Open main menu

Contents

Yo Ho HoEdit

Delete user pageEdit

Hi, can you please delete my user page? DiasporaCryptid (talk)

‎Deletion of reliable Indian Government sourced content from Indian state articlesEdit

Hello, I am wanting your opinion about whether we should add different directions about Maharashtra at its opening sentence. According to some users, Maharashtra is only mentioned as "western peninsular state" because it is the Britannica definition, and Fylindfotberserk said you also agreed with that in his [page]. But I think we should also mention it also falls in South and central direction as many sources say that. This why I think :

  1. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Citing sources it is supposed to mention all different sources. You should not copy-paste from one source only. Entire first paragraph of Maharashtra is almost just copied from Britannica.
  2. If you are using Britannica source, why didn't you quote exactly how Britannica said? Britannica said that "occupying a substantial portion of the Deccan plateau" before it said "western peninsular part". It sounds like small difference but I think it means that Deccan plateau is more significant identity of Maharashtra than western peninsular part as why it is mentioned before. And I agree.
  3. Britannica also said in the western peninsular part "of the subcontinent", not even India. Subcontinent means all of South Asia, its different from saying India. Since you wanted to say about India, so definitely you should also consult another source which mentions directly India.
  4. Britannica is also saying different things about Maharashtra.
    1. Britannica article on Mumbai says Maharashtra is southwestern state. https://www.britannica.com/place/Mumbai
    2. Britannica Kids article of Maharashtra said it is west-central. https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Maharashtra/328879
    3. Marathi language of western and central India. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marathi-language
    4. Britannica said that Gondwana is only central India, and some part of Maharashtra is Gondwana. So Britannica says at a least part of Maharashtra is central. www.britannica.com/place/Gondwana-historical-region-India
  5. I think your logic to use Britannica is it is a encyclopedia. There are other encyclopedias. They are not as much famous but still they are also written by experts.
    1. https://search.credoreference.com/content/topic/maharashtra State in west central India
    2. https://www.ancient.eu/article/874/ellora-caves/ Ellora is a sacred site in Maharastra, central India.
  6. And why using Britannica rule is not applying to other articles, South India states? Telangana is having very similar opening line to Maharashtra, "Telangana is a state in India situated on the centre-south stretch of the Indian peninsula on the high Deccan Plateau." but still it mentions different directions. For Telangana you do not remove south and centre if it is written as Deccan?
  7. So many thousand of news articles and government sources are there. Kautilya3 says do not give a preference to the government source. But also it was wrong to do opposite if you are completely ignoring government source. Government of India source is at least as much reliable as British Encyclopedia. BelgaumGoan (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@BelgaumGoan: The multiple possible descriptions of the geographical location of Maharashtra within India are simply a reflection of the inadequacy of words for cartography. That's why we have a map of Maharashtra's shape and location within India in the Infobox. In the lede sentence, we aim to roughly orient the reader rather than provide a comprehensive survey of what language every possible reliable source has used for that purpose. That summary is necessarily a matter of editorial judgment, and when good-faith editors cannot agree on a single option it is reasonable to look at what choice wikipedia's closest peers (such as Encyclopedia Britannica) have made.
I would advice that we move past lede fixation and see how else we can improve the article to serve the reader. For example, on a quick check of the source access dates, the Economy section doesn't appear to have been updated since ~2014, which means that the nominal figures in it are likely to be off by 50-100%. Wouldn't it be a better investment of our time if we focused on such issues? Abecedare (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@Abecedare:Thank you for reply and I understand. But, am not trying to suggest to make a big change to the opening sentence. I just think we should make small change by adding two words - central and southern. "Maharashtra is a state in western, southern and central peninsular India". I say lots of sources, but all additional info they said is summarized just by adding two words. I don't think it's any confusing for a reader. It benefits reader as so many different opinions and sources are represented by adding two words.
Direct reference to southern and central is a much more effective, clear and powerful than indirect reference like "Deccan and peninsular". Because Indians are strongly aware of those directions. For example Telangana also has "centre-south stretch of the Indian peninsula on the high Deccan Plateau" (instead of just south).BelgaumGoan (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@BelgaumGoan: While it true that at least parts of Maharashtra are in central India, saying that Maharashtra is in "western, southern and central peninsular India" is not even correct (at least as per my understanding that the Vindhyas, traditionally, mark the northern boundary of peninsular India). Perhaps, the discussion would be best continued at Talk:Maharashtra or at WT:INB, although my preference would be to just stick with the current version. Abecedare (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


UTRS appeal by Jürgen EissinkEdit

You had requested that any admin reviewing a potential UTRS appeal by Jürgen Eissink contact you. The editor has a relatively WP:GAB-compliant appeal open now (see UTRS appeal #25180). While I don't intend on unblocking at this time, I would like to restore talk page access in order to allow them to lodge an appeal for wider review. Could you please take a look and let me know what you think regarding restoring access?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I had left the note to inform the reviewing admin that there were off-wiki concerns in the form of abusive emails Eissink had sent me (and IIRC, others involved) following their block. The user, accurately, portrays this in the last section of their current UTRS appeal and I have no objection to their talkpage access being restored and an unblock appeal being considered as a regular matter. Abecedare (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'll flip the switch on access and we'll see what unfolds. Cheers, -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

SourceFortsEdit

Hello, I saw your generic reply and would like you to look into the other persons edits. My edits are only factual, I am trying to better a page that hasn't had any real updates in over a decade. I believe that I am in the right with concerns to my edits and that the only COI is related to Eik's tenure with the administration not looking into the types of edits he's making and just with his overall rating.

Please, his edit on removing the genre of the game is the most obvious example that he has repeatedly degraded and vandalised the page. I would rather have the page locked then allow his incorrect information to be posted. Nick12506 (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Nick12506

Will reply on your talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Durganagar,KolkataEdit

Why You revert the description of Durganagar, Kolkata Page Information? I Can not write anything wrong on page description. So at This Point Why You revert the description of Durganagar, Kolkata Page Information? If i anything wrong then you told me. I am totally sure that I am 100% write descrption on the page.You Check It. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitMondal1299 (talkcontribs) 19:19, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

@AmitMondal1299: Your edit was reverted, because as is clear from previous discussion listed below, you do not have consensus for the changes:
Again: if you wish to change the lede, start a discussion at Talk:Durganagar and establish a consensus for your version. Edit-warring to force or sneak-in those revisions will just get blocked again, or topi-banned. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Abecedare".