User talk:Abecedare/Archive 14

Flag of India sources

Can you take a look at the access needed section here, and help out on access? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I found one online, and emailed you another paper. Didn't find the MIB publication. Will look a look out for other relevant sources. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thx, will go through the sources and get to work on the article in a couple of days. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 22:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Image issues

Can you take a look at the images uploaded by 360dg (talk · contribs) and possibly some contribs too? The images are all incorrectly tagged as "I created this myself" (movie posters, stills etc) but I normally don't tag images, so I'm not sure how to go about that. I promise I'll learn soon :) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also IP socking as 122.167.205.223 (talk · contribs), but dynamic IP, so can't do anything. -SpacemanSpiff 05:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those were unambiguous copyvios and quackings socks. I have warned the user for both, and will block him, if he continues.

As for image copyvios: if you find some image that you suspect to be a copyvio, search Google images or use www.tineye.com to see if you can find the original. If you do, tag the image for deletion under CSD F9 (if you use Twinkle, it will ask for the URL). More complicated cases can be nominated at WP:PUI or WP:FFD, although in my experience that account for a very small fraction. If you see a user upload many copyrighted images with false claims, just tag 1 or 2 and inform me, YM, RP or any other admin - in most instances (such as with 360dg) the pattern is obvious enough that we don't need to trace the original for each upload. Make sure that you also warn the user about copyright violation, so hat they can be blocked if they continue. Some of the images may be uploaded at commons, but the procedure is very similar there too. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I normally look at google, but it's often too tedious. I'll check out tineye, never used it before. I've only done an image through FFD once for copyvio, as I couldn't find anything on google. It was speedied anyway, by someone who thought it doesn't deserve a discussion. I do all my tagging through twinkle, so warnings generally are regular, except when Twinkle goofs up. I just enabled my account on Commons, so I should be able to tag there too. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

One useful tip when using Google Images, is to limit search to images of the exact same size as the one on wikipedia. Not foolproof, but most copyright violators don't spend much effort to cover their tracks. Tineye is worth trying since it's so easy (Commons even includes a link in its interface), but unfortunately it's database is pretty small, so you'll get a lot of false negatives. Abecedare (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tagged an F9 -- File:Reddy community people.JPG. It's a collage of many copyrighted files, I just gave a link for the first, it's obvious everything else is too. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 03:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks very dubious to me too, and would have deleted it if I had seen it earlier. But since the uploader is still claiming that he owned the copyright, I have explained the requirements and have asked Ureddy to clarify the source. Abecedare (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I take it you meant "please don't prevaricate" on the talk page ;) Here's the Rajashekhar Reddy pic and new Sanjiva Reddy pic, the second is sure copyright, as it's last 35 years and Indian govt pics aren't in PD. I don't know who most of the others are, so difficult to search. -SpacemanSpiff 05:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I corrected the typo and now have deleted the image since your links clearly show that, as we expected, it was a copyvio. Have left a note for the user too. For future reference (to save you some effort): the burden is on the uploader to establish to a reasonable extent that the uploaded image is correctly sourced, licensed and tagged - so usually you don't need to argue (say) that an image is <60 years old and hence copyrighted in India etc; it's sufficient to point to the non-free source website where it has been copied from. (As usual, use this advice with common sense, as there are rare instances where it worthwhile to help the user argue fair-use or establish thet the image is indeed free.) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again sorry

Yes abecedare Idonea release the album in mid 2010, but you say, Still can not create the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralejo8 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an article at this stage would be premature since the band dose not meet yet the WP:NBAND criterion. Give it a few months, and if the new album is a hit or wins some awards, newspaper and music media are sure to write about it and then wikipedia can have an article based on what those sources say. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks

Ok, thank you very much my friend and apologized for the pile of questions.

A Greeting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralejo8 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Vamana1.jpg

I cropped this image for a DYK. The cropped version is seen in Wikipedia:Recent additions 249, but not in Vamana, Onam etc. articles. What is the problem? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I am pretty sure it is a caching/data mirroring issue; since simple purge doesn't solve the problem, I suspect the problem is right at the wikimedia servers level, rather than with the ISP caches. We can wait for say a day, to see if all the data mirrors catch up by then. Responders at WP:VPT may have a more specific explanation or solution (let me know if you post there; I'd be interested in reading the answers too). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat

Hi Abecedare. I forgot to say this quite a while ago, but I remembered that I noticed that you offered to address sightings about him on YM's talk page. Just to inform you as one of the current people keeping an eye on him, I think he's moved on from the usual IP edits and is now moving towards creating multiple accounts from what's been happening recently. There's key tip-offs that he always does and I wouldn't mind sharing more info about him if you wanted to. But I think I'd have to e-mail you the info because Nangparbat I know also keeps an eye on YM's talk page (this is probably why he hasn't been editing anonymously) and he might change the way he acts. Your help would be appreciated especially since the current CU's and admins who deal with Nangparbat are either very busy or inactive. Regards. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Elockid, as I stated on YM's page, I can lend a hand in blocking Nangaparbat socks, but since I am not really familiar with his editing pattern I'll restrict myself to IPs and obvious sock accounts for now. If you could email me Nangaparbat's telltale signs, hopefully I'll be able to recognize more accounts as "obvious" socks. It would be best to report Nangaparbat sightings on YM's page; it is on my watchlist and I'll keep an eye out for such reports - that way, I can handle the easy cases when I'm online, while YM can use his greater experience in the area and the CU bit to deal with the others. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The latest report I did report it to YM and actually to Hersfold, the first admin to deal with Nangparbat. But they seem to be busy at the moment and have been unavailable. Hopefully this e-mail that I'm going to send is helpful to you. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait for your email. Abecedare (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed and blocked Radar1X‎ (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and e-mail sent. Sorry it took so long. I had to dig through a bunch of sock edits and find some hopefully good examples. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

