banned user who wants to edit will edit regardless, and reverting/deleting their work is not only ineffective and pointless, it also is shooting ourselves in the foot generally. Clearly if a user was banned for pushing an agenda on a particular topic or whatever, reverting/deleting would be appropriate. But otherwise, we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

On a similar note, I think the whole banning thing is utterly pointless, when blocks suffice generally. As I mentioned, it's not actually possible to stop someone editing if they really tried hard enough. AD 20:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, you can't stop a banned editor from editing if he really wants to but the banning system does sort of work because for us to know if a new editor is a reincarnation of a banned editor, you first have to have duck. That is, he needs to do what got him banned before or else nobody will suspect he's a sock and ask for an SPI/checkuser. Therefore, banning does help prevent bad actions (or makes it easy to revert them). If a banned user creates a new account and does things completely unrelated to what he did before, let's call this "don't quack don't tell", short of checkusering all new accounts and recent IP edits, we'd never know it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, DuncanHill hasn't explained anything: he simply made an assertion. If the removal of the content is done to discourage block evasion, it isn't being done with an intent of damaging the encyclopedia, which is the definition of vandalism. It is possible to effectively prevent a banned or blocked editor from editing if people reliably revert and delete the blocked editor's additions. The only reason we have a problem with it is people that feel an obligation to evaluate the edits and preserve them. That attitude causes far more harm than the preservation of a banned editor's edits does good. The incremental good that any individual banned editor does is trivial when viewed from the perspective of a 3.5M article encyclopedia: the difference between a 3,499,999 article encyclopedia and a 3,500,000 article encyclopedia isn't worth discussing. The damage done by allowing blocks and bans to be meaningless is substantial, and needs to be avoided at all costs.—Kww(talk) 21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be done unintentionally, but it is done all the same. Removal of good content is always inappropriate. Actually, it's not possible to prevent someone contributing - they are easily able to create a new account or move to a new IP, and we are none the wiser. It's all very well playing whack-a-mole with an account you know is a banned user, but when you don't know (which is most of the time) there's no way to stop them. Hence why banning is unenforcable.

You may like to feel or believe blocks and bans actually make a difference, but to someone determined enough, they are but a minor hurdle. It is impossible, save for hardblocking every IP in existence, to stop someone editing. AD 23:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content created by a banned or blocked user is never inappropriate. When reverting, I scan to make sure that I haven't inadvertently reinserted vandalism. When it comes to an article created by a banned or blocked user, I delete it whenever the contribution hasn't been substantially edited by other editors. G5 is nothing but enforcement of our blocking policy, and that policy shouldn't be undermined by individual admins deciding that a particular blocked or banned editor should be allowed to contribute. For blocks and bans to make a difference, all admins needs to diligently enforce them. The only reason they become trivial is through lack of diligence. Softening G5 would both work against policy and provide admins with an excuse to not enforce policy.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, do you revert spelling corrections or removal of BLP offensive material if the editor is banned? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I scan for BLP problems when looking for vandalism. I wouldn't bother to pick through a large edit to retain spelling corrections, but wouldn't normally revert an edit that consisted only of spelling corrections. Neither of those issues has much to to with G5: the absence of an article can't cause a BLP problem or a spelling problem.—Kww(talk) 02:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bannedmeansbanned Getting banned isn't something that just happens, you've got to earn it. I don't even look at what I'm deleting or reverting if a banned user did it. As the policy says, no further reason is needed. If you want to change the criterion, you're going to need to change the banning policy first as that is the underlying principle the criterion is based on. Therefore this discussion is essentially moot until such time as WP:BAN is altered. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing by banned users may sometimes take complicated forms. To use a fictional example, User:X is banned for constantly promoting the Kingdom of Freedonia. An editor unaware of that might think that a slew of articles on minor Freedonian figures is a good thing, not realizing that there was already a discussion on that very issue. Also, as other have already said here, banned editors should be discouraged in every way from returning here. They are no long welcome, even if they come bearing gifts. As to the point of this thread, no admin must do anything. But they should be encouraged to revert or delete edits by banned users wherever they're identified. Will Beback talk 09:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor is banned, we can (and many of us do) revert their changes without actually having to look at them. This gives the most effective ratio of discouraging them to continue socking (as their edits don't stick anyway), without losing too much time reverting (you don't have to check: when they are the last contributor, just click rollback, no matter what they did to an article). That some people call the implementation of such basic ban policies "vandalism" is their problem, not ours. Weakening G5 will only encourage the creation of more socks. Fram (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how, Fram. I'd guess as soon as they were caught (which they would know because someone was reverting their edits), they would create a new account. If no one touched their edits, they would continue editing with a singular account. It's not anyone's fault that it's impossible to enforce bans appropriately, it's simply Wikipedia's open nature. Assume I was banned: you could block my account, hard block my IP range and continue to watch areas I edited for reincarnations of me. But what if I moved house, or to a new ISP? What if I used an internet cafe? There would be no way to stop me, and you wouldn't even be able to prove it was me. The banning policy, while good intentioned, is completely useless unless you know the editor is banned already. Hence why G5 is pointless - yes, their edits may be reverted if they are caught, but that's only if they are caught. A lot of the time they aren't - someone mentioned Pastor Theo, who was a banned user and managed to become an admin. That shows how brilliantly enforced bans are: walking right back in with a new account and becoming part of the "management". The whole thing is a joke, if you ask me. AD 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you were banned, how many times would somebody have to delete your work before you would get discouraged from returning? At first, perhaps, you'd take it as a challenge. But if you put hundreds of hours into creating articles that are then indiscriminately dismantled with little to no labor by others, I wonder if you will eventually give up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but as I explained, a lot of the time the banned user isn't even caught so makes the whole ban pointless anyway. AD 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly work copyright, so the blocked contributors I'm G5ing are usually serial copyright infringers, but I also believe that WP:CSD#G5 is an important part of making bans and indef blocks stick and discouraging sock puppetry. If they wish to return to contributing, they must negotiate an unblock or the lifting of their ban through proper procedures, not try to slip in through the side door undetected. Sometimes good content may be lost, but it is lost for constructive reasons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good use of G5, MRG. Thing is though, imo G5 doesn't make blocks and bans stick. In fact, I believe it does the opposite, and encourages banned users to create a new account that has not been discovered, so they can continue editing under the radar without the fear of an admin deleting everything they do. The fact we even have a "side door" for such editors to slip through goes to show how useless blocks and bans are. The very idea we even have sockpuppets shows the wiki system is weak and banned users make us a laughing stock. AD 12:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that, I think, is to improve our means of detecting and addressing socks, not giving up on stopping them. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we start going with real names, and a strict "one person, one account" policy, we're not going to get much better. At the moment, we generally rely on a few things: similar usernames, similar editing pattern and similar IPs. Checkusers are only run for suspicious looking accounts. Basically, we rely on the banned user slipping up, which doesn't always happen. I do want to point out that while I do think G5 doesn't really do much to stop banned users, and often removes good content for the sake of "showing them the door", I do understand its purpose and agree that it would work for some users, and is entirely appropriate for banned users with history of copyvios - we just can't take the risk. AD 12:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MRG's comments. Basically, G5 means that the presumption is that all contributions of a banned editor may be deleted without further regard. That minimizes the drama (the ultimate goal of some banned editors) and the disruption to the project. It's not about punishment. It's about doing what's necessary to get problem editors to go away. Will Beback talk 12:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant that it does not always work. The unhinged whackos who have their own subpages at WP:LTA aren't stopped by it, but they are the minority. For most users seeing anything they do get reverted or deleted does discourage them. For the few lunatics who do things like creating an account with the specific intent of having it detected and linked to their original account pretty much nothing works, but the more we deny recognition and simply revert block and ignore them the less fun it is for them. With those nuts it has always been a question of who will get tired of it first. Of course since we have new vandal fighters and admins all the time it's likely they will, it just takes a lot longer than with "normal" banned users. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates That Have No Links

I recently came upon a template which has only has redirects in it. This is because, over time, every article that was in the template was deleted, leaving only redirects. I had a quick look for Speedy Deletion of Templates to see if it was covered but I didn't see anything.

Surely this should be a speedy deletion case? Or if I just happened to miss it, could someone point me to where it is, kthanx? For the record, the template in question I saw was Template:Order of the Stick. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should take it to TfD. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, TFD is the best place for that. Although in general, such templates might fit under G8, for example if all links in it lead to articles deleted by discussion. Regards So Why 20:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such a template should probably be deleted, but it is far too rare of an occurrence to merit it's own criterion. It's possible you could roll your own using {{db-reason}}, but TFD can handle it just as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G8 seems best, but G6 could work, too, if it's totally unused. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeathBot

I'd like to see a bot created that doesn't just tag pages for deletion, but it actually deletes them. There would be certain triggers (and an area where users can agree on these triggers) that, when met, would cause the bot to delete a page. I'm calling this DeathBot for now. I'd start with a single trigger and build from there. These triggers would be unambiguous and likely to delete vandalism pages without affecting good-faith edits. For example, a user with fewer than 10 edits creates a page with any number of trigger words: faggot, penis, penus, ass, etc. The bot would just delete this, notify a log somewhere, and send a message to the user. There's about a 0.0003% chance that an article like this actually contains content worth keeping.

Thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 17:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't! Enough drama already without letting bots loose on speedies. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a valid reason, other than "please don't"? — Timneu22 · talk 17:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot could be relegated to just tagging articles for speedy deletion in the testing phase. I'm sure human admins delete more articles on accident than a bot ever would. Marcus Qwertyus 17:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Death.bot plz aside from the rather bitey name, mistakes at speedy deletion are already a problem without exacerbating them with a bot like this. Also Wikipedia is not censored, last time I looked we had hundreds of articles that legitimately contained the word faggot. If we decided not to cover Punk, Grunge, Rap and Grindcore music we could unleash a bot like this to delete their albums, but why pick on those genres? Ϣere SpielChequers 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually believe that a user with one edit that contains the word "faggot" is a non-vandalism edit? — Timneu22 · talk 17:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial proposal was for editors with less than ten edits not just one. However there are 462 articles currently containing the word faggot the vast majority legitimately. I've just looked through a handful of them and some of those were created or had the word faggot used among the early edits of those editors. So yes there will be occasions when a the word faggot is used correctly in an editors early edits, and even when it is used for an unimportant garage band that merits an A7 deletion it would be bitey to do so by bot and as an attack page. If you want to improve the speedy deletion process please remember there are two key questions you need to be able to answer, How does this proposal reduce the number of incorrect tags and deletions? and How does this proposal make the speedy deletion process less bitey to newbies? My view is that your suggestion fails both tests. Also I'm not convinced that you could do this with an error rate of 3 in a million. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we limited to the first edit, or a new page created within 5 minutes of the account creation, 3 in a million wrongs does seem accurate to me. — Timneu22 · talk 19:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't to me. You'd be surprised how many deathmetal and other modern music ensembles think that the path to music fame starts with a song title that will outrage the Daily Mail and get them banned by the BBC. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's A7-garage and we're still coming out ahead. I'm really here just suggesting that some vandalism could be handled immediately and completely, and accurately. — Timneu22 · talk 02:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between a G10 and an A7 candidate. Treating authors of A7 articles the same way as authors of attack pages is newby biting not deletionism. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't admin bots on Wp:PEREN? Tagging for human review is fine by me; executing the deletion without human input is not. If we want to start an admin bot, why don't we give cluebot (which has an established history) block abilities first? False positives, you say? What makes you think this would be any more accurate? Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, see Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Bots_with_administrative_rights. There are a few admin bots. In fact we do have at least one which deletes pages under CSD (but only in very clear cases: User:7SeriesBOT). That said, this proposal (DeathBot) does not strike me as sensible, considering the potential false positive rate, and also I doubt it would actually delete many pages. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, there was a general consensus that if a bot should be allowed to delete pages, then only when there is virtually no chance of false positives. The proposal above does not fit in that consensus. Also, it's imho a solution in search of a problem. Speedy deletion works fine at the moment, the days with more than 500 requests are long gone. So why complicate it? Regards So Why 23:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a "chance of false positives" with this proposal? — Timneu22 · talk 02:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, there are legitimate situations in which articles contain such words and there is no reason to assume that new accounts will never create such articles. Also, there is no problem for this proposal to solve. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 13:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would just be helpful to have certain articles get deleted. That's all I was offering. I'm a deletionist, you're not. There's a clear difference in our thinking. I just want crap to disappear immediately, but you tolerate it. — Timneu22 · talk 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the articles that merit speedy deletion as they already go quickly. This is about creating a bot that will automate it and as a byproduct also delete a few random articles that don't meet the deletion criteria and insult a bunch of goodfaith newbies by calling their non-notable article an attack page. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit. It's only about creating a bot that would delete an article by a one-edit user when the article contains various keywords. Nevermind. Trying to help, getting shot down, as usual, by the non-deletionists. — Timneu22 · talk 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that anything but the vast majority of the articles that this proposal would delete are inappropriate, nor that the inappropriate ones should be kept. We're just talking about ensuring that false positives from new editors do not receive BITEy treatment. I'm all for deleting the vandalism... just not for throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's NO justification for trying to cast this disagreement a deletionist/inclusionist matter. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that we have a system of edit filters that flags many such inappropriate articles for attention--which they quickly get. I've certainly noticed a remarkably lower frequency of such stuff than 2 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timneu, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V. It looked like a good idea when the RFBA was submitted, but once the people who work on speedies were notified of this project, all hell broke loose, and the idea was eventually abandoned. The three-day test run that has been granted was aborted in a matter of minutes, and the bot has never edited again. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if an article meets two criteria?

Let's say I think an article should be tagged with {{db-spam}} and {{db-company}}; what should I do? Should I use both tags, or should I mention it on the article's talk page? Do admin's always read the talk page before the accept or reject a WP:CSD? — Fly by Night (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say tag with whatever appears appropriate - and if two tags both seem appropriate, then I do not see why you shouldn't use both. Some admins read the talk page, some don't even read past the tag, it's a bit of a lottery which sort you get. DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template {{db-multiple}} exists precisely for that kind of situation, but its use is not required, nor is it absolutely necessary to tag an article for all applicable criteria. My order of priority is G10-G12-A7-G11-others.
More often than not, when G11 applies, A7 does too. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect. {{db-multiple}} is exactly what I was looking for. I might think that an article should be deleted under two criteria, when in reality it just misses one of them. I tag for the missed criterion and the speedy gets rejected. Thanks a lot for that. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately db-multiple adds a poor deletion reason when deleting. as it summarises with the codes rather than text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't speedy deletion speedy?

I've been tagging some articles for the last couple of days and I've noticed that speedy deletion is anything but speedy. I tagged a four word article last night, and it wasn't deleted until this morning. It must have been 12 hours after it'd been tagged, and there was no {{hang on}}. Why is this? Is there a massive back log? (I know it's speedy compared to WP:AfD and WP:PROD, but the articles I tag for CSD are usually no-brainers; just silly wastes of server space.) — Fly by Night (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, take this article. Some boy's just added himself. I tagged it with CSD A7 three hours ago. He's used {{hang on}} saying that he's adding more references. But A7 is nothing to do with verifiability; it's about notability. He can add as many references as he wants about the videos he's put on YouTube, about when his grandfather died or about which high school he went to. That doesn't change eligibility for A7. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that it gets deleted when a patrolling admin has time to get over there to look. Generally there is no urgency, so sitting in the queue is not a problem. Also you can consider speedy deletion is simply a quick alternative to WP:AFD. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that doesn't really answer my question. I already said that "I know it's speedy compared to WP:AfD and WP:PROD." — Fly by Night (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you're aware, the term "speedy" is only in comparison to other routes that require more community discussion. There's a valid reason it's not called "instant deletion" or "immediate deletion".

Because the admins who perform deletions are volunteers, deletions are performed when the admins have time to address deletions - and those admins have other activities both on and off Wikipedia. As Vegaswikian mentioned, there's generally no urgency. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speed does in fact refer to process speed vs. clock speed, but I agree that speedies should generally be handled more quickly than what you describe. Don't take it personally if non-notable people get articles for a few extra hours--make sure the tag sticks, and it will be handled eventually. To fix the speed at which they're handled, recruit clueful and polite people to run for adminship or admins to help process speedy deletion... Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen a few RfA's, I wouldn't have to so much as recruit them, as pressgang them :-) — Fly by Night (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fact Jack :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the article in question, warned the contributor about autobiographies, warned him that he must change his username, and nominated another article created by him for AFD. Sorry if I wasn't fast enough for you, some of us prefer to do things thoroughly rather than quickly. When my admin paycheck gets here faster I'll work faster. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touché — Fly by Night (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that there is a rough triage taking place, and that the worst articles (sheer nonsense and attack pages, for example) get deleted first, while others may take a little longer. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Attack pages are usually gone within five minutes. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attack pages light up on the admin dashboard or whatever the hell it's called (an admin would probably know better than I), so they generally get noticed more quickly. It's important to be sure that a page is actually an attack page, but if it is you should definitely use G10 because it will get the article deleted much faster than using another tag, and with attack pages it can be urgent. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of {{hang on}}

I've noticed common abuse of the {{hang on}} template. I'll tag an article for speedy deletion, then the user adds {{hang on}} but then either does nothing, or carries on adding rubbish. The template is to give time so the article creator can make his/her case on the talk page; but they very rarely do. They ignore the talk page, they ignore their own talk page, and they just carry on. They abuse the template to buy more time. It seems that admins allow this to happen because a CSD'd article with {{hang on}} very rarely gets deleted that day; even when the article's talk page is still a red link. What can we do to stop this abuse? — Fly by Night (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give hang on no special weight. If it's wrong and isn't going to be fixable, if the hangon rationale is inappropriate, or if it's not been fixed in an hour or two, it generally gets deleted anyways. But I'm not terribly active in speedy deletion handling recently. Do you find that this "abuse" actually results in harmful articles staying around long-term when they otherwise would or should not? Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases this happens when the article is created by a newbie editor who really doesn't understand that they've done something wrong. "Hangon" sometimes means "hangon while I try to get up to speed on wikipedia policy from a standing start". I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for admins to be a bit less aggressive about deleting those pages, provided the article isn't significantly harmful. I mean, I get as annoyed as anyone about the flood of articles about "upcoming" bands, but letting the article be for a little while longer doesn't do any real damage to the project, and it might be just a little bit less bitey for new editors. I don't really think it's fair to describe this as "abuse" - it's generally just a new editor who doesn't understand what's going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thparkth (talk • contribs) 02:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For new editors, it's sometimes harder to figure out how to use talk pages then it is to edit articles (liquid threads might help here) so I can see giving them some slack. For users who have been around for a while and have talk pages full of warnings for constant recreations of speedy deleted articles, inappropriate uploads of non-free images, and zero edits to any talk spaces, there is no excuse. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point there. I hadn't thought of it like that. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I didn't sign my comment. Deeply embarassing ;). Thparkth (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You timed it, so I think you used five tildes instead of four. You might say that you over-signed it :-) — Fly by Night (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes a difference. What I object to is when the creator removes the CSD template. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct that removing the CSD template is always caught by a bot or edit filter? If so, it can simply be reverted on the ground the user did not read or understand--I see no reason for this being considered a major problem. Obviously, if it is is repeated it becomes serious, but the effect will be to focus attention on the deletion of the article in question. (Ditto with abusing hangon--there are a few a day where the hangon request is patently ridiculous, and for me it simply leads to greater certainty in making the deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the creator removing a CSD tag or a bot tag for a copyvio (from CorenSearchBot or VWBot) trips a filter; it'll show up with Tag: Speedy deletion template removed or Tag:Copyvio template removed. Usually editors figure out not to remove the tag after one or two warnings, but if it's obvious they won't stop doing it I report it to AIV. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request clarification of F7

Non-free images or media from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately.

From the above sentence it seems to me that the only time a non-free image is allowed, ever, is if the article discusses that particular image itself, not the event, not the organization if the image is a logo. The only non-free images that are not subject to immediate deletion are those where the one specific file being used is the actual subject of the article or section. That seems kind of beyond the ten criteria for use as outlined in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Colincbn (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The particularly restrictive version of the rule you cite above goes specifically for commercial news agency sources – i.e. sources where we know the copyright holders make a systematic business of licensing re-publication in media, including websites like ours, for money. If such a company possesses a valuable image that uniquely shows an important event X, and they want to make money by selling licenses to people who want to report on event X on their websites, showing what event X looked like, and we use the image for pretty much the same purpose (showing what event X looked like), we are directly infringing on its market role. In such cases, the only way of justifying "fair use" is if we have a bullet-proof case of "transformative use", i.e. we are using the image in a radically, qualitatively different way from what others are doing – typically that means we are citing it in order to talk about it, rather than just showing it in order to illustrate the event. With images that come from other sources with less of an immediate commercial interest, we can afford to handle this slightly less restrictively. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, part of my interpretation comes from the fact that it does not say a commercial news source under f7. It says a commercial source. I think you will agree that the wording should be changed if that is in fact the intent. Colincbn (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I see your point of course. Colincbn (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now that you mention the distinction, some of those companies (e.g. Corbis, Getty etc.) also deal with historic images that are not directly related to current news reporting, so leaving it at the more general "commercial" is probably better. The main criterion is that they systematically deal with image licensing as their source of business revenue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, good point. But I still think that needs to be reflected in the wording as "commercial" means just about anywhere. Colincbn (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording came from long existing wording. "Commercial content provider" appeared to be a somewhat happy medium. For reference, the original CSD policy wording used this: for images, examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries, such as Getty Images or Corbis, or other commercial content providers. Only a small part of that wording carried over when specific image (now "file) criteria were created (This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis.) so it ended up taken out of context quite a bit. Part of the issue had been that, because it said only "stock photo libraries", specifically saying "news agencies" as a reason would cause people to argue that such material was not covered by a policy. And when one tried to discuss a more detailed reason, because explicit examples "as Getty Images or Corbis" are used, it led to "discussions" that *all* other commercial content was fine. On the other end of this, and the "guiding" policy for this, the fair use policy was adopted using wording based on U.S copyright law, so it was a bit wider (still is) that "Respect for commercial opportunities" must be met. Which is most always applied to content from *any* commercial content provider - A.P, Getty, Corbis, E.P.A, P.A, et al. My suggestion for wording here had been to say "files from press and photo agencies" or even expand on the original wording saying "Examples of commercial content providers that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock and press photo libraries such as the Associated Press, Getty Images, Corbis and Press Association" but a editor felt it was too wordy so it became "from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty)" by default.

