Jump to content

User talk:Abecedare/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Commons deletion

Your opinion on a nomination for deletion at Commons would be appreciated here, thanks, DR04 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Darjeeling FAR

Since you're serious about standards, you might wnat to look at this one YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is one of the better Indian city articles, but still not up to the current FA standards. I am surprised no one raised 1b, 1c concerns at the FAR. Abecedare (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps not many are familiar with the city? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll look into it over the following week, and revert to you after that. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Great! Just ping me here if you have any questions about my comments or need help with accessing sources. Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cult following

ABECEDARE REPRESSES TRUTH (talk · contribs) haha! You well? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! The truth is out! Too bright ... can't keep ... eyes... open ... skin ... burns... ahhh...
By the way, this version is well worth a read, being the mother of all conspiracy theories, combining Hitler, Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, James Joyce, Einstein, UFOs and extra-terrestrials, Elvis Presley (I kid you not!) ... in one grand plot. See also this FTN thread. Abecedare (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If you ask me, not that anyone did, Abecedare's motives are transparent. You don't think the modern training of the Nine Unknown Men wouldn't include expertise in "propaganda and psychological warfare" using Wikipedia, do you? Ha, one of the Nine Unknown Men is no longer unknown, ABECEDARE! :-) Priyanath talk 16:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a new one. I've only had articles created -- Spaceman7Spiff (my username before I usurped the current one without the 7). -SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Haha funny stuff! I've only had my editor review attacked! :) Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to respective talk

I was composing a message here, when I received your warning. I believe we all know the rules of 3RR ... The leap to aspersion of WP:DE, following your expressed understanding here is inappropriate. I respectfully ask you withdraw the warning from my user [talk] page. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Abecedare (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Undoing would have been easier. :-) But "everything that has happened is perfect" (i.e., works in the context of all — previous matter does require correction).

For documentation of what's transpired: see User_talk:Proofreader77#Documentation. No worries. Things will all work out beautifully, or so feels the flow of the holiday season. ;-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

COI revert? (consider)

While you have a rationale for your reverting of my comment, the fact that the comment discusses the perhaps problematic nature of your action to archive-lock may create a bad impression. You might wish to undo your revert, and perhaps allow someone else to reinstate it. (Just a suggestion in the context of Arbcom. No reply necessary.)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Abecedare (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Meera Nanda

Dear Abecedare, I have known Meera Nanda personally and she has herself accepted that she doesn't like Hinduism as it's not a religion but a racist philosophy. She, in fact, prefers calling herself Anti-Hindu just as someone would be proud to call oneself Anti-theist, and that's why I added that adjective.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.167.57 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See wikipedia's policies on verifiability and biolgraphy of reliable sources. Unless you have reliable sources for your claims, there is not much point discussing them. Abecedare (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Greetings of the Season
A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small.
When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WGB

Can you add an amended block note? Merry Christmas. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 15:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just did. Took some extra time because I had to personalize it and then I got edit-conflicts! Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh, his talk page is pretty popular today, I had half a mind to protect it earlier on. And I got an ec on the block with you. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 16:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The busy-ness was a problem in itself, to some extent. The lengthy ANI thread and the discussion on WGB's talk page,only seemed to make him feel more cornered. Hope he is able to come back from this unfortunate series of events. Merry Christmas to you too! Abecedare (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Maryam Jameelah

Updated DYK query On December 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maryam Jameelah, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Restrictions lifted -- Proofreader77 (interact) 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Abecedare I will follow your suggestions and copy your format. Raj2004 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Can you take a look at my latest post on Talk-Avatar? I think Priyanth is biased. Thanks and regards, Raj2004 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, Abecedare. I have added a new post in reply to your post.