For you and your TP stalkers

Just got home, and I come to see that Satbir Singh (talk · contribs) is back as an IP evading his block and doing POV reverts on a wide range of articles as 67.161.176.99‎ (talk · contribs). I've done three reverts on Kambojas so I'm stopping now, despite the fact that this is patent POV pushing by an indefinitely blocked user. I also left a message on the IP talk page asking if they were Satbir Singh, no denial, just the usual gibberish about how no one else knows anything. If you (or if you're taking a turkey nap) or one of your TP watchers can keep a look, it'll be good. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)WP:SPI or Ani--NotedGrant Talk 05:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put in a request for CU, but it's likely not required as the user has refused to deny that they aren't Satbir Singh. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's his confirmation that he is indeed Satbir Singh. -SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion. Its admirable when IPs/users quack so loudly; we admins hate overusing our precious gray cells. :)Abecedare (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the minute I saw the edit summary on my watchlist I knew it was him. Finally got him to confirm! He uses a couple of PN Oak kinda sources to add all his POV in. Thanks for the prompt response, he appeared to have lost interest in the other articles and stuck with the main one after the first revert. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Chap's back, would semi-PP be overkill since he's the only IP that's doing this nonsense? Although IP hasn't changed and he's clearly violating his block by socking. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a static IP, so blocked for a month. If he returns with a changed IP/account, will unblock this IP and semi-protect the article instead. Abecedare (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thx. Also, can you take a look at Talk:Flag of India? There's a request for the BIS flag standards doc, don't know if you have that in your library? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't have those. Searched for all titles with India+flag in their title and the only relevant titles I found were:

• A national flag for India: rituals, nationalism and the politics of sentiment, which seems to be misplaced, and
• Wheel Flag of India : Chakra-Dhvaja. Being a history and exposition of the meaning of the Dharma-Chakra and the Sārnāth Lion Capitol, which I should receive in the next 2-3 days.

Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

<--Ok, thx. The BIS standards is too elusive. I have no clue why that's a paid feature unlike most other govt docs. Not at my local or the nearby academic library either. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 01:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Invasion of Kerala

(Note: Article being discussed is now at Invasion of Kerala by Hyder Ali and Tipu. Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC) )

Any ideas? Looks like WP:OR, POV fork, etc. etc. to me. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also check for copyvio, Kerala Forest Research Institute by the same author is a copyvio, but he's posted on the talk page that he's got permission to copy the website. I just had a run in with him on a CfD where he accused me of hating Hindus (since redacted) and hating forward class people (not redacted). He has also created two other articles on Tipu's individual wars in Kerala, covered in detail that I've never read before. I'll let you two deal with how to get rid of some of these :) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you list the other articles here as well? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, a list of his recent new articles. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 14:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted one redirect (Persecution of Hindus by Haider Ali and Tippu) as implausible and simplified a second article (Edachena Kunkan). Islamic invasion of Kerala is problematic because the title is OR (as is a lot of the material in the article itself). What about the three battles articles? Do you guys think that these battles are genuine or are they also OR? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I also tagged this file as F9, {{PD-self}} for an image from The Hindu. He's also uploaded some other files with incorrect attribution -- an image from Commons cropped and uploaded as PD Self etc. I really don't know much about these wars, will check some books today, but these were technically not wars but battles IMO, and should all be part of one big article, if at all. Given the editor's user page and contribution history, I'm finding it difficult to believe that these would be neutral versions and/or reliably sourced. -SpacemanSpiff 17:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You people are having some problem with me around here? You want proof for the wars? Go here: The first battle (Not in much detail) can be found from pp.370, 379-382. The second battle can be found in pp.387-398. And for the Malabar part (The first 3/4ths of the article), try this one, from pp.402-476. A more detailed description can be found in Tipu Sultan: As Known in Kerala, by Ravi Varma. I am a bit outstretched at the moment as I don't have all my sources in Softcopy or online. I'll try to scan some of the books and post them online. By the way, a large part of the article is based on biography of Tipu by Islamic scholars. If anything biased is in fact there, it should be in favour of Tipu, not against him. And explain where I have done OR and POV in the article, as I have only compiled the facts published by respected authors like Logan and Nagam Aiya. Stop targeting people repeatedly who are contributing to Wiki. Axxn (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You need to dig up modern secondary sources for these wars. You also need to provide reliable sources that characterize the material described in [[Islamic invasion of Kerala] as an islamic invasion. (For example, the first citation in the article is a tourist information site that doesn't even mention the word islamic.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

