Sorry Appaiah I disagree both with your above statement and the same reason that was given for your edit of 19th Feb First the original posting was to a mailing list A mailing list is not a blog by any stretch of the imagination nor is it a personal website I agree only that it was an email and that it was to a mailing list Also the content was not from a blog as stated previously it was from a person to the mailing list Such posts are regularly quoted in scholarly circles providing the content itself meets similar criteria to those that Wikipedia sets An article does not have to be published in article format to be reputable and quoted Second this reference is not the original mailing list anyway It is a web page at which is a major and reputed website and publishes this posting because of its content Third S Vidyasankar is himself a reputable source He has other reputable published work on related topics for instance that on Jyotirmath This detailed and researched email has itself been reproduced as here and on other websites for its content and value See also Finally I ve looked through Wikipedia Verifiability and the only item that I can see that may support your case is that which says that blogs are not verifiable sources I trust that this is not the reason you insist on calling it a blog when it is not On the reversion of the other anonymous edits it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to give details of the organisation s contacts in the USA