User talk:Kenfyre/Archives/2015/July

License tagging for File:Saga220.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Saga220.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape RFC

Kenfyre, can you take a look at my comments at the RFC you started. Albeit for different reasons, I believe both of us are on the same page as to whether the content under discussion should be included in the article (it shouldn't, and I have already removed it as a BLP vio). If that is the case, the RFC can be closed. Let me know what you think. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Risley

What dispute? You do not seem to have specified anything. And your tags are wrong: the stuff is sourced in the body of the article as per WP:LEAD. The lead section, by the way, was written almost entirely by one of our most experienced contributors but they were otherwise uninvolved with the article, which means that it must indeed reflect what the article says. Please self-revert. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't self revert. This article contains original research. Opinions of other scholars do not belong in the header. Please refer to the talk page. -Kenfyre (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for at last explaining your rationale on the talk page. That's a start. You are wrong, of course: even an elementary reading of the article would show you this. If you think that there is a valid alternative perspective then the way to deal with it is to raise that perspective, not tag something that is valid. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I am tagging it for a different reason. I don't claim to have an alternative perspective. Please refer to my reply on the talk page.-Kenfyre (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You started the RfC so please let it complete before making changes to the text. And then only make them if you have consensus to do so from the RfC. As a rule, they last 30 days but I suppose you can always withdraw it as the creator. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary, those were temporary edits. They were to be reverted after I posted the diff on the talk page. Thank you for reverting them for me so promptly. -Kenfyre (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Temporary" edits should not be made to Good Articles or, indeed, any article. There was also a 40 minute gap between your "temporary" edit and my revert. You might want to familiarise yourself with WP:POINT and WP:Sandbox. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The temporary edit was made in response to @Blue Rasberry:'s suggestion on the Rfc. He is also a veteran editor. 40 minutes gap is minor in my opinion. I already make good use of my sandbox, thank you. -Kenfyre (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste System in India

Could you please take a look at this article: Caste system in India and its talk page. I am writing to you because i happen to agree with your edits on the Risley page and this has a direct bearing on the page on the Indian caste system. The disputed edit is: Caste is often thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars argue that the caste system as it exists today is the result of the British colonial regime, which made rigid caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.Soham321 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems some editors are cherry-picking scholars who support their point of view. It also seems to have been written from a Hindu-apologist point-of-view. We could include more diverse views, and expand and clarify upon their views, like which scholar said exactly what. It would take time. It is seems even the simplest edit would be fought over. They have purged all references to castes from Rig Veda, Mahabharata and Sutrakara Baudhayana. I will try to support the above issues and the genetic studies edits proposed by you.-Kenfyre (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Kenfyre: your name was mentioned by Soham321 in that you might be interested in a recent attempt to inflict a ban upon me for trying to improve the Caste System in India article. Also, here is a chronology of my attempted edits and of the talk page discussion. I will be opening a rfc in the next few weeks and would like to keep you informed as an interested party, regards. Twobells^t@lk 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: From reading the talk page and the Admin noticeboard page, it seems that you were reported for throwing a spanner in the blame-the-British game. It is not a hidden fact that caste system was a part of Hinduism for centuries before the arrival of British. I am also having my edits reverted, on this and a few related pages. I oppose your ban, but here we will have to use a different tactic. Find solid citations, put them on the talk page, invite people to look them and cause them edits to be committed, just like Soham321 is doing with the genetic studies. It is also important that we check their citations carefully. For example, I found the parts of the Herbert Hope Risley article were slightly but significantly different from what the citations said. -Kenfyre (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm now going to be reporting people for canvassing. The three of you have already demonstrated dubious competence levels and this is just not on. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush, Dear Sitush, Have you forgotten that only recently four or five editors were discussing the Caste System in India page on your talk page? Should that also be considered as canvassing? Soham321 (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reporting me for what? Writing on the talk page? Making edits worth a few bytes? This is not canvassing, as I am encouraging them to discuss their proposed edits on the talk pages, before committing. Having the same interests and political views is not a crime.-Kenfyre (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the experienced editors among us revert edits for 3 main reasons. (1) If somebody deletes or modifies sourced content that has been around a while, it gets reverted immediately. The editor must figure out how to add his/her new content without deleting or modifying the original content. (2) If a new edit violates WP:WEIGHT or some other policy, then we revert it and expect the original editor to open a discussion as per WP:BRD. (3) If it is stylistically wrong, then we might improve it, or raise a question on the talk page, or revert it when we don't have the energy to do the more sophisticated surgery.

Not all editors would be totally civil. But Sitush and Joshua Jonathan are among the best there are. So, please do pay attention to what they say. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I totally respect that. I and @Sitush: locked horns, when I made some edits which I had assumed to be uncontroversial. After the edits were reverted, I have kept my comments to talk pages. Then, some editors pointed me to other articles with similar issues, I have also encouraged them to keep the comments to the talk page. I feel the articles don't contain enough diverse views and in some cases like Herbert Hope Risley the citations have been misinterpreted. However, dropping f-bombs and threatening me is not acceptable. It is not the sign of a veteran editor. -Kenfyre (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: No doubt this was canvassing. But I suggest we let it pass. It is a difficult subject. The contrarians are having a hard time figuring out how to deal with it. @Kenfyre and Twobells:, please see WP:CANVAS for how to solicit opinions for an RfC in a neutral manner. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya, if this was canvassing then even your extended conversations on Sitush's talk page where you were found discussing the Caste system in India page will also have to be considered as canvassing. (This applies to Joshua and a few others as well.) You claim Sitush and Joshua to be among the best editors here and ask Ken to pay attention to them. Personally i consider Ken to be a better editor than either Sitush or Joshua--much more balanced. Soham321 (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I was already involved in related articles when I was notified by the two. Under WP:Canvass, these notifications, were appropriate and open. I have not disrupted any Rfcs. So, I can't be held responsible for canvassing, if I am reported. -Kenfyre (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that you were already involved. But Twobells needs to be careful from now on. If he is serious about filing an RfC, he needs to respect WP:CANVAS. (As for discussions I have had with Joshua, Sitush et al. there is no bar on all such discussions. But if I was soliciting their participation in an RfC, there would be.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321, ABEditWiki, and Kenfyre: This looks far more like an attempt by Kautilya3 and Sitush to prevent an open and honest discussion on how to improve the article, at no time was any editor canvassed on my forthcoming rfc, rather what did happen was the various concerned editors were legitimately notified, the fact that Kautilya3 Sitush interjected themselves into said notifications with warnings does not bode well for their positions. Also, having read the recent talk history here, I am astonished that user Sitush resorted to such vulgarity, vulgarity which is against WP:CIV and WP:NPA, as for threats, well, the fact that he was not reported says much in favour of user Kenfyre. Twobells^t@lk 11:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Twobells, i would encourage you to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables Soham321 (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You do realise that you have "replied" to someone (ABEditWiki) who hasn't even commented on this talk page, don't you? Try {{ping}} and don't mention them to avoid that. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Odd, you didn't even attempt to address anything I'd written, instead you decided to be [[1]], why was that? best wishes. Twobells^t@lk 12:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your work is highly appreciated. Its very very helpful. Cheers (Y) PositiveRishikumar 12:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2015 in India page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)