An incident in which 400,000 people were forcibly converted doesn't seem like Islamic Invasion to you? I had given modern sources also, like those by C. V. Raman Pillai and K.M.Panicker as well as the articles published in the Mathrubhumi. Agreed that the first reference should be removed. Axxn (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And Spaceman Spiff used his IP (117.204.83.56) as a sock to edit the article Islamic Invasion of Kerala. Axxn (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to do a check user or sockpuppet investigation. You can start one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you feel someone is socking for disruptive purposes, it is imperative that you do so. -SpacemanSpiff 17:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all I don't want to discuss anything with anyone like you who harass me 24 x 7. If there is someone neutral here, I am willing to discuss. Axxn (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What a mess! The title and (at least) parts of the article have clear OR and POV issues. Don't know ehether the article should be moved and cleaned up; merged with existing articles, or nuked. Have asked F&f to chime in too. Till then, I think it would be good to tag/cull the problemetic parts, so that it becomes clearer what is worth retaining. Abecedare (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tag the problematic parts. I will replace the bad references with the good ones. Axxn (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Great! I haven't taken a look at the article deeply, but it seems to be mainly based upon 19th century sources, which is not appropriate for the subject. Also some parts (including the article name and lede sentence) are completely unsupported by any sources as far as I can see, while other parts have apparent synthesis and POV issues. If you can can deal with these problems and write an article consistent wiki wikipedi'a content policies (particularly WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR) then it may be worth retaining; else it would be better to stub it or merge it into existing articles on related subjects. The comments also apply to other articles that you created recently:

• ‎Travancore-Mysore War
• ‎First Travancore-Mysore War
• ‎Second Travancore-Mysore War

Abecedare (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Give me some time to do it. Axxn (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything I need to change in the lead sentence? As you need material based on JSTOR, I think I will take some from this. Right now, having some difficulty in accessing JSTOR. Axxn (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the first thing you need to do is to either find a citation for the title or change it to something else. Islamic invasion implies one thing and an invasion by Tipu Sultan is another thing. The jstor citation above doesn't refer to an islamic invasion of kerala (though it does mention a Tipu invasion and a Mysorean invasion). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi... I changed the title. Does it suits now? Axxn (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the title: are these two campaigns linked by any source ? Also do the sources refer to the Haidar's invasion of Malabar and Tipu's invasion of Travancore as invasion of Kerala ?
• About the EPW article: Not sure why you linked it here. In case you haven't seen it yet, it is a book review for the Dale's book "The Mappilas of Malabar 1498-1922: Islamic Society on the South Asian Frontier" and in the only bit relevant to this article, the reviewer considers Dale's interpretation of Tipu's invasion through the religious lens as untenable. If anything, it weekens the claims made in large parts of the current article

By the way, we don't "need material based on JSTOR"; we just need material to be a fair representation of the most scholarly, modern, secondary sources that are available and recent articles archived on JSTOR are one venue to search. Abecedare (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Malabar and Travancore episodes were not separate. Malabar invasion was almost completed by 1767, after which Haider continued Southwards. (It was a continuation). At the time of his death in 1782, Haider was still at war with Travancore (The 1782-1784 war). So for the first part of the battle, Haider lead Mysore and after that Tipu took command untill he was defeated in 1784. Check this page It is given in the 3rd paragraph of p.206. The 1789-1790 wars were a result of the 1784 treaty. If you find anything incompatible, please notify me, and I will modify the article. Axxn (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now I am not having access to JSTOR and can't search in JSTOR. Give me two or three days time, and I will be able to get a login. Axxn (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification about the how the two campaigns were linked. The question still remains whether they are referred to as invasion of Kerala (which seems anachronistic to me). Anyway, it would be best to discuss article related issues on the article talkpage. There is no real hurry here and we can discuss and resolve the issues over the coming days and weeks. By the way, I plan to delete the Islamic Invasion of Kerala as an implausible redirect; let me know if you have any sources that would justify that title, even as a redirect. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No probs with the deletion of redirect. Thank you so much for granting time. Axxn (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, can we move this discussion to the talk page of the article? Axxn (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirect deleted. Yes, we can continue the discussion at Talk:Invasion of Kerala by Hyder Ali and Tipu from now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, your initial instinct about checking for copyright violation was indeed right! I thought there were only POV/sourcing issues that could be remedied through discussion, but the whole article seems to be a cut-and-paste job from a POV source. The other articles created by the user need to be checked too. What a waste of time and good faith. <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I tagged the article as copy-paste and posted on the link to the book on the talk page, so I assumed you must've seen it, else I'd have stepped in to alert you. I was otherwise busy removing the copy-paste from Kerala Forest Research Institute, thinking that there was some salvageable content (I was wrong), and that left the article empty except for the See also links and an image; Eastmain came by and wrote something up after that, so the article didn't go G12. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how, but somehow I missed your post and link on the article talk page, and wasted so much time instead of straightaway G12ing it. I realized that it was all a cut-and-paste only when I googled "TIPU SULTAN: AS KNOWN IN KERALA" to find the bibliographical information for that source (somehow the book pages themselves are not indexed by google). As suspected the other articles created by the user are copied from different chapters of the book too, and I am in the process of deleting them. If I hadn't been invoolved in the above discussion with the user I would have blocked him too. Abecedare (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't modified some of the parts in Invasion of Kerala article. But the other three were not taken from that source. Axxn (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you wish, you can take the issue to deletion review and I'll provide comparative quotes there. I'd recommend that you drop the issue though, since you have already exhausted my (and possibly other editors') supply of good-faith and patience by blatant copyright violation, POV pushing, and misattribution of sources. Abecedare (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I give up. I didn't knew copyright is such a big issue here. Sorry for causing all the trouble. Axxn (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Two AfDs?