The two best "non-policy" explanations of policy I feel are found in:

1. Signpost - September 2008 - Wikipedia-wide criteria, 2. Respect for commercial opportunities: Example that fails: An image of a current event authored by a press agency. Certain press agencies market photographs to media companies to facilitate illustration of relevant commentary. Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image

2. The {{Non-free historic image}} tag says, in part: Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)

Of course those also specifically say "press agencies" and do not mention "photo agencies." I, personally, feel "Commercial content provider" is better as it is true that "commercial source" is almost any source. I think there have been three basic/core opinions on this always - very explicit, general explicit, vague explicit. The "very" could be too wordy and there is the idea that "Everyone knows what it means without being so explicit." The "general" is sort of what it is now with the idea being "Everyone knows that it means press *and* photo agency material". The "vague" is how many editors feel all policy should be at Wikipedia. Most of the time the "general" wins out. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange article

hello,

I recently found this, but I couldn't find any criteria here, that could fit. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a hoax and there are some sources backing up the text of the article. I would question the overall subject/article title however. None of the speedy criteria would fit this article however. If you feel the article itself should be questioned you could send it to AFD, if you feel the articles title (Egyptian shark attacks conspiracy theory) is misleading you might bring it up on the talk page and suggest a move to a more appropriate named article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tag it as an attack page, per CSD G10. The article does include references, but they seem to be totally out of context. If a G10 fails then hit it with an AfD and it'll be gone within the week. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to scrape around for a speedy criterion, then it's probably a bad idea to use speedy. We do have prod and Afd! DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w g10. — Timneu22 · talk 23:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How in world is this an article that "disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose"??? Or are Fly by Night and Timneu22 being silly? I don't feel this article, that is mostly about sharks attacking, is really there to "disparage or threaten" anymore than Suicide attack is/does. I do admit the title comes off as somewhat misleading but I honsetly had no idea there was ever any "conspiracy theory" about such things until I checked the sources, one of which is a Newsweek article that is subtitled Shark attacks in Egypt prompt charges of outsider sabotage of tourism., and contains this: In an interview with a TV talk show Monday, the governor of South Sinai, Mohammad Abdul Fadhil Shousha, came up with this gem: “What is being said about the Mossad throwing the deadly shark in the sea to hit tourism in Egypt is not out of the question. But it needs time to confirm.” I would agree with the idea that, according to the same Newsweek article, The problem is that those oddball theories are actually masking the seriousness of the issue. Yes the article might come off as a potential G3 if one doesn't look at the valid sources, but G10? Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queston about G7

I happened to notice the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simon_Williams_(comic_artist). In this case, it is clear that the user who created the page didn't actually want the page deleted, but said to go ahead with deletion out of frustration with the page being nominated for deletion. After the page was deleted, the page creator posted an additional comment which made it clear that he was very upset that the page was deleted. I'm asking about this here because I'm really uncertain if G7 was meant to apply when a page creator doesn't think the page should be deleted, but has nevertheless posted a comment saying that the page should be deleted. Is G7 appropriate in such cases, or is it only appropriate when the page creator actually wants the page to be deleted? Could some clarification on that perhaps be added to the G7 description or to the explanations subpage? Calathan (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's spirit of the rule that's important and not its exact wording. If people thought the article should have been deleted then there's a good chance it did. If someone issued a PROD then we can be sure the creator would be the only one that objected; forcing a week long AfD. By the user consenting to deletion we know he wouldn't contest the PROD, the PROD would stand and the article would be deleted... in a week's time. Using CSD G7 allows us to skip that and remove a non-notable article without it hanging around for a week. I think the user realised that the article needed to go, and his final comments were just a bit of drama: laying a guilt trip, calling us snobs and vowing never to use the site again. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw the article in question, so I have no idea how close or far it was from meeting the notability guidelines. I was just surprised that it got deleted as a G7. My assumption had been that G7 was only for cases where a person actually wanted the article deleted. While you say the spirit of the rule is what's important, if different people think the spirit of the rule is something different from reading it, then I think the wording needs clarification. Also, I don't think the user thought the article needed to go. I think he still has no idea how the notability guidelines work and didn't understand why the article was being deleted. Calathan (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point about the interpretation. I tagged an article for something a while back and, between tagging and an admin seeing it, the article was improved so that it didn't meet the criteria. But the admin deleted it, per {{db-blanked}}, shortly after because the user blanket the article. So in that case, implied consent was enough to delete per CSD G7. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Fly by Night says often happens, and I will frequently suggest just that to authors of articles I move from speedy to prod because they do not fit a speedy reason, but are essentially hopeless. My usual wording is: If you decide that the article cannot meet our standards, you can facilitate matters by placing at the top a line reading : {{db-author}} . But on the other hand , if I se someone deleting an article of theirs that appears to have considerable promise, I'll query them before deleting. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight extension to G8 or F5

I think we should expand the scope of CSD G8 (pages dependant on deleted pages—redirects, talk pages etc) and/or F5 (unused non-free media) to cover fair use images (such as logos and album covers) whose only use was in a deleted article. I often delete such images citing F5 with a note in the deletion log to say that it was only used in a deleted article, and, since they're only going to be deleted anyway after they've been orphaned for a certain number of days, I think it might be an idea to codify it in the policy. Not a new criterion as such, just slightly expanding the scope of existing criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already delete non-free media when I delete the only article using them, e.g. with PROD. I've been doing this for months, and have yet to hear anyone complain about it. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, but it's not universal practice (like deleting the talk page and like deleting redirects should be), hence my suggestion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should update the deleting instructions to make it clear then. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial undiscussed moves

Over at WP:RM, it's common to see the following sequence of events:

User A decides to rename an article - and does so without consensus (usually with no discussion at all)
User B objects to this, and submits a move request at RM to put it back
User B has to defend his position and convince an admin of its merits

What should happen is this

User A does his undiscussed controversial page move
User B objects to this, and speedies it (G6, perhaps)
Admin C agrees, and restores the article

Now, if User A really thinks he's in the right, he'll have to go to WP:RM and seek consensus for the move, which is what he should have done in the first place. The onus needs to be on User A, not User B. The current system rewards those who don't seek consensus.

I've been thinking about this for some time, and decided to make a request after it happened lately at Yahweh. --JaGa^talk 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In actual practice, I've never had any trouble getting such moves reversed by way of the "Uncontroversial requests" section at WP:RM. However, this is directly at odds with the stated scope of the section ("if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial", and the original mover surely could reasonably disagree with an attempt to reverse their move), so there's at least room for clarification here. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inability of admins to recognize patent nonsense

There seems to be a clear inability for admins to understand patent nonsense. As described: Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history.

The following is GIBBERISH WITH NO MEANINGFUL CONTENT, yet an admin refused patent nonsense???

New article name

                     Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Narayana Maharaj 
                            JAYA JAYA RAGHUVEERA SAMARTHA

                                       PRELUDE

Portrayal of the biography of a Saint is a formidable venture. I shudder to embark upon such an arduous task, particularly when it relates to a Saint of the zenith order viz. His Holiness Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Narayana Maharaj. I perfectly realize that I am unequal to the task, being bound by my innate limitations. Nonetheless, I feel compelled by some force from within, that I should make a humble contribution for the enrichment of joy of myriads of disciples and devotees of Guru Maharaj who yearn to hear more and more about Him. I prostrate at His Lotus Feet and pray to shower His Grace out of pity and compassion for me in order to make my endeavor a success.

His Holiness Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Narayana Maharaj is the personification of “Sadguru Tathwa” as defined in Guru Geetha by Maheswara. He is verily the incarnation of Sri Kalyana Swamy Maharaj, the most beloved disciple of Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Ramadasa Swamy, the founder of ‘Samartha Sampradaya’. Great men acclaim Sri Samartha Ramadasa as an apostle sent on earth to bring about renaissance of ‘Sanathana Dharma’ which was on the wane, through the regal medium of Sri Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj. Sri Ramadasa Swamy is Lord Hanuman Himself. Maruthi descended in Kaliyuga in that personality to rejuvenate the spiritual perspective of life in the humanity at large.

The Guruji whose memoir is the subject of this book viz. Sri Sri Sri Samartha Narayana Maharaj is the eleventh in the sacred lineage of Acharyas of ‘ Guru Parampara ‘ of the renowned Sampradaya popularly hailed as the Samartha Sampradaya referred to supra. His Swaroop is beyond one’s comprehension. His ways are mysterious.

There is nothing in the universe made up of the five elements to be compared with ‘Sadguru’ whose supremacy is par excellence. Sri Sadguru Samartha Maharaj squarely answers the description of Sadguru Tathwa as extolled thus in Guru Geetha verses.

“Brahmanandam Parama Sukhadam Kevalam Gnana Moorthim Dwandwa theetham Gagana Sadrusam Tatwamasayadi Lakshyam Ekam Nithyam Vimalamachalam Sarvadhee Sakshi Bhutam Bhavatheetham Triguna Rahitham Sadgurum Tam Namami.”

Sri Guru Maharaj is Maharudra, adoring as he does, the aforesaid Samartha Sampradaya the founder whereof is Samartha Ramadasa Swamy, the incarnation of Maruthi who is Maharudra Avathar is ‘Dasa Janodharana’ or emancipation from the snares of illusion, of the souls of those who unreservedly surrender to him.