Raj2004 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bollywood

Hi! Abecedare. How are you? Recently i contributed to Bollywood article. Information added was from reliable source check here. User User:Shshshsh is continuously trying to threaten me by posting several warnings on my talk page talk). He has reverted my contributions again again despite my clarification and citation of reliable sources check here. Further he is reverting his talk page in order to hide his act of vandalism. Please help me. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this dispute ongoing, or has it been settled by now (while I was off the grid) ? Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
hi, actually editors on bollywook claimed that they have worked on that article for 3 years to give it this shape and anyone outsider like me should 1st consult them to add or edit anything. They own that article so who the am i to edit that article. Abecedare can you please explain me if i can edit that article or not. and also what is a reliable source of information. What ever i added,even with info from government of USA, editors on that article discarded it as a most unreliable reference. Editors on that article even do not consider dictionary like Oxford as unreliable source. they say that terms in dictionary is mistakenly used or not correct. you pointed me out that Wikipedia's 1st emphasis is on verifiability. in all these years wikipedia has become a property of few people and this is a serious issue for wikipedia foundation to consider.
Editors on bollywood even threaten me to give up by posting warning again and again. they delete warnings on their talk page to give a false impression that they are very right. Now it looks like that you cant add information to wikipedia even if you have a very verifiability basis. Thanks for replying. I was about to write a letter to wikipedia foundation in this regard. your help and guidance will be much appreciated. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you point me to the talk page sections where these issues were discussed ?
Note that verifiability is a necessary condition for including content on wikipedia, but it is not sufficient by itself; we also need to consider due weight. To give a trivial example we can easily verify that Dil was a Bollywood movie; that does not mean it needs to be in mentioned in Bollywood, Mumbai, ... articles.
Also note that an editor is (lergely) free to edit and remove content from their own user talk page. Also a passive aggressive tone (example, "They own that article so who the am i to edit that article.") is not really conducive to collaborative editing. Express what you want to say calmly and straightforwardly, (like you did in your original post above) and you'll find that your concerns are addressed more promptly and your good faith and mature conduct will be reciprocated more often than not. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thanks Abecedare for help and explaining things with a charm. please guide me if a statement like In all these years Bollywood has became very popular in the world. can be put on lead. As i understand, lead is a summery of the article with suitable, relevant and verifiable content. So do you think my statement is not good enough for lead. you suggestions are a help. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be be best to start a discussion on this topic on the article talk page and see where consensus lies.
I haven't read the Bollywood article completely and am not a regular editor, so I don't know if and where your addition would be suitable, but here is my general take: the information about popularity of Bollywood movies outside India is certainly relevant to the article, however the sentence you propose is too vague to be of much value to the reader. Note that phrases like "increasingly popular" are a journalistic cliche often used by writers when they want to puff up the subject of their article, without having to do any actual research since such statements can safely be made about almost anything ("Badminton is increasingly popular in Kerala", "Italian food is increasingly popular in Delhi" ...).
Instead what the article needs (if it doesn't have it already) is actual information about how many persons watch Bollywood movies in different countries; how much that contributes to the movie receipts; whether movies are dubbed or subtitled; whether the movies are watched in theatres or at home; how has the popularity changed over the years; what genres are popular in what countries; how has the oversees audience influenced the finances and content of Bollywood movies; how has such popularity influenced movies produced outside India etc. If you can locate and add such information, I am sure it will help in the development of the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thanks for all information and support. Your directions are really helpful thanks once again. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rukmani book

Hi Abecedare, I finally received Rukmani's book on the Bhagavata Purana and am very much enjoying it. Unfortunately, I'm about to be very scarce around Wikipedia due to real life and won't be able to do anything but enjoy it selfishly. I did get a chuckle out of her chapter III — especially about Daksa's bad day at the sacrifice, with different versions of the same story written by different 'editors' (she compares the difs), strife between devotees of Shiva and Vishnu, etc. I think it's incontrovertible proof that Wikipedia was invented in India over 1,000 years ago! Or something :-). Have a very good and productive new year, Priyanath talk 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Agreed. Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute in the making

Hi Abecedare, Not sure what to do with user:Eraserhead1, who is busy amending East India Company and posting comments on bias in the various British rule articles. Please see Talk:Company rule in India. I'm traveling and have little time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a brief look at the two pages, and I think there is some talking-past-each-other going on, among reasonable editors (and when that happens, editors often start edit-warring over trivial issues out of frustration). I'll add my comments on the two pages in a short while and hopefully we'll be able to find a common path (I don't plan on editing the two articles myself anytime soon though). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all you help on the Company rule and EIC pages! Whenever you find it convenient, could you take a look at British Raj, where the same editor user:Eraserhead1 is looking to add material. My memory of the page is that there was some concern that the history section was too long and that the first two subsections of it, both about prehistory, should be majorly pruned. Unfortunately, I am still traveling and won't have much time until after the third week of January for even routine editing, much less ideological battles. So, if you can add your input there as well, it would be great. I am, as ever, impressed by your objective comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