Hi there, For some reason, the Indian rebellion of 1857 page had fallen off my watchlist, so I hadn't really paid much attention to it for almost a year. I noticed yesterday that a "novel" Recalcitrance was listed in the See alsos. That led me to its author, Anurag Kumar's page. Both pages, in my view, are likely candidates for AfD. The author is an engineering professor at Bangalore, .... Not sure if that alone, or his fellowships, for example "fellow of IEEE" (of which there are thousands), qualifies him for Wikinotability. Similarly, not sure that Recalcitrance belongs either. Will defer, of course, to your take. (Also, it could be a big time sink. So, various tags might be just as effective.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, disregard the message above. Recipe for more time wasting. The tags should be enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My first instinct is that the article on the professor will perhaps be justifiable, while the novel will not (in which case it can be merged into the former); but all depends upon the availability of sources, since neither subjects are obvious keeps/deletes. Will try and take a look this weekend (the commonness of the names will make the job non-trivial!). Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem on this one is that the editor of the book keeps inserting junk about the author in the professor's article (they are two different people). Anurag Kumar is a professor at IISc who passes many elements of WP:PROF, but he is not the author of that book. Two different chaps that were confused by people during the earlier AfD. That book should go to AfD.-SpacemanSpiff 08:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that substantially lowers the keep-worthiness of the article on the novel. The two author interviews are pretty trivial coverage in my opinion and do not "should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." (aside: it's amusing how the inext article simply spells out "non-historian", "First war of independence" etc in Devanagari instead of translating the terms to Hindi).

As for the IISC Anurag Kumar: WP:PROF lists "Fellow of the IEEE" as one of the qualifying criterion; that combined with the books he has authored should make his bio. an obvious keep. Abecedare (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominated Recalcitrance for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Trailanga Swami

Hi Abecedare, could pls take a look at this article, and check if its worth a shot towards GA. Thanks. TheMandarin (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I just read through the article (it helps that it is short :-) ) and think that it is certainly worth nominating it for GA. If nothing else, you'll get useful feedback. A few recommendations:

• Since the fantastical details of Trailanga Swami's life are intrinsic to his notability, we don't need to be shy about reporting them, but it would be good to attribute the beliefs as far as possible. The article already does a fairly good job on this front, but perhaps we can be a bit more specific in certain places add a sentence or two about the origin of such stories, available sources etc - if such information can be sourced.
• The Bibliography section is confusing to me. Is it supposed to be a list of all the sources used in the article, or a list of references for further reading ? In either case, this section should not list the specific page numbers for books (which anyways don't match the page numbers in the reference section).
• The GA reviewer is sure to ask about the length/comprehensiveness of the article. So try to make sure, as far as possible, that there is no significant source that is left out.

The article can use light copyediting and few improvements here and there (eg, clarify Benares=Varanasi); instead of listing such minor stuff I'll just make the adjustments myself in the next day or two. All the best with the GA nomination. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I will start incorporating them. --TheMandarin (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Invasion of Kerala by Hyder Ali and Tipu

The article Invasion of Kerala by Hyder Ali and Tipu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Historical synthesis, unsupported by any reliable source. The events described in this article were part of a long and complicated history involving the kingdom of Mysore, the British, the French, and regions of Malabar, Travancore etc. Picking two events based on the geography of the modern Indian state of Kerala is both ahistorical and anachronistic. The topic is better covered in the articles on the four Anglo-Mysore wars, Hyder Ali and Tippu Sultan.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fittingly ironic. Thanks User:RegentsPark for "making" me the creator of this article! Perhaps I should just G7 it. :-) Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvasing: Reply

I'm just inviting users listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian history for discussion on the nomination of deletion. In initial posts there was request for support for Keep (due to copy paste) which was removed from subsequent posts. If invitation for discussion on topics to related/interested users is Canvasing, then I think it was unintentional on my part.

Current post:

Articles for deletion nomination of Recalcitrance

---

Article Recalcitrance have been nominated for deletion. It is an article which is about the experiences of Indians during the 1857 mutiny against British rule, by an author whose ancestors witnessed it. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for deletion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recalcitrance (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read policy on Canvassing. Actually one of the posts was due to copy & paste. It happens that project members don't take much notice of general notices at times but respond if they are contacted on their talk page. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to revert all my posts, plz revert any left post if they come into your notice. By the way the User who has voted for Keep of the Recalcitrance at Articles for deletion was never contacted by on this issue.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry

Hello Abecedare, a taste to greet yourself again, Good I write to you requesting the previous same thing, an article creating to a Venezuelan band "Idonea" call, Good there are Venezuelan bands with articles as The Asbestos that are not relevant, acambio Idonea it is the band that is listened and has a single in YouTube.

Www.myspace.com/idoneamusic

A Greeting I wait that me autorize to creating it

--Done12 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on the youtube video, but unfortunately that is not sufficient to establish notability for a wikipedia article. We can look at the available sources in a few months and reevaluate at that point. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK

It's ok. Is that why nothing has happened for the last 24 hours? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 06:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No. General busyness. Abecedare (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gujjar

HAve you seen this? I can't help here, if there is still a problem YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I see any particular problems (besides the general poor state of caste/community articles). Is it the recent series of reverts ? I can add it to my watchlist; Utcursch already seems to be at work on it, which is a good sign! Abecedare (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

SH was complaining about Chhorra more generally, see my talk page. I don't know enough about this topic to say the least YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Will keep an eye. Abecedare (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Provoking user?

What 'Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Zoroastrian Eschotology' got to do with 2012 phenomenon? It is just related to mayan calender. But article displayes all religions eschotology in lead section.

At least my edit to Aum is relevant. 'sarve bhavantu sukhinah' are most famous lines from Vedas and obviously related to 'Aum'.

Are you one of those users who are on wikipedia to provoke wikipedians? Your contrib stats show only 38.77% edits to mainspace.

If my edit is irrelevant, show relevance of 'Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Zoroastrian Eschotology' got to do with 2012 phenomenon.