He is not confined by limitations of space, the very ‘Brahmanda’ as a whole being his abode. He is omnipresent. He belongs to ‘Udasa pantha’ the path of absolute renunciation or detachment from mundane affiliations which is the quintessence of Vedantha for he can sift the truth from the myth like a royal swan discerning the water from milk “Udasinatha thathwatha sara ahe” _ Manachi Slok _57. None can fathom the depth of his inner self, by any extraneous means or gestures. His ‘Mudra’ being ‘Alakshya’ forbidding dualty. He dwells in ‘Brahaman’ in utter identification with the cosmos, seated as it were in ‘Sidhasana’. His pursuits are untrodden and unintelligible because of his perspective unique in character and in accord with ‘Shat darshanas’ (Nyaya Vyseshika, Sankhya, Yogs, Meemamsa and Vedantha) constituting the medium for unraveling the spirit of the scriptures (Vedas). In other words, none can comprehend the mystery of his mission, imperceptible and unimaginable. Because of the absolute State of ‘Atma Nivedan’. He is Paramathman in Eternity! He is ‘Vimala Brahma’ since all barriers of Dwaitha are broken asunder in effulgence of His vision. He is Sadguru, the elevator. He is ‘Samartha’ the series of titles or appellations which are inherent attributes of Guru Maharaj found in the ennobling expression of commendation which runs thus. “ Jai Maharudra Dasa Janodhara Brahmanda mata, Udasa Pantha, Alakshya Mudra, Sidhasana, Shatdarshana Nimitha gumani pantha chalile, Atma Nivedana, Vimala Brahma, Sri Sadguru Samartha Narayana Maharaj Ki Jai ”.

                    The following sloka gives a glimpse into this thatwa.

                            “ Shruthi Nyaya Meemamsake Tharka Sastre
                              Smruthi Veda Vedantha Vakya Vichitre
                              Mana Sarva Janeeva Sanduni Rahe ”

Can any one on earth describe or praise Sadguru in a befitting manner. A strict “NO” is the exact answer for the question. No greater a Saint than Sri Samartha Ramadasa swamy declared in His Grandharaj Dasabodh, in unequivocal items, that the only way in which we can extol the Guru is to express without reservations that justice can not be done in this behalf except by admitting our incapacity or incompetence.

Saints cannot be judged by mundane measures or standards; nor can they be understood by human intellect. They live in a realm to which we cannot gain access with all our worldly attachments and egoistic assumptions. Saints also do live amidst us but we fail to recognize or identify them. For all external appearances they look like ordinary human beings whose physical form they too have adopted; nay very often, far less in prominence than human beings in advancement in the way of life as we conceive it. For lack of the right perspective, we can never gauge their inward stature. They are ‘jeevan Mukthas’. The purpose of their existence is to elevate the mankind from the bondage to which it has succumbed or to uplift them from the mire of illusion. They have their own modus operandi to make their task an accomplished fact.

Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Narayana Maharaj is an Avathar of stupendous significance in the history of times. The purpose of this Avathar and its bearing on the need of the times can not be adequately explained. Every inch of land on which He treaded was hallowed by His advent. He was vested as it were, with powers carte blanche in order to fulfill Hie Mission of moulding the masses to sublimation and elating the mankind to spiritual heights. He traveled through the length and breadth of the country like a ‘Jangama Kshetra’ or a holy place of veneration mobile in character, to be within the easy reach of a devout and deserving aspirant for eternal bliss.

Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Ramadasa Swamy is undoubtedly Maruthi incarnate as already indicated. When there was in Bharatha Varsh, a deplorable set back for the glory of righteousness or Dharma enjoined by the scriptures and when there were inroads into the very edifice of the Arsha culture, Maruthi manifested in that Avatar, Maruthi is eternal(Chiranjeevi) like His Lord Rama. His manifestation occurs invariably in all the Yugas, having for its object the transmission of the power of Rama nama in the entire universe as a measure of expediency. As the Legend Ramayana reveals Bharath Maharaj, the younger brother of Sri Rama Chandra Prabhu shot an aroow in ‘Thretha Yuga’ at Hanuman who was flying rapidly with the Holy Mountain ‘Sanjeevani’ to the place where Sri Lakshmana Swamy had sunk into trance during the warfare in Lanka, under a misapprehension that He(Hanuman) was an enemy. Although he realized his folly very soon after Hanuman fell down alongwith with the mountain and immediately and dispatched the mountain together with Hanuman at greater.speed by releasing another arrow from his quiver, He very much repented for having unwittingly caused insult to Hanuman and resolved in mind to serve Him as a menial in order to purge himself of the sin he perpetrated. Purusnat to the vow so pledged, Bharatha availed the opportunity of the advent of Sri Samartha Ramadasa Swamy on earth and took Avathar to become his disciple.

An incident which saddens our hearts occurred towards the end of His Avathar. Sri Sri Samartha Ramadasa Swamy disappeared from the sence at a time when He the Sishya, Kalyan who would not otherwise, as He felt, allow the Guruji to leave the mortal coil in that manner. Coming to know of the Niryana of Guru Maharaj, Sri Kalyan Swamy bade the remains of the physical body of the Guru to be preserved securely until he himself had fulfilled the task assigned to him in this world, such that his own ashes also be later joined with hose remains of the Guru for immersion in the holy Sarayu_Ganga. Some of the sishyas who were ignorant of however hastened to carry the remains of Sri Samartha Ramadasa Swamy to the river Ganges even when Kalyan was alive. This news proved far-reaching in deed. Sri Kalyan Swamy was very much perplexed over this sudden and unforeseen turn of events and was caught in bewilderment. There was immediately a revelation in his mind that the sankalpa of His Guru was otherwise. Consequently He surrounded the physical body instantaneously and unmindful of his unfulfilled assignment such that his original intention was carried into effect. It is to fulfill such unfulfilled assignment that He appeared on the scene once again in the Avathar of our Gurudev (Samartha Narayana Maharaj) and resumed service as disciple to His Guru who by then had incarnated as Sri Brahma Chaitanya Maharaj. Samartha Narayana Maharaj is thus undoubtedly the incarnation of Sri Kalyana Swamy Maharaj as the followers of Samartha Sampradaya have every reason to believe. The words “Avathara ghe seethu Kalyan Swamy” in which the Guruji is extolled in the Harathi Song sund everyday by sishyas are richly pregnant with this meaning. One more pointer to this truism is found in the significant circumstance that on the very day of Ashada Suddha Trayodasi according to the Hindu calendar on which Sri Kalyan Swamy laid down his mortal coil, our Master Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Narayana Maharaj also attained Rama Ikya in the year 1990 corresponding to Pramodutha Namr Samvatsara. The avatara karyakrama of our Guruji is unfathomable and incomprehensible.

                                       JAI SRIRAM

                               SAMARTHA GURU PARAMPARA

Samartha Guruparampara or the lineage of Acharyas in the Samartha Sampradaya can be traced back to antiquity as expounded in the famous anthem.

Adi Narayanam Vishnum Brahmanancha Vasishtakam Sri Ramam Maruthim Vande Sri Ramadasam Jagadgurum.

It is therefore clear that the lineage originated with Lord Vishnu who is Adi Narayana (the all-prevading Paramatman or the cosmic soul), the saguna form of the Nirguna Tatwa. The creator brahma who is the propounder of the scriptures (Vedas) is the next in the order. The third in the lineage is Brahmarshi Vasishta, the repository of knowledge (Gnana). Sri Rama, the embodiment of Dharma in Thretha Yuga occupies the place next after Vasishta. Sri Samartha Ramadasa Swamy, an incarnate form of Maruthi who took direct initiation from Bhagawan Sri Rama comes fifth in the holy order. The manifestation of Sri Anjaneya invariably in all the Yugas has for its object, the expediency of transmission of the power of Rama Nama in the universe as explained already. The following stanza from ‘Bhaishyothara Purana’ bears eloquent testimony for this belief as also for the factum of incarnation of Maruthi as Sri Ramadasa Swamy in Kaliyuga.

Sri Kalyana Swamy Maharaj to whom reference is made in the prelude adorns the sixth place in the order of the descent. Sri Bala Krishna Maharaj takes the Seventh place. Sri Chintamani Maharaj is counted next after Him as the eighth in the Paramapara. Thukaram Maharaj or Thuka mayi as He is reverently called is the ninth in succession. Sri Brahma Chaitanaya Maharaj comes on the scene in the adorable tenth position. Our beloved Guru, Sri Sadguru Samartha Narayana Maharaj is the eleventh in this lustrous galaxy.

Sri Sadguru Narayana Maharaj is Sri Kalyana Swamy himself who is the sixth in the lineage as aforementioned. The Samartha Guru Parampara is a nomenclature which it acquired in Kaliyuga after the advent of Sri Ramadasa Swamy who was awarded the title “SAMARTHA” by Lord Dattatreya in recognition of His supreme powers and irresistible capacities.

Sri Kalayana Swamy was beloved disciple of Sri Samartha Ramadasa Swamy. He unreservedly surrendered himself to the Guru. Sri Bharatha, the beloved brother of Rama took the avathar of Sri Kalayana Swamy Maharaj, out of volition for rendering service to Lord Hanuman appearing in the form of Samartha Ramadasa Swamy as pointed out in the Usmanabad District of Maharashtra. Mahurgad in Nanded District is the holy place where Sri Bala Krishna Maharaj lived and shed His mortal coil. Sri Chintamani Guru Maharaj took up Samadhi in Umerkar of Nanded District. “Elagau” of the same district near Paitan (the seat of Eknath Maharaj) is the place where the sacred Samadhi of Sri Tukaram Maharaj is found. In His conviction Lord Rama is the only Purusha in the entire creation and all other living beings are feminine in sex. He clad himself accordingly as woman always. ‘Gondavali’ on the banks of Managanga in the district of Satara is the place of veneration where Sri Brahma Chaitanya Maharaj lived and guided the devotees and ultimately choose to lay His body in rest in Maha Samadhi. Sri Samartha Narayana Maharaj who is the eleventh in the celebrated Guru Paramapara as aforementioned was born in Devanahalli (meaning hamlet of Gods) near Bangalore. How befitting is the name of the place where the Godly personality took his birth! His Samadhi is found in Harihara of the erstwhile Chitradurga District or the present Davanagere District in the State of Karnataka.

                                JAI SRIRAM

                      THE BIRTH OF HIS HOLINESS & HIS CHILDHOOD

The region of Karnataka is no less holy than Maharashtra, the land which has given birth to a catena of Saints. Devanahalli is a sacred place even as its name signifies; situate about 30 KMs away from Bangalore to its north. It is a small hamlet in Kolar District of Karnataka known for its spiritual fervor. It is a mystery how so appropriately was this place named as such with foresight so accurate that indeed the God (the embodiment of divinity) Himself chose ot descend down in this hamlet called Devanahalli which means the village of God. That God is verily our Gurudev, Sri Samartha Narayana Maharaj, and the Hero of this treatise.