No problem, Abecedere I, like you, believe in getting the best authoritative sources. I have tried several times in getting input from contributors on improving the article, Karma in Hinduism as I don't have access to academic texts. But noone has been improving it so far. We Hindus are apathetic. Contrast the Hindu karma article with Karma in Jainism, a well-written article far superior. There are over 1 billion Hindus and I am one of the very few contributors (perhaps the main sole one) on Karma in Hinduism. It's pathetic, as compared with the 2 million Jain community! We should do better than this.
Also, I agree with you in using academic sources. But sources in soft areas like religion, unlike science, are so politicized that they are not viewed as credible by many Hindus. Please see organizations such as Hindu American Foundation which vigorously opposes many of these so-called Western experts on Hinduism.. This is the reason why many devalue academics on religion, literature, history, etc.
As I said before, all academics are not equal. I would trust an Indian academic more because they know the culture and are aware of multiple meanings for a Sanskrit word such as linga, i.e., someone like Professor Yuvraj Krishnan. I would trust an Indian academic of his calibre when it comes to referencing, rather than a Western academic like Wendy Doniger who misconstrues and applies one meaning of a Sanskrit word. A western academic fixates on the phallic meaning of linga while Hindu scholars such as Swami Sivananda focus on the alternative meanings such as sign, mark, as mentioned in other religious texts.
I am sorry for my rebuttal which seems like a long rant. But I wanted to completely tell my point of view.
Regards, Raj2004 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually most well-written wikipedia articles turn out to be either single person efforts or collaborations between small groups. "Outside" editors can help refine an article, copyedit it, and make it compliant with MOS etc, but a few core editors are usually needed to determine the basic structure, content, and sourcing. Interestingly Karma in Jainism is even more of a 1-2 person effort than Karma in Hinduism (User:Indian Chronicles and you have made ~60% and 45% of the edits in the respective articles); and both are better developed than Karma which is spoilt by too many cooks (the leading editor has made ~3% of the total edits).
As for the rest: I understand your point of view, but disagree with it. Best to leave it at that. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and best wishes for a happy and prosperous New Year. regards, Raj2004 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Abecedare! Raj2004 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the Darjeeling FAR

I've finally gotten around to compiling a list of the sources that I might require for expanding the article and making the suggested changes to the article. They're listed at this subpage of my userspace, and I'd appreciate it if you'd go through the list and revert with your comments so that I could begin editing the article. Also on the page are three books that I have no access to, and I'd be much obliged if you have access to an ebook or something that you could email me. Incidentally, would the reliability of this source be enhanced by the fact that it cites the third book in my list of sources? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked my library and it only has physical copies of the first two books you listed (Fallen cicada is very obscure book, and may not even be worth locating). Your list of articles looks good, except for the American Fern Journal paper, which I don't think is of much use (it would be undue to talk about one particular species, and the paper doesn't really provide a broader review of the regional fauna). I found some more sources, searching through JSTOR etc, that may serve as additional or alternate references:
By the way, while searching for these sources, I came across some references (which I cannot locate now!) which said that Darjeeling was the Summer capital of Bengal state in British India, and played a notable role in mountaineering history as the start point of early climbs to Mt. Everest and Kanchenjunga; if these facts can be verified, they may be worth a short mention in the article. By the way, I wasn't sure what you meant by "revert with your comments"; can you clarify ?
Happy editing and a happy 2010! Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the comments and additional sources. Wikipedia has caused me to adopt the nasty habit of using "revert" instead of "reply" too often :-) I will get to work on the article now (Pulls on overalls and work boots) Have a great 2010, and happy administering! :-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I have consolidated the list of sources here. If it looks good, I'll move ahead. Waiting to be greenlighted :-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the summer capital status resulted in the railway line being built. It's similar to the story of Ooty as the summer capital for the Madras Presidency. I read this book a while back, and it has some info on Darjeeling as the base for mountaineering, although it's more focused on the Sherpas and not the town. -SpacemanSpiff 21:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Spaceman. The capital is surely worth including already in the article lede (although it needs a source). The mountaineering bit may or may not be due, depending upon what the sources say, but worth a looksee. Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the inputs, SS. I'll add a source for the capital, and some info on the mountaineering could possibly go into the Economy section as a part of tourism. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

IDiscoveri Education

Thanks for your help with my AN/I thread. I just wanted to let you know that I had a request on my talk page for a copy of IDiscoveri Education so the user in question could clean it up. I provided this in user space at User:WithdrawnVTJS/Idscoveri with the caveat that they need to clean the article up as soon as possible to remove copyvios. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; your message on User:WithdrawnVTJS has everything I would have said. FYI, I unblocked User:IDiscoveri a few hours back to allow for name change to User:whycantwebefriends. Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD discussion on ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians

Hello, Abecedare. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, Happy New Year

Patelurology2 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Gayatri mantra