You should have allowed non-admin Indian user to revert my edit.

Thinking about block? Go ahead. RAMA (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am missing the context of your message. Can you please explain the reference to " "'Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Zoroastrian Eschotology'" and 2012 phenomenon, since I don't recall dealing with either topics recently ? Needless to say, not even being aware of any problem, I have no intention of issuing blocks! Abecedare (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have clearly given link to 2012 phenomenon which displayes in lead section of the article {{Eschatology}} and being admin you should verify relevance and references to judge whether 2012 phenomenon is linked to all religions. Hindu eschatology do not predict any 'end of the world' in 2012'. Then why drag hindu eschatology in this article without a single reference? There is no reference to establish link between various major religions eschatology and article 2012 phenomenon. I left message on talk papge. But the user says it is merely for navigation! Can I post eschatology template on any article related to prophecy for navigation? Obviously not.

I will not make any edit to Aum and 2012 phenomenon.

ummeed haiN ki aap meri baat samajh rahe haiN. mujhe baat baDhaane mein koi dilchaspi nahi. dhanyawad!

RAMA (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. A couple of points:

• You said that "being admin you should verify relevance and references ... ": This is a common misunderstanding among new users at wikipedia, but in fact admins do not have any special voice in handling such legitimate content issues, or deciding what stays, or what doesn't, in an article. Such decisions are decided by consensus after discussion amongst editors on the article talk pages; and dispute resolution avanues can be used if significant differences still remain.
• Now, as an experienced editor, I can say that User:Serendipodous is right when he points out on the talk page that the template is being used only as a navigational aid, to point interested readers to related articles - and no claim is being made that the 2012 phenomenon is part of Hindu, Christian or Islamic eschatology. At best, admins can grease the wheels of discussion by ensuring that editors do not edit-war, call each other names, etc. which is not an issue in this instance.

I hope that addresses your question. If you have further questions about the 2012 article, it would be best to post them on the article talk page and discuss the issues with the editors involved in that topic. If you have any questions about wikipedia policies, practices, or norms, feel free to contact me here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bhagavata Purana

Hi Abecedare, I was short on time when I answered you earlier. I wanted to add that I'm eager to hear what you think of Rukmani's book when you get more into it, and of course in seeing any additions to the article. You might enjoy this interview with her as background.[1] Priyanath ^talk 04:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Interesting interview and profile; the book itself doesn't have any of those biographical details, even though I have a 1970 edition, which I assume is well after she got her PhD. Interestingly, Rukmani dates BP to ~5th century, though her literature survey is broadly similar to what we have in our article and its references. Am still on the second chapter of the book, and will probably take the rest of the month to finish it due to non-wiki work. At least from the preface, it appears that the book should be both interesting to read and useful for our wikipedia article on BP, Bhakti, and related topics. Will provide a more thorough review once I read through the meat of the book. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

168.115.218.139 from Korea

Guess who's back again, and just vandalized the Mad Men page? Oh, goodie. Will keep you informed. Drmargi (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if the problem really persists. Can reprotect if needed. Abecedare (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for being responsive. Now I seriously owe you some chocolate! Drmargi (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

You semi-protected the talkpage of that article until the end of the month to prevent disruption from sockpuppets. The article was also semi-protected, which was later upped to full protection. Full protection on the article expired a little over five hours ago without massive disruption from non-autoconfirmed users. Admittedly this may not be a good sample as it has been in the wee hours of Saturday morning for the US, but I would like to unprotect the talkpage to test the waters, unless you think that this would be a bad idea. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. No harm trying as long as some uninvolved admins keep an eye on the page to see how things develop. I'll add it to my watchlist too temporarily. Abecedare (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU article

ABC, the unprotection isn't going well. We've had 5RR from an anon, with Tillman then restoring the anon's highly contentious edit without prior discussion and instead challenging others to justify its removal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think full protection of the page may be premature at this stage since the disruption is limited to only 1 IP and 1 user. I'll leave a note t Tilman's page, and if the IP returns, and edits without discussion, it can be blocked. I think Tom Harrison has the right idea to keep disruption in check, while allowing required expansion, updates, and general updates. I too will keep an eye on the article. Abecedare (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We'll eventually have a decent article on this but probably not until it has been out of the news for a while and things have settled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wish I could disagree. C'est la vie. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, wise administrator

Original post is here but you may not have to read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Carter#Emergency_question

Someone (RaseaC) did not like an article so they requested redirect and page protection of the redirect. I wrote a comment on their user talk page. They removed it but then put it back after he edited my original comment (this is funny..editing someone else's talk page comment). They said I could either remove it or ask that he respond.

In response, I made a small edit of his edit of my original comment. This is what I added: (AK=Amanda Knox)

A word of advice, consider not writing "There is no real argument for AK to have her own article" when it is possible that some may have some points for having the article. That's why there's an AFD process not a deletion process where one user can simply declare "I've thought it over and there is no real argument to keep, therefore delete"

The user then says that I am violating WP:CIVILITY and removes my entire comment, says I don't know how WP works and does not want discussion.