Our Guru Maharaj hails form a renowned family of scholars (Shastri Vamsha) famour for erudition in the ancient scriptures. Sri Ugrappa Shastriji was His ancestor who had settled down in Devanahalli.

On festive occasions the Shastriji and hiw wife Seethamma who were of a charitable disposition used to distribute dhotis and sarees to the inmates of all the houses in the village where they lived. They rendered financial assistance and all possible service to anybody who sought for succour. They were kind to the poor, ready always to come to their rescue in their problems. The free feeding or the ‘Annadan’ was a never-ending feature at their residence. The worship of the cow or “Goseva” was also a very prominent and unique trait of their family.

The family Deity of Ugrappa Sastriji was Lord Narasimha. In fact, the Sastriji was named after that Lord. Although his name would signify or suggest an air of horror (Ugra bhava), his heart was soft like butter and tempered with mercy. In spite of all ennobling qualities which made up the personality of the couple, there was however a lurking discontentment in their minds for they were not blessed with children. The Lord Narasimha inspired them in a dream to adopt a boy for perpetuating the pedigree of the family. One boy by name Baburao was therefore taken in adoption according to the religious rites and customs prevalent in the Brahmin community. The burning problem of the pious spouses was thus given a quietus by the command of the Lord. The boy Babu rao renamed as Narasimha Sastry in the adoptive family. In the course of time, Babu rao alias Narasimha Sastry was also got married. The bride ‘Yagnamma’ was quite a good match for him. She possessed all the good qualities of a noble ‘Dharama Pathni’ of antique tradition. Ere long, Ugrappa Sastry was blessed with a grand son who was named Ashwartha Narayana Sastry. The long cherished desire of Ugrappa Sastry and Seethammma was thus fulfilled and their joy knew no bounds. It did not take a long time thereafter for Seethamma to make an exit from the world. With her departure did the mundane glory of the family also disappear.

Yagnamma begot a second son. Shortly after the birth of this child Ugrappa breathed his lost. To commemorate the name of the grand father, the child was fondly called ‘Ugrappa’ by his parents. The entire burden of the family was now cast on the shoulders of Narasimha Sastry who was by then in the thick of indigence, knowing not how to steer clear of the impending problems, the growing family was beset with. His wife Yagbamma delivered a third child who was given the name ‘Ahobala Sastry’. This boy when he came of age, became devoted to the sun god or a ‘Suryopasaka’. The fourth issue was again a male child, Subba Sastry carried the surname ‘Alur’, Subba Sastry because of the trait which he acquitted by accepting gifts of cows and affording maintenance and protection for them as explained infra in greater detail. Of the four sons of babu rao alias narasimha sastry, the first and the second of them, Aswartha Narayana Sastry and Ugrappa Sastry respectively had their schooling to a certain extent.The third and the fourth,Ahobala Sastry and Subba Sastry took to vedadhyana or study of scriptures right from their boyhood. They became proficient to in that direction. The first two sons Aswartha Narayana Sastry and Ugrappa sastry also got married in course of time and they left the ancestral Family with spouses having secured some employments has ostensibl means of living

Subba Sastry’s career was awe-inspiring he was a learned man but at the same time of a pious and polite disposition. Simplicity was his virtue. Having fully realized that all doer-ship in the world was to be ascribed or attributed only to Rama, he felt he had no reason to be proud either of his erudition or of other achievements. He was totally of the conviction that a human being or any living being in the universe for that matter was but an instrument in the hands of the almighty who was its commander. The cloud of poverty encircled the family but he was not moved by such a turn of events. The tradition of the family built up by his father and grand father was so high and surpassing that notwithstanding any such adverse circumstance, many people came forward to offer a bride to him but as God had ordained his marriage was ultimately fixed with one, Lakshmamma, daughter of Peshkar Surappa. Their wedding very soon became an accomplished fact. Lakshmamma was a noble lady. She proved a befitting life partner to Subba Sastry. She hailed from an orthodox family. Subba Sastry too was obviously a person who had great regard for holy tenets and the age-honoured doctrines of Sanathana Dharma. Their union in this background proved indeed a model for emulation for others. Subba Sastry had immense regard and love for cows which he considered ad embodiments of divinity. Subba Sastry was pulling on the family against odds. Inspite of best of his efforts, it became onerous for him to make both ends meet. He found himself in deed in a miserable plight but all said and done, he did not swerve an inch from the righteous path he chose to follow.

Subba Sastry and Lakshmamma begot a male child in the first instance and the boy was named Narasimha Sastry. The next issue, a female child, was born two years later. This child was given the name Subhadramma.

Lakshmamma conceived again and in course of time delivered another male child whom the parents named as Ahobala Sastry . In later days he came to be called by the pet name “Narayana” and His Guru Sri Brahma Chaitanya Maharaj duly awarded him the title “Samartha” as explained below in the relevant context.

During her pregnancy, Lakshamma felt elated to a remarkable height in the spiritual plane, perhaps by reason of the mysterious Chile whom she conceived. She was unceasingly repeating Rama Nama at that time. She was unmindful of any other topic. She was indifferent to the family affairs. If was her husband that went out for alms and also cooked food after returning home. It was he that served food her and the children. By intuition, it later struck Sasrtiji’s mind that a holy personage was in the offing to be delivered by his wife. Very soon, the sentiment came true. “In the year 1900, our Guru Maharaj was born in Devanahalli”.

Once other son and other daughter named respectively Rama Sastry and Soorammma were also subsequently born to Subba Sastry and Lakshmamma but they died prematurely. There incidents had a telling effect on the mind of the mother who took to vyragya and turned an Avadhoot.

Ahobala himself was a child different from other children in every respect. He appeared strangely to be in deep introspection when he was left alone. At other times he was all in smiles as if he was decrying the mockery of the mundane allurements.

Maintenance of the family became a great problem in that Subba Sastry’s financial condition had deteriorated to the lowest ebb. Fortune which once dawned on the summits in the family sunk to unfathomable depths. The equanimity of the sage-like Subba Sastry was nonetheless not disturbed. As days rolled by, he became constrained to sell away the only ancestral house and the small bit of land which he had for meager consideration in which again his kinsmen claimed shares. With what little he got for his lot, he left Devanahalli and migrated to Banagalore with family. The Kapila cow was now all his assets.

Once it so happened that he was put to a great test by the Lord whom he worshipped. He was driven to distress for he could not secure anything for feeding the cows in spite of his best of efforts. It was feared that the cows might die of starvation. With troubled mind he approached one Naidu who was a petty employee and a familiar person for help. Naidu who had no children offered to help him if the latter was prepared to sell the lovely child Ahobala to him. Subba Sastry hastened to give consent in order to save the cows from an impending tragedy. A sum of three rupees was stipulated as the price for the child. For this pittance got by him, Subba Sastry exchanged the child and got immediate riddance of the burning problem. When Ahobala was taken to the house of the vendee Naidu, his wife rejoiced on the first impulse and had severely erred in purchasing the kid of a pious Brahmin of higher caste which she felt was inauspicious for their family. She requested the husband to run to the Brahmin’s by way of declined to take him back. It was after great persuation by Naidu and several others that he ultimately yielded to accept the boy. God’s ways are mysterious! In comprehensible is His leela! This incident took place in 1905. In the following year Naidu and his wife were blessed amazingly with a child. Their sacrifice was in this manner richly rewarded! The couple felt that god himself had entered their house for a while in the form of the boy Ahobala to confer a favour out of compassion and the whole incident was but a blessing in disguise. Subba Sastry who by intuition had already conjectured during the conception of this child by his wife that a great godly child was in the offing had every reason to get confirmed in his view by this episode.

At Bangalore Subba Sastry had a good number of relations the rich and poor. There were also officials in that circle who were unfortunately not officious. Most of them felt it an infradig to entertain Sastry or any of his family members at a meal in their house. They felt it miserable to publicize that their own relative Sastriji had adopted “Bikshatana” as his means of living. They also looked down upon Sastriji as unequal to their assumed status in society. Sastriji was himself however above approbation or reprobation. Commendation and condemnation weighed equally in his scales. Subba Sastry’s health was gradually waning. He took the earliest opportunity to take the two sons, Narasimha Sastry and Ahobala Sastry through the Upanayana Samaskar as perhaps he foresaw his own end in proximity. His foresight proved true in fact. Lakashmamma took not much time to follow the husband. The two boys were rendered practically destitute. Poverty-stricken as they were, they found themselves at sea, not knowing how even to perform the obsequies of the parents enjoined by pundits. At the two different stages of rituals relating to their parents help poured in miraculously from different sources and the boys successfully discharged their filial obligations. By then Ahobala Sastry was of six years of age and his elder brother Narasimha Sastry was about ten years old. None of the two had evidently any schooling. They had no means to sustain them and their subsistence became a question mark. They depended solely on the mercy of God revealing through the kind-hearted, for food, raiment and shelter. Whenever they approached their relations in despair, they would not allow the boys inside the house. Where ever they went, they faced ignominy. They were however not disturbed in mind as they were blessed with equanimity, a virtue which is uncommon. They were of the firm conviction that the almighty was sole mentor and he alone was to guide the destinies of all the subjects.

Narasimha Sastry was a ‘viragi’. On one fine day, he abjured the family in the real sense of an ascetic. He wandered from place to place. Like an Ajagara ( a huge serpent) he ate food if anybody offered. Otherwise he starved. He never bothered about any comfort. He rested under trees. He covered any distance by walk. Gradually he became an Avadhoot revered by one and all by the name “Gajanan Maharaj”. Nobody knew where he came from and who he was. His where about could not traced even by people known to him at Devanahalli or Bangalore.

Ahobala Sastry was by no means an entity caught in the snares of ‘Maya’. By and large, he belonged to a very high plane of spiritualism. Bewildered however at the sudden predicament which developed in the family, he knelt before the God Basava enshrined in the temple which afforded shelter for the family for a pretty long time and exclaimed why misery pervaded the family which once enjoyed unbeatable pomp and glory. He was immediately taken by surprise at the voice of the unseen (Ashareeravani) which emerged thus “Ahobala! Why do you come under the sway of vikalpa having already realized how the God fulfills himself? Submit and surrender to Rama. Know who are and the purpose for which you are sent on earth. Do not get lost in misery and allow the mind to be shrouded by illusion”. Ahobala was shocked at this. Aghast by the message from an unknown source, the boy Ahobala went for a while into a trance from which until a considerable time, he could not return to normalcy. It appeared immediately that a new vision opened up in his mind’s eye and he started looking at the world from a strange and different perspective. It looked as if he recapitulated who he was and why he incarnated himself. There was a ray of smile on his face and a breeze of peace in his mind. All the latent faculties in his power became mysteriously patent. He realized that he was the old ‘Kalyan’ himself, the beloved disciple of Sri Samartha Ramadasa Swamy, reborn with a definite purpose- “Avathara Gheseethu Kalyana Swamy”! all occult powers were then at his beck and call. He could transform a stone into sugar and convert a serpent into a garland of flowers. He could fly with the winds and descend down on his volition. He could disappear into thin air and reappear in flesh. He could become weighty like a boulder and appear again lighter than a flower.