I am very much in support of polite discussion. If you think there was a violation of civility, please let me know. I ask you because of your wisdom. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't read your comment as uncivil. That said, on wikipedia, it is often better to drop issues and move on, especially when the concerns are not directly related to article content. Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise advice about moving on. I wanted a second opinion about civility, which you kindly gave. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

some dude is ...

trying to delete some graphs I made for a discussion on the India page or it might have been an RfC on the India page. Unfortunately, this is an impossibly busy and stressful time for me, so I'm unable to do much. I was wondering if you could look into it. The charts are on a talk page. People do this routinely to express opinion on talk pages. For example, YellowMonkey has made many graphs for FAR discussions. Apparently, people have nothing better to do than to dredge up stuff from 2 or 3 years ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have readded the tag since you as the uploader should not remove them - however you have nothing to worry about, since the images are not going to be deleted in any case. You can see the note I added on the talk page of the images for the context of why they were nominated in the first place. By the way, I may have been inadvertently and partially responsible for this additional stress, since I told the tagger that he should inform you about the speedy deletion. Anyway the upshot of all this convoluted mess is: as far as the images go, adopt Alfred E. Neuman's motto. :-) Abecedare (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've deleted my post, which as you wisely observed, was written in haste and anger. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA

SpacemanSpiff is involved in some India related articles. He has a RFA. I have not voted yes or no. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I know. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you started it! I knew that Spaceman was not a troublemaker so that passes the first criteria. I looked at the support votes and didn't see your name. Oops, I didn't look high enough to see the nomination. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WOW!

". Wikipedia will be banned from India and hence it will lose 1/6th of world's leaders." - is that anonymous editor someone high up in the Indian government or Hindu religion? Maybe just a person with delusions of grandeur? *shakes head* wow... just wow... Alatari (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Shalin 99 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Where should I add (Shalin 99 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)) in the page?

Only messages on talk pages (such as this one) need to be signed, and you can do so by adding ~~~~ at the end of any talkpage comment. Abecedare (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

2,600 dead bodies found in Kashmir.

I add this news on wikipedia Kashmir topics. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/as_kashmir_nameless_graves So please dont delete it.Because news is not small.Deaths are in thousands.If my edit is wrong then please correct it,Please make refrence number and put news in refrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid1947 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't even have the articles you edited on my wathlist, and wouldn't have noticed your edits. But since you pointed them out, I took a look and noticed that you were misrepresnting the source. Feel free to discuss the issue on the talk page to determine if and how the content can be appropriately included. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFA supports

Fair enough, if that's general policy. It just seemed a bit redundant to me, and the timing was suspect (given the WP:100). And yeah, right, I believe you and RP didn't coordinate that one :-) BTW, have added my support separately. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Aryabhatta heliocentric model

Please see the Talk page on Arybhatta,Also wanted to there is a section heliocentrism in aryabhatta page .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokprasad (talk • contribs) 19:42, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Aryabhata. Abecedare (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

New email

You have it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved for now at ANI. That said, Daedalus, it would be advisable for you to not get involved in matters concerning User:Radiopathy and let other editors handle the concerns. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about that, as, as said in the email, I will not participate in any discussions, or edit any involved articles.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rishabha (hindu sage)

An anon repeatedly adding Rishabha was an avatar of Krishna, not vishnu. I reverted him twice, so i am not reverting again. Please see, I have started a discussion on the talk. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Let a message on the IPs talk page; lets see how it responds. Of course, the vedabse translation is not a good source for such information, except as a source of ISKCON"S view. Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

already left a discussion link on the ip's talk. Priyanath has reverted the ip's edits. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Chennai and Mumbai

Can you take a look? "formerly known as" being changed to "alternatively known as" repetitively. I still use Madras and Bombay, but it is formerly...I've reverted a couple of times on Chennai and once on Mumbai, but would rather not anymore. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 07:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You just beat me on both occasions! :) Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. Lets see if it returns and discusses the issue this time. Abecedare (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I am New User On wiki Please Help me to create a new article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyaara Dil (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

i need help uploading image i dont know where to upload image and how! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyaara Dil (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Will reply on your talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy and Jojhutton

I have some additional comments about the Radiopathy/Jojhutton incident.

I don't think a week-long block on Radiopathy was necessary, but I agree that he violated the terms of the limits placed on his editing and he was risking such a block, so that's that.

Jojhutton's behavior has been less-than-exemplary but there is little to no mention of that in the noticeboard entry. His comments show a general lack of respect for other editors ([2]) and ownership issues ([3], [4]). His initial response to multiple editors questioning his many edits was to push on anyway. It took more than two days for him to initiate a discussion about it, and I think he kept making the edits after that and before there was resolution.

The main thing that disturbs me, however, is this edit where Jojhutton refers to a revert by Radiopathy as evidence of wikihounding. That edit was made nearly two days after the reversion and his repeat of the edit in question had already been reverted by another editor (me) with a full edit comment ([5]). After my revert, Jojhutton raised the issue on the talk page ([6]), and I responded ([7]). Clearly, he knew other editors disputed the edit, and why.

So, why did Jojhutton use that edit as an example of wikihounding two days later? That edit misled another editor (SunCreator) into repeating the edit ([8]); a small issue, but easily avoidable. Was The Beatles edit the only case Jojhutton could find where Radiopathy had two reverts within 24 hours? Was it the only case where there was an edit that was not related to the WP:PLACE issue? Radiopathy has made many edits to The Beatles; Jojhutton's edit of that article could just as easily be viewed as him hounding Radiopathy. I don't know why Jojhutton cherry-picked that particular revert by Radiopathy, but he should not have used that edit as evidence of wikihounding or he should have told the whole story.

In the end, Radiopathy was given very little leeway, and I suppose that's appropriate given his history. Meanwhile, though, Jojhutton instigated the incident, made it worse by his accusation that there was wikihounding when there wasn't, and misled other editors who took an interest in the incident. He should be warned that such behavior is not appropriate, and given you marked the noticeboard incident as resolved, that warning should come from you if you agree with some or all of what I described. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to seperate the different issues:

• Radiopathy's conduct: as you note Radiopathy was blocked because the latest edit-warring was part of a very long term pattern. Looking at the user's talkpage edits after the block, gives me little hope that Radiopathy still gets the point, but we'll see once the current block expires. Note though that the block is not a comment on the rightness or wrongess of the content of the user's edits.
• Jojhutton's edits related to placenames: The mass changes to the infoboxes would have been problematic, if the user had not begun discussing it at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). But given that the topic is being discussed at the appropriate forum, I don't see any need for admin intervention. Of course, if Jojhutton, or anyone else, flouts whatever consensus is reached there, the disruption can be reported at ANI.
• Jojhutton's allegations of wikihounding: I have not taken a deep look to see whether they are justified or not, since in my experience most such allegations are an expression of frustration and need to be read as such. Except in a few cases, it is difficult to tell whether an editor is reverting another just to "hound" the latter, or simply because he thought the edit was poor - instead of trying to read motives, I find it more fruitful to simply look at the actions and intervene if those are disruptive.

Lastly, regarding your comment about ownership: you'll note that my final comment at the ANI thread hinted at that and at treating wikipedia as a battleground. I am hopeful, that all involved editors will get the hint, and will try to edit more collaboratively from this point on. I don't think any further admin action is required at this point, and it would perhaps be best to focus on the content issue and future conduct. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable?

Hi, I saw your comment on Jimbo's talkpage regarding the Sun, when you have a moment could you have a look at my question here regarding two sources, one is the Daily Star (United Kingdom) . Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Have asked a question at the RSN. Abecedare (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just feel that we should be aiming higher for our citations, if they are that desperate to add the valuable comment that these are the way they try to support it..It seems very poor indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Have replied on the RSN board. I don't see a reliability concern with regards to the specific statements being cited, although if better sources are available, those should be used. Aside: I don't know anything about the underlying issue or editors involved, but characterizing them as "desperate" is hardly helpful, and in the eyes of an outside observer like me, it weaken whatever point you are trying to make - it's best to simply focus on content and not assign motives to others' actions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no other citations, personally I would never use these type of citations unless I was desperate and I am very surprised that they are acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Dear Friend,

Kindly take this as a warning, you are crossing your lines. Justify the reverts on 'OPEN FRAUDS' posted on discusion page of /wiki/Goa by me. --59.95.34.14 (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are being reverted because you are continuing to use wikipedia as a sopabox, despite your account Gaunkars of Goa (talk · contribs) being indefinitely blocked for such behavior. If you are interested in contributing here, you can request an unblock of your account. If you chose to use IP socks instead you edits will continue to be ignored and reverted. Abecedare (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you calling it Soapboxing? I keep giving you important [true/unknown/hidden] information on Goa so that you may improve your articles. I am on wikipedia mainly to cross check [object] wrong information published, especially on /wiki/Goa, it is my native right to object. I may not have contributed a lot like you, but my activity is very important. I hope you understand. --59.95.56.242 (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Article sources

Could you please take a look at the sources used here : Ramakrishna#Notes ? There is a debate on usage of so called "outdated, 100 and 50 year-old sources" for quite some time now. Could you pls share your views. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with the literature in the area and other editors who have commented earlier on the talk pages (Priyanath, RegentsPark, Redtigerxyz etc^§) may be able to provide more incisive analysis of the sources. That said, hasn't this issues been beaten to death yet - looking through the archives I was even able to find an earlier listing of the quotes that User:Goethean seems to have re-added to the talk page again. At this point, it may be a good idea to either start a (1) content RFC to determine what sources to include and what weight to assign to them, or (2) user conduct RFC on User:Goethean, so that other users can chime in and propose solutions to this long term dispute/disruption. (§: I was going to include Nvineeth in the list, before I realized that is your former username :-) )Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ramakrishna

Hi, I was wondering if you would warn User:TheMandarin about his deceptive use of edit summary here. He also removed a block of well-sourced, highly notable text (the Malcolm McLean material) from the article without justifying the removal on the talk page. — goethean ॐ 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, I would highly recommend that some form of dispute resolution (WP:RFC, WP:Mediation etc) be tried for this long festering dispute, so that it can be resolved once and for all. If needed I can protect the page, to prevent edit-warring in the meantime. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a "no"? — goethean ॐ 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, I am suggesting a positive way forward, rather than a repeat cycle of edits, reverts, followed by tit-for-tat warnings. It would be best to stop treating wikipedia disputes as a schoolyard brawl (even calling it battleground assigns it more measure of bravery than such silliness deserves). Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would take my concerns over article content seriously rather than willfully mischaracterizing my motives. I am sorry that you are satisfied to let a religious organization control a major Wikipedia article. But this exchange has given me insight into your motivation for being here at Wikipedia, and for that I am grateful. — goethean ॐ 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary follows the outside opinion on book reviews and I stand by it, though my understanding of "directly attributing to author" in Opinion pieces in WP:RS might not be accurate ( awaiting Abecedare's response on this ). Anyway, I have have requested for comments, instead of arguing endlessly. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone reading the material can see that your edit summary is a blatant falsehood. In the quotation that I added to the article, and which you immediately removed, McLean says:

This manipulation of the sources by the Ramakrishna Movement is significant because it has allowed the Mission to present a particular kind of explanation of Ramakrishna, that he was some kind of neo-Vedantist who taught that all religions are the same, and so on. It is Kripal's contention, and I am sure that he is correct, that this is wrong. And it is significant that the Jivanavrttanta presents an altogether different picture of Ramakrishna.