It may be mentioned in this confext that Subhadramma who was generally called as “Akkayya” (that is how Ahobala also used to address her) spent a considerable period of married life and the husband having became an ascetic, adopted for herself a way of life becoming of a true Sanyasin. She was visiting all the places where Guruji conducted Rama Saptahas and Yagnas after he completed his Sadhana and started Loka Sangraha. In her last days she stayed at Proddatur in the premises of Samartha Sangha which was founded by the Guruji in the year 1942.

As explained above, Ahobala’s parents left for the abode of the God. His elder sister who was also thoroughly of a spiritual disposition became a sanyasin. His elder brother Narasimha Sastry went out like an “Avadhoot”. His younger brother and younger sister left their mortal coil prematurely. The worldly tie for him with the near and the dear was in this way totally cut out automatically. Ahobala was now freed from all fetters, physically and mentally. Hitherto there was an apparent burden cast on him to care for the sustenance of the elder brother who had turned an introvert even before he became an Avadhoot and the elder sister who needed his assistance but now that he is absolved of every such responsibility, he became free to move out and the movement which he campaigned thus took one step forward in the world.

As a boy of eleven years, he moved from place to place, propagating Rama Nama wherever he went. “Jago Jagee Rama Nama bodha vooni”. He would congregate people and conduct Rama Sapthahas whereat for a continuous periodof seven days, day and night, Rama Bhajan in an unceasing manner would be performed by everybody. During that period the entire atmosphere gets surcharged with divine fervour. ‘Annadan’ or feeding the people is a regular feature concomitant with the celebration of such events. Everybody used to wonder and rejoice as the boy danced in attunement to the Bhajan or Nama ghosha and went into ecstasy sometimes. Ahobala Sastry during those days did some spiritual sadhanas or exercises in Viduraswartham, a sacred place near Hindupure. His stay was exclusively on the branches of trees which were in multiples in close groups. There were very many monkeys playing around and staying in his company. Those monkeys used to collect food and feed the boy every day. From one tree to another the saintly boy too would jump like his friends. Now and then he would sit up in meditation. His exterior conduct was replete with the characteristics of a monkey, recalling Lord Hanuman’s image to the memory of those who had the good fortune to witness the phenomenon. At another stage of his sojourn, he seldom set his feet on the ground, preferring always to be carried from one place to another on the back of the boys of his age. He would play the role of a guide always, keeping the prospect of their fruitful career in mind. He was fond of swimming. He would also exhibit several acrobatics in the art and dive down and become invisible from the surface of the waters nay keep himself at the bottom of the well for hours together. He visited many places including small hamlets in his sojourns. Once he visited a village Malugur near Hindupur and performed a Rama Saptaha. Two brothers by names Gurumurthy and Chayappa who are now no more and who had the good fortune of coming into contact with him at that time had been narrating with awe and reverence till very recently, all the miracles which Ahobala performed in his boyhood. Sometimes the boy Ahobala would suddenly disappear at one place and appear at quite another distant place. Now and then, he chose to escape into a forest in order to prevent the hovering of the people after him. The purpose of His avathar was clear in Ahobala’s vision. He was only making headway towards the ordained goal.

                                    JAI SRIRAM

                              GURU SANDARSHAN AND ANUGRAHA

The Avathar of Ahobala Sastry had a definite background as emphasized already. It may be recalled that he is the reincarnation of Sri Kalyana Swamy, the most beloved and celebrated disciple of Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Ramadasa Swamy, the founder of Samartha Sampraday referred to in a former context. Kalyana Swamy was a repository of the grace of Guru and a Jeevan Muktha. In this Avatar, he needed in fact no Guru for himself. But the great men are always keen on setting the best of examples for the common folk to follow in order to lead them along a sure and a safe track even as the author of the Geetha has propounded. Ahobala therefore intended to take refuge under a competent Master (Guru), the power house of energy and an expert navigator to steer clear the ocean illusion. He left no stone unturned to find his Guru and surrender. Ahobala undertook an extensive tour from Ramaeswaram to Himalayas to trace his Guru. When one incessantly yearns for the grace of the Lord, like a suckling trying to rush to the udder of the cow, the Guru himself attracts him to his fold. In this pursuit when the defacto disciple was once at Sajjangadh (the place of Sri Sri Sri Samartha Ramadasa Swamy) in 1911. Sri Brahmanand Swamy who is very much heard of in the Sampradaya had occasion to meet him. The Swamy having witnessed Ahobala and understood his zeal, took him along with him to his Guru, Sri Sri Sri Brahmachaitanya Maharaj who was in Gondavali Badruk, a village on the banks of the holy river, Mana Ganga. No sooner had Ahobala fallen at the feet of the Guru, than the Guru hugged him up to his bosom, exclaiming “oh my child! How eagerly have I been craving to see you”. The import of these words isreally significar. It was a thrilling experience not only for Ahobala but also to the Master and the onlookers. Ahobala was eleven years of age at that point of time. The Guru and the Sishya identified each other and lost themselves in ecstasy. Their union struck an epoch for loka sangraha or benediction of the human race at large. Very lovingly the Guru addressed the Sishya instantaneously as ‘Hanuman’. Some times he also used to call him Narayana. Guru seva or service to Guru is identical with sadhana of the highest degree in the spiritual pursuit. Guru Maharaj on one occasion took several of his disciples including Hanuman to Rameswaram on pilgrimage. After pending some time in many places in the company of his old sishyas while, returning to Gondavali. He took a sojourn in Ramnad of Madhura District. The sishyas then made preparation to proceed further at the bidding of the Guru Maharaj. Maharaj bade some sishyas to go to the railway station beforehand telling them that he would come along with the disciples who hosted them and join at that point. What was passing in the mind of the Guru, nobody knew. He asked Hanuman also to go in advance and await him at the railway station. Hanuman and party waited for a long time for the arrival of the Guru but in the meanwhile the train itself arrived. After some passengers alighted, the tat the rain started moving forward. Hanuman feared that the programme fixed by the Guru was being impaired in the process. As sishya he felt that such an impediment for the Guru Sankalpa could not be allowed to take place. No sooner did such a thought occur to his mind than he lifted his hand involuntarily as if to cry halt for the movement of the train and lo! The train came with a cracking sound to a standstill. Neither the driver now the passengers in the train were able to account for this sudden and amazing phenomenon. Even the other co-disciples of Hanuman were perplexed over the incident. Maharaj was by then on the scene and it became evident for everyone that Hanuman performed a miracle. Sri Brahma Chaitanya Maharaj exhibited feigned anger and frowned at him.

Evidently he was himself the creator of this situation, having purposely chosen to come belated to the railway station. He availed the opportunity which he invented and reprimanded the Sishya “You can not waste your energy and abuse the occult powers in this way. It matters little if the train proceeds and we are stranded. We can catch the next train or go by foot or think of an alternative. You have displeased me very much and as a consequence you have to go away from me for good and mind you job”. These words of Guru Maharaj were ironical. They carried great import. The admonition was significant and suggestive of his own physical depature from the world which indeed followed closely. The words “mind your job” were meant to appraise the beloved sishya of his command to take forward the mission assigned to him. At this turn of events Hanuman felt extremely miserable for a while but very soon resumed wisdom. He thought that three could be definitely no disobedience of the injunctions of the Master at any cost. Having so realized he fell upon the lotus feet of Guru Maharaj and shed tears. He prayed for permission to leave the Guru Sannidhi and solicited blessings to guide him on the righteous path always. More painful was this event to the Guru than to the Sishya himself. The Guruji extended his hand and fondly touched the head of the sishya. There was ‘Shakthi Patha’ contemporaneously on to the sishya from the fountain-head of the Guru’s grace. Simultaneously the Guru awarded the title “SAMARTHA” to his beloved sishya. The long cherished ambition of Guru Maharaj to make the Sishya embark upon the mission which he was destined to carry even before He (Guru Maharaj) laid down his mortal coil became thus a fruitful affair.

The ways of saints or men of divinity are always different from those of the worldly persons. They fulfill their objects by mysterious means whose import is beyond our comprehension. They invent a pretext for executing their intentions which might sometimes appear seemingly unreasonable to our minds. Their actions and their utterances are always pregnant with a purpose whose revelation is possible only when viewed with a super perspective.

With that end in view Hanuman traveled a long distance visiting many a holy place on the way and trying to pitch upon covetable piece of land for his sadhana. In the process, he happened to cross Halasur in Yelahanka taluk of Karnataka where he was hosted by one Nagesha rayudu and his wife Rajamma. The couple was deeply drowned in grief since their only son Narayana by name had died. To them, Hanuman and could overcome their own son Narayana. They embraced Hanuman and could overcome their grief for a while. Hanuman consoled them compassionately and asked them to consider him as their own son and be happy. He also stayed with them for a few days. During that period he endeared himself to the bereaved couple and everyone who came to see him and was lovingly called, “Narayana Narayana”. His name as Narayana thus became popular. In later days when he appeared to the world as Jagadguru, he came to be addressed as Narayana Maharaj. After the title “Samartha” awarded by Sri Brahma Chaitanya Maharaj was affirmed by Lord Dattatreya Hanuman was hailed by the name “Samartha Narayana Maharaj”.

                                       JAI SRIRAM

                  GURUJI’S MISSION OF LOKA SANGRAHA AND HIS RETREATS

Just as a magnificent edifice has to have a strong foundation at the ground level, so does any spiritual faith or order need a firm? Sampradaya or tradition for its moorings. Such a tradition should stand the test of unison of Guru Vakya (the word of the Master), Sasthra Sammathi (the sanction of the scriptures) and Atma Pratheethi (experience which is one’s own) in furtherance of pursuit of Paramartha. Sri Samartha Ramadasa Swamy being ordained by His Guru, Sri Rama built up a “Vishista Sampradaya” on characteristic lines of its own for emancipation of the humanity at large and it came to be widely recognized as Samartha Sampraday after him. It is unique in its character and influence.