These are clearly McLean's words, and McLean's conclusions. So you remove them completely, saying "(→Psychoanalysis and Sexuality: attribute to original author per talk, per WP:RS". Please do not use deceptive edit summaries in the future. — goethean ॐ 13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

One question to you Abecedare, from Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion, "When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author", so author X uses author Y's material in an opinion, this should be directly attributed to author Y, right? Or I have mistaken something? Here is one example from RSN, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Book_Review_.E2.80.93_Reliable_Source.3F, in which there the author + the book reviewers are combined as "several historians". LOL! --TheMandarin (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends upon on what you mean by "X uses author Y's material". A book review can contain several types of statements:

1. the paraphrase of what the book says,
2. the reviewers comments on on the book itself, and
3. the reviewer's comments on the subject of the book.

In a well-written review, it is not difficult to separate such statements and attribute them appropriately. The first kind need to be attributed to the original author directly or indirectly (eg, according to X, Y's thesis is that ...) depending upon whether X's interpretation is disputable. The second kind of statement should be attributed to X, while the third kind can be taken to be statements of facts and quoted without attribution if they are indisputable/non-controversial, or attributed to X.

Besides all this, one needs to consider whether the statements are relevant to the subject of the article and what weight they should be assigned. All this is of course, generic analysis that needs to be tailored to any particular circumstance based on the work under consideration, the reviewer, length and depth of review, where the review was published, what other reviews said, whether there were any responses or updates to the review etc. Abecedare (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your views. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Arya varat

Seems dubious to me, can you take a look? Was PRODded by someone and contested by the author. -SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirected to pre-existing article on the subject, which too has sourcing and OR issues - that's the case for almost anything to do "aryans" on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As also the Kamboja fancruft! Didn't realize that there was another article, didn't show up on my search auto fill. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew of Aryavarta, because editors have tried to add it as the "true name" of India at (IIRC) India and other articles. Aryavarta, itself is a notable geographic designation of historic importance, however on the web it is a calling card of nationalists, and fringe "historians". Abecedare (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you also take a look at Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Incorrectly moved to the older name. I'd like a second opinion before I move back. It should at least have a move discussion before moving. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it shouldn't have been moved from its official name without a discussion. Best to restore the status quo and ask that a RM be started. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was our good old friend Doorvery far (talk · contribs) who made the move. Why am I not surprised ? :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There's another very absurd move he made, after a PROD was contested -- 2009 Indian general election analysis. I think that article needs merging somewhere, it's not good as a standalone, and the title isn't exactly great, but his choice of new title is ridiculous. -SpacemanSpiff 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite a pointy move, and factually incorrect since the analysis is by Lokniti, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, which the The Hindu published as a supplement. Abecedare (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. You might want to fix the move back, you left the "by" in the title at the end. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also an arbitrary merge of Versova Beach into Versova (Mumbai). Geographic spots are individually notable, if they are significant, so don't know why this was done. Undo? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that is ok either way, because because of the redirect an interested reader can still find the information. Also some of the information in the original Versova beach article (etymology, history), is better suited in the Versova article. As for precedents: the more famous Juhu beach redirects to a sub-section of Juhu, while Chowpatty and Girgaum are distinct articles - so one can argue for each option. Abecedare (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't notice Juhu Beach which was merged by Utcursch in 2005. For some reason, I think the Bombay beaches should have individual articles, at least these ones, but it's not very important, both articles are pretty small now anyway, let someone come and expand, and it can be split back. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 16:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting Ragib, the greatest wikipedian

Abecedare, thank you very much for protecting the user page of Ragib from vandalism. You know, Ragib is the greatest wikipedia Admistrator who donated more than 100,000 US$ to wikipedia until now. Cheers!Sensehence63 (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kamboja

Satbir Singh is back as a different IP -- 76.20.22.44 (talk · contribs). Can you do your bit? I'll revert later. The edit summaries are telling this time! cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that he's been reverted and blocked. Will protect the pages, the next time he's back. At least, he doesn't make himself and his POV difficult to spot, Spaceship. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting easy to spot him now. Although I've never had any interaction with him other than identifying him as a sock, he keeps using my name everywhere, so I don't want to take any action myself. Do you think some deeper cleaning up of his edits is required? Edit summaries abusing Itsmejudith are everywhere. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If Itsmejudith or any other of the named editors care, I think wikipedia policy would allow the edits to be suppressed. Personally, I think such steps are not needed unless some personal information is being revealed, or there is any chance of the insults being taken seriously; better to simply RBI. Abecedare (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Back as 67.182.188.93 (talk · contribs) and back to reverting again, mild edit summaries though. -SpacemanSpiff 16:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked IP. Protected his usual haunts, except the article at AfD. The semi-protection is indefinite so that he does not simply time his return, although we can unprotect the pages in a week or two. By the way, you should not consider yourself involved simply because he is naming you in his diatribes; you are not in any content dispute with him and we shouldn't let such editors game the system. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I do agree with you on "my involvement" and this chap gaming the system, but I can't seem to get myself to respond with the tools when my name has been called out as being in a content dispute (albeit incorrectly). I'll probably get over it in time :) BTW, I just noticed the Nadapriya reverts on my TP and your blocking his IP, the stuff that happens when I'm asleep! cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 22:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

About involvement: RP gave me the same advice I am giving you, a few weeks back - so I certainly appreciate your viewpoint.

About Naadpriya: have to give him points for politeness; if only that was matched with cluefulness, he would be an ideal editor. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)