How a sadhaka should conduct himself in order to become entitled to and to invoke his grace is explained in Dasabodh. In the background of these fundamental principles among other salient tenet constituting Samartha Sampradaya, our Guru Maharaj set out to carry on his mission of elevating the mankind and resurrecting the Dharma. It is worth nothing in this context that he was directing his disciples to undertake ‘Parayana’ of this scared book as part of ‘Paramatha Sadhana’. His holiness Sainath Maharaj of Shiridi also used to recommend Dasabodh as a safe guide for the sadhakas to hold in hand.

In furtherance of his Avathar Karyakrama, Guruji left no stone unturned. He visited very many places in the country, starting from Kanyakumari to Himalayas and came into contact with all sections of people regardless of caste, creed and religion. He had a yardstick of his own to categorize human beings on the hypothesis of their spiritual stature, into the four sections referred to supra viz. Baddha, Mumukshu, Sadhaka and Siddha. He imparted appropriate instruction to them on the basis of such classification.

Wherever he went, he gathered people and conducted bhajans. Occasionally he exercised occult powers to a limited extent in order to infuse faith in Rama Nama and turn people to the path of devotion. He used to convene rama Sapthahas as the best means for the purpose of propagating Rama Nama, wherever it was feasible. Sapthaha is an event whereat people congregate in large numbers and carry on Rama Bhajan unceasingly and uninterruptedly for a continuous period of seven days and seven nights. Devotees make it a point to carry on the bhajan without break for even a moment by dividing themselves into groups and partaking by turns. Repetition of Rama Nama goes on in chorus at the pitch of the voice of the devotees. “Raghpathi Raghava Raja Ram Pathitha Pavana Seetha Ram” or “Sri Rama Jaya Rama Jaya Jaya Rama” is the strain in which the bhajan goes on. Devotees sometimes are driven to ecstasy and they dance in that mood involuntarily. “Annadana” or free feeding is necessarily a concomitant feature attending the event everyday. The wherewithal for the performance of the sapthaha is procured by Bhiksha. To add to the device of the conduct of these Rama Sapthahas, Guruji undertook performance of Yagas or Yagnas as ordained by scriptures. Vedic scholars from all over the country used to be invited to officiate at these spectacular events and they were richly rewarded too by Guru Maharaj. Propagation of the nobility and supremacy of the scriptures and their injunctions was a pious obligation which is pernicious for all the evils. The unfailing means of securing the pecuniary requirements was again the process of Bhiksha which always produced tremendous results like a wish-fulfilling cow, Kamadhenu. People in multitudes got attracted by the rituals of these yagnas which enhanced their faith in Sanathana Dharma. Guruji sponsored various types of Yagnas which in general are never even attempted by others for the reason that they entail invariably great trouble and unlimited expense. Some of them are of a rare and prodigious nature like Nikumbara Yaga, Gaja Lakshmi Yaga, Rudraksha Yaga, Satha Chandi Yaga, Sahasra Chandi Yaga, Rajasooya Yaga, Ashwamedha Yaga, Satha koti Rama Nama Yaga, Rama Darbar etc.

I however feel it obligatory on my part to just refer to a few of the extraordinary events.

Gaja Lakshmi Yaga was performed in the Bhagyanagar Ashram premises for securing peace and prosperity for the humanity and for promoting successfully the cause of his mission on the anvil. On TVS Sastry of Peravali was the chief among the sishyas who actively partook the Havana program. The Yaga lasted for twenty one days and the Sastriji sustained himself during the entire period only on milk and fruit. The elephant over which the Goddess Maha Lakshmi was seated was made of cement at a huge cost in that connection and it is to be found with all grandeur in the premises of the ashram even now. During the Yaga, devotees found clear symptoms of life in the elephant and were amazed. A few veterinary doctors also endorsed this sentiment as very much true.

Another Yagna called ‘Hanuman Yagna’ was also carried on in the premises of the said Ashram. It was intended to perpetuate and diffuse the glory of Rama in Bharatha Varsha. The thread marriages of five of the eight sons of Sastriji and of several others were performed at one time during that Yagna as ordained by Guruji.

Rudraksha Yaga was intended to invoke the grace of the Lord Parama Shiva for achieving Loka Kalyan. Several packages of the rare quality of Rudraksa beads were collected from Nepal for the purpose and offered to the Fire God.

Rajasooya Yaga which was performed in 1969 for twenty one days had for its object the effacement of the evil forces and restoration of tranquility in Andhra, Telangana regions and great many Vedic scholars had opportunity to officiate in its performance. It is a rare Yaga never before performed in recent timed by others.

Sathakoti Rama Nama Maha Yagna was a historic event in which thousands of people participated. Hundreds of Yagna Kundas were constructed at that time which were name after the celebrated personages in Ramayana like Lakshmana, Bharatha, Satrughna, Guha, Sugreeva, Vibheeshana, Jatayu, Angada, Hanuman etc. the Yagna covered over a period of one year.

Ashwamedha Yagna undertaken by Guruji is a rarity in kali Yuga. Even in antiquity only emperors of a very high rank could attempt performance of this Yagna and not others. Thers is neither a king nor an emperor in the present set up of the political pattern. Democracy is the form of the Government that we have adopted by constitution and so the Yagna has to be performed only by the people and on behalf of the people at large. Undoubtedly it entails very huge expense and tremendous effort but nonetheless Guruji decided to perform the same, come what may. He accredited Rama with all the doership in this behalf and tied ‘Kankana’(bracelet) to the forearm of the Rama’s idol in the temple in proof Kamadhenu, Lakshmi Narasimha, Varaha Narasimha etc. he also showed great inclination to renovate the ancient temples which into ruins and restore their glory of the past. Guru Maharaj is the only person who has a clear cognizance of all his disciples wherever they are fixed up and whatever their attainments be.

                          MARRIAGE WITH MATHAJI PADMAVATHAMMA

‘Yana’ is a Shiva Kshetra amid mountains in the state of Karnataka. It is a place of incomparable beauty of Nature. Gurudev performed one great Rama Saptaha in that place. Having intended to perform the Saptaha, Maharaj visited Sirsi, a town ship about thirty miles from Yana where one devotee of Datta Sampradaya namely Krishna Joshi was living. Krishna Joshi had a son by name Ram Krishna Joshi. The latter and his wife Sundaramma were blessed with two daughters-Padmavathamma and Paravathamma. These two daughters were twins. They having attained marriageable age, the grand father was greatly worried over securing suitable matches for them. When once in this context Krishna Joshi had visited Gangapur, Lord Dattatreya appeared in his dream and bade him to seek the blessings of Sir Samartha Maharaj for fulfillment of his desire. It was a strange coincidence that at or about the same time Krishna Joshi also received a direction by means of a letter from Gajanan Maharaj that his elder grand daughter should be given to his younger brother i.e., Guruji in wedlock. To the utter surprise of Krishna Joshi, Maharaj during his sojourns came to his house in Sirsi within exactly one week from the day when he left Gangapur. Krishna Joshi immediately realized that Guruji’s visit was of great significance. He prostrated at his lotus feet and unfolded his mind. It may be recalled here that Gajanan Maharaj had previously directed Guruji also personally to take to Gruhasthashram for more reasons than one. Without directly revealing his mind to accept one of the twins as his Dharma Patni, Guruji informed Joshi that Rama would definitely indicate suitable matches for his grand daughters after the performance of Ram Saptaha at Yana which hi intended.

Nothing on earth can defeat the snakalpa of a great personality like Guruji. The Ram Saptaha became a grand success. On one day during saptaha, a ferocious tiger rushed to the Yagna shala. Everybody who was present was greatly frightened. Guruji patted on its back and collected its milk which was utilized for the abhisheka of Lord Shiva Krishna Joshi too was one of the bhaktas who contributed largely for the success of the Saptaha.

After the Saptaha was over, Guru Maharaj came back to Sirsi and offered to marry Padmavathamma, one of the above said twins Krishna Joshi was overwhelmed with joy at this surprising announcement. With due pomp and glory the marriage were celebrated without further hesitation in Bana Shankari temple in 1940. Guruji thus became a grihastha in deference to the command of Lord Dattatreya which was in accord with the direction of the Avadhoot Gajanan Maharaj, his elder brother. The import of the union of Padmavathamma with Guruji is really incomprehensible. It was a symbolic representation of “Ardha Nari Nateswara thatwa”. Suffice to say that it yielded tremendous results in the advancement of Guruji’s mission viz.

Mathaji was indeed the personification of kindness. Every visitor found his mother in her. She personally cooked food and served the ashramites and the visitors. There was no time which could be said to be odd for such service to be rendered by her. On important occasions or functions during which there used to be large gathering of visitors the services of other cooks were also indented although the supervisory work was always taken over by Mathaji. Every person that came to the Ashram or any place where Guruji was camping was fed to his or her heart’s content. ‘Annadan’ was a necessary and predominant feature of the Guruji’s ashrams. The initiative which Mathaji was taking to carry on this laudable karyakrama richly deserves great applause.

Mathaji was very much fond of cows. She reared them with great love and affection. She would never fail on any day to offer worship to the cows and give ‘harathi’. She would not touch food until and unless she made sure that all the cattle in the ashram were satisfactorily fed. The cows and the calves are named by her after the goddesses: Sita, Lakshmi, Parvathi, Gouri, Saraswathi, Indra, Ganga, Godavari etc. and as she calls them by those names, they flock to her as babies to a mother and lick her hands. As they are fondled and caressed by her they shed tears of joy.

                          GURUJI’S EXALTED PERSONALITY

To extol Guruji in a befitting manner, it is an absolute impossibility. He is an Avathar Purusha, the reincarnation of Sri Kalyana Swamy Maharaj. He came to earth with a defined purpose and was equipped with all the attributes warranted for the purpose. He had a scheme of his own to achieve the purpose. The intricacies of the scheme were incomprehensible for anybody in the world. In the words of the deceased Sri V.Sankara Rao, one of the great sishyas of the Guruji, he is “All knowing, All powerful and All Merciful”.

Guruji’s face was remarkably bright. His eyes were always resplendent with divine luster. His pleasing smiles enchanted the devotees while their hair stood at its ends when he spoke to them lovingly. He was of light red colour in complexion and a tall figure. His characteristic nose added splendour to his brilliant face. If he sat in ‘Siddhasana’ one was prone to recall Parama Shiva to mind. A word given utterance to by him went like an arrow with impetus from Rama’s sheath to cleanse the evil from people’s hearts.

One person once deliberately kept a capricious question referring to the Rama’s idol installed in the temple “Swamiji! Why is Rama standing in a characteristic and assumptions style with one leg bent forward and holding the bow in an ostentatious manner in his arm Does he mean to exhibit self esteem” Guruji spontaneously retarded “We know very little of the world we are living in. We are blissfully ignorant not only of the past and the future but even about the present. Our competence and capacity are nil by and large for all purposes. Still we adopt an air of supremacy and stand in an affected pose of assumed dignity, enviable for others. Don’t you now find justification on the part of Rama who is all-knowing and all-powerful to have unwittingly stood in the posture in which you find him in the image”? The person who posed the question was nonplussed and flabbergasted by this biting rebuff aimed at him by Guruji.

He was clad in simple dress. A ‘dhoti’ and a ‘banian’ were all his attire. This dress was supplemented by an upper cloth when he went out. During winter season he used to cover his head with a monkey cap. He never used sandals; walked always barefoot. He exemplified his appeal to the people by his own way of life. Surrender to Rama in mind, word and deed was the key note of his gospel.

                                    MAHA SAMADHI

Guru Maharaj is the reincarnation of Sri Kalyana Swamy as oft narrated. Sri Kalyana Swamy had laid down his mortal coil on Ashadha Suddha Trayodasi day succeeding the Maha Niryana of his Guru Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Ramadasa Swamy befalling on Magha Bahula Navami day in the year 1681. It would appear that our Guru Maharaj was also planning to end his Avathar on the same thithi on which Sri Kalyana Swamy breathed his last. This fact was kept a guarded secret by Guruji. By 1988 he was 88 years old as per the estimate of the disciples close to him, although no on could exactly gauge his age. He started voluntarily inviting the process of suffering of the several sins of his devotees which he had taken up on himself earlier by providing relief to them as a mark of benevolence. In the opinion of the medical experts however. Guruji was ailing form cancer. It is with this dreadful disease that Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Rama Krishna Paramahamsa and certain other saints also suffered towards the end of their life tenure because of the same benevolence which they also had extended. Notwithstanding the physical disability owing to cancer, Maharaj decided to carry on Sathakoti Rama Nama Maha Yagna in Harihar Asharam which was of the rarest order ever undertaken by anybody in the world. This blissful event went on for forty days and very many persons had opportunity to partake the same and receive blessings. The pivotal point of termination of this Maha Yagna synchronized with Sri Rama Darbar which was got up as a great feast for the eyes. Guru Maharaj cared little for his ailment, having surrendered the body for suffering the disease. The disciples got Guru Maharaj admitted in Kidwai Cancer hospital at Bangalore for treatment. After discharge there from he was once again admitted to Hatti Nursing Home at Harihar itself. During the few days he was in that nursing home, he was observing strict Mouna Vratha. At last, he indicated by gestures that he should be removed to the Ramalaya premises in the Ashram. This direction was forthwith complied with. Guru Maharaj voluntarily left his mortal coil at the dawn of the following day. Lo! It was significantly Ashadha Sudha Trayodasi day, the day on which Sri Kalyana Swamy attained Rama ikya. According to the English calendar the day corresponds to the 5th July, 1990. This strange coincidence also bears eloquent testimony to the fact that our Guruji is the reincarnation of Sri Kalyana Swamy as mentioned in the prelude.

Devotees and disciples poured in from different quarters across the country in thousand s as soon as this bitter news was hurriedly spread out and everybody was drowned in the ocean of grief. According to Vedic rituals the body was confined to the bowels of the holy earth in front of the Bilwa tree appurtenant to the Ashram where later a befitting Samadhi Structure and a contiguous mandir were constructed.

People gather in multitudes during the Aradhana celebrations which are conducted every year with pomp for over a week and offer worship. Taraka Nama Yagna in which Guruji was taking great delights is invariably being arranged in tha connection. Annadana is done on a very large scale. The entire premises of the ashram reverberate with Rama Dhun. Guruji’s idol (Pancha Loha Vigraha) is taken in palanquin in procession through the streets of Harihar town starting from the famous temple of Hariharewara. The tempo and the grandeur of this scene needs be better visualized than described. Sri Prabhu Dutt Maharaj, the twelfth Peetadhipathi in the Samartha Sampradaya takes keen interest in all these activities.

Even today guru Maharaj is kindly responding to the prayers of his devotees from the Samadhi and fulfilling their pious wishes.

                            JAYA MAHARUDRA DASAJANODHARA BRAHMANDMATA
                            UDASAPANTHA ALAKSHYA MUDRA SIDHASANA
                            SHADDARSHANA NIMITHA NIGAMANI PANTHA CHALILA
                            ATMANIVEDANA VIMALA BRAHMA SRI SADGURU
                            SAMARTHA NARAYANA MAHARAJ KI JAI
                            BOLO SRI MATHAJI KI JAI.

                                    REMINISCENCES

Reminiscences relating to Guru Maharaja are innumerable and of varied types. They consist of his memorable teachings and sayings delivered at different points of time and in several contexts, incidents reflecting his personality and innate capacities, occult powers of supernatural character possessed by him and the methods of moulding of the disciples as models of the mankind etc. Mallavva is one lady who renounced the family and had chosen to end her life is at the feet of Guru Maharaj. In spite of her old age she was sweeping the entire premises of the Ashram including the temples every day and keeping the whole environment clean and tidy. She was washing the clothes of the guruji and mathaji and looking after the comforts of the visitors of the Ashram to the best of her ability. She had made a small hut for her shelter and was taking rest init in the Ashram premises. She used to take food given by Mathaji as Guru Prasad and sustain herself. One strange feature over which everybody was wondering is that whenever she made an attempt to touch his holy feet in reverence, Guruji was denying opportunity. Such denial occurred only in her case and never in the case of others at any time. Sometimes when Guruji was otherwise busy, she would surruptiously make a trail but Guruji who was always on guard would briskly fold his legs or react suitably and definitely disappoint the old lady. After very many years of ambush, Guruji on one day called her kindly by his side and offered his feet for salutation. Her joy was beyond description. It took not much time thereafter for Mallava to lay down her mortal coil and attain salvation. The devotees then realized the mystery in the persistent frustration apparently caused by Guruji in the mind of the old lady whom he used to call “Sabari” with affection. The time ripened and the Master granted liberation!

Guruji once took some of us in a motor van from kadapa to Sandi Kshetra near Vempalle situate on the banks of the holy river Papaghni. Lord Anjaneya is the presiding Diety at that holy place. The saying goes that Rama while in exile halted for a while in that place and carved the picture of Hanuman on a big stone with the sharp end of his arrow and that it is that statue which was later enshrined in the temple in that Kshetra. Immediately after we reached the premises Guruji led us to the temple in the first instance. As soon as he entered the Sanctum Sanctorum, the garlands decorated on the shoulders of the statue started swinging swiftly and vertically as well as horizontally and on all sides helter-skelter. It was such a rare phenomenon to witness that all of us were thoroughly wonder struck. There was absolutely no possibility of even a stray breeze blowing inside the packed Sanctum; it was thorough summer season as well. This process of oscillation of garlands lasted more than five minutes and we could not really account for it until Guru Maharaj himself was pleased to make it clear that Hanuman was dancing in ecstacy. Evidently Maruti was overwhelmed with joy when Guru Maharaj who was Bharatha re-incarnate appeared before him. On no other hypothesis, could this miracle be possibly explained also. We felt we were the most fortunate to have gained a thrilling and memorable experience on that day. After offering worship and receiving prasadam, we resumed the journey back to Kadapa.

                       The following are a few sayings or observations of Guruji

1. If the entire expanse of the earth is of seven crores of units, the identified area is only twenty one thousand units. 2. People judge the saints according to their own standards. 3. A man can be considered to be a devotee of God when his loving attention to God remains unmoved even if difficulties invade him in battalions. 4. Anxiety implies lack of faith in God. 5. Mundane desires and the pleasures derived there from are germane to the attachments accrued from past births. 6. The words and the actions of a Satpurusha always have a broad meaning and scope. They are interpreted by various people in various good or bad ways. The real meaning of his words and actions is known only to himself or to those who have reached his level. 7. Sathakoti Rama Nama Mahayagna is the rarest of the rare yagnas performed on earth. Maharshi Valmiki conducted this yagna for the first time and it is being now performed again afterwards (referring to the one which was undertaken by Guruji). 8. If one character or letter of the alphabet in Rama Nama is articulated once, it releases crore-fold energy. 9. The legendary ‘Chit rakoota’ comenprises of the area extending upto Jhansi in Madhya Pradesh, ‘Naimisharanya’ is the area between Jhansi and Lucknow 10. The body consists of six parts. Four parts out of the six constitute water and the other two parts are made up of ‘mala’ i.e. foul matter. One’s health is affected if there is imbalance of this ratio even to the slightest extent. 11. Adi Shankarachaya installed the idols of Sri Seethe Rama Lakshamana in Sri Rama Janmabhoomi. 12. Jagadguru Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi is a ‘Karma Yogi’ (Guruji is Gnana Yogi). 13. After recovering from ailment (evidently referring to cancer), Guruji said he put on new skin and new blood and his ears got reduced in size. 14. There is nectar in the head of the fly. 15. There is no limit for desires. They are never ending. They pollute the life. We should therefore Endeavour for self realization. 16. Harihar, vontimitta, Panchavati, Chitrakoota and Ayodhya are the fie places to be compendiously referred to as Ayodhya. 17. Kaikeyi persisted her desire to send Rama to exile because she was influenced by the sage Viswamithra. 18. ‘Mathsya Thanthra’ is a sacred place where Lord Maha Vishnu assumed Mathsya Avathara. It is near to Manasa Sarovar. Saints who are rid of ‘Deha Bhava’ (body-am-I-consciousness) alone can go to Masthya Thanthra . Samartha Ramadasa Swamy, Gajanan Maharaj and Vasudevananada Saraswathi (Tembe Maharaj) visited this sacred place. Our Guruji Samartha Narayana Maharaj also stayed here for a week days. 19. Keshava Swamy Maharaj in Samartha Panchayatna is the incarnation of Jambavantha.

                              JAYA MAHARUDRA DASAJANODHARA BRAHMANDMATA
                              UDASAPANTHA ALAKSHYA MUDRA SIDHASANA
                              SHADDARSHANA NIMITHA NIGAMANI PANTHA CHALILA
                              ATMANIVEDANA VIMALA BRAHMA SRI SADGURU
                              SAMARTHA NARAYANA MAHARAJ KI JAI
                              BOLO SRI MATHAJI KI JAI.
                                                               
                                                                                                             
                                 JAI SRIRAM

Seriously, this text, Portrayal of the biography of a Saint is a formidable venture. I shudder to embark upon such an arduous task, particularly when it relates to a Saint of the zenith order viz. His Holiness Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Narayana Maharaj. I perfectly realize that I am unequal to the task, being bound by my innate limitations. Nonetheless, I feel compelled by some force from within, that I should make a humble contribution for the enrichment of joy of myriads of disciples and devotees of Guru Maharaj who yearn to hear more and more about Him. is NONSENSE and it's insulting to the community when an admin cannot see this. — Timneu22 · talk 12:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]