I weighed in, unasked. Hope it helps. rudra (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Rudra; it was most informative and helpful (as usual). Wikipedia discussions can be surreal sometimes - on some other pages there is an IP asserting that New Delhi is not the capital of India - keeps life interesting. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry that you perceive me as being a tendentious editor, I had formed a similar opinion of you and dab - especially dab . A few days back I had conveyed to rudrasharman on his talk page my concerns that some editors had ownership issues with this article. May I now also convey my dissatisfaction that cites/refs I had located from established RS are either being pushed down to footnotes, or deleted altogether to produce / perpetuate an article that is unbalanced to say the least. As I see it there is as yet no consensus that the Gayatri Mantra (ie RV 3.62.10) is named after the gayatri metre. Consider these reasons:-
a) Yes, with the metrically restored version 3.62.10 is in the Gaytri metre.
b) Yes, the Gayamtri metre is an extremely common metre with many Gayatric chants.
c) Yes 3.62.10 is the most notable of the Gayatric chants / mantras. (Bizarrely, another editor has deleted my assertion of notability for this mantra from the article - so a new reader would fail to understand why a gayatri mantra becomes The Gayatri Mantra).
But, I am yet to see any substantiated research (ie from a Reliable Source which has explicitly considered the question and concluded that 3.62.10 is therefore named after the Gayatri metre) - your Frits Staal ref is PPV and I can't read it - so you may kindly quote the exact text he used (or email it to me like you did for user:priyanath in July 2009). I am also not speaking here of passing mentions - of which there are a dime a dozen. I have also failed to locate the previous reference for this which you claimed was mentioned in the article body.
You would also have observed that I have not been inserting any (or hardly any) material into the article which may be considered POV (particularly concerning Brahmoism) so long as there is ongoing civil discussion between editors - through edit summaries or talk. Hardly the hallmark of a tendentious editor. Annette46 (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea why you think the origins of the names of the Gayatri/Savitri mantra are disputable. All sources agree on this basic fact, which is thus not a candidate topic for "substantial research". Here are some sources:
  • Frits Staal: "One of the most famous Vedic mantras is generally referred to after the common meter in which it is composed: the Gayatri" (the context is discussion of RV 3.62.10)
  • Raimon Pannikar: "The mantra derives its name from the metre in which it is written ..." (this was the refernce used earlier in the article, at the time we discussed this on the article talk page)
  • Harvey P. Alper: "It is known either as the Gayatri. after its meter, or as the Savitri, after the deva to whom it is dedicated ..."
You'll note that I have cited only reputable scholars who are known for their research in the area. I hope this settles the issue, at least till any reliable source is found that suggests an alternate etymology. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, parts of Staal's The sound of religion paper are extracted in his book Ritual and mantras: rules without meaning, which is accessible on Google Books. I'll also be happy to email you the paper, if you can send me your email address (wikipedia email doesn't allow attachments). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI, I am equally concerned with citing only eminently respectable RS - (which is why I don't cite the truly tendentious Frawleys, Arthur Avalons &c. of the world as RS for this article). There are enough Indian sources who claim that the mantra is named for the Goddess Gayatri (one, and possibly the second, consort of Brahma). Such as this [1] I'm sure you will be able to find more on the same lines. Gayatri is also described here as the "presiding deity of the mantra" as well as here [2]. Unfortunately (and since the term Gayatri is not used in the RV), this conflicts other later works (myth / fabrication) which claim Gayatri (non-Brahmin daughter of a milkman) to be a "personification of the Vedas" offered by Indra to Brahma as substitute wife /daughter etc. (thereby in some versions rendering Saraswati as Brahma's daughter) - or appearing before Brahma (who was blissfully chanting the gayatri mantra) at the time to destroy a demon in a battle which lasted 1000 years), ie. a complete mess - oh what a frightful web we weave when we first practice to deceive. BTW, the Staal googlebook is the ref I provided and which you deleted :-) Finally, I don't think we can brush aside the issue of how "a gayatri mantra becomes The Gayatri Mantra" from this article, it has to be tackled head-on and dealt with by responsible editor like us. Annette46 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
"since the term Gayatri is not used in the RV". RV.10.14.16. rudra (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
& since I get really PO'ed when my cites are deleted by tendentious editors, I believe that "Indian Castes" John Wilson (1877) pg 147 or thereabouts [3] and "History of ancient Sanskrit literature, so far as it illustrates the primitive religion of the Brahmans (1859)" Max Muller pg 401 [4] to be comparable (prob. better) refs for your (and rudras) recent edits on GM than the ones cited. Annette46 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I agree with much of what you say, but am unclear on some points:
  • I assume you are citing sources that say Gayatri mantra is named after the Goddess Gayatri (rather than the other way around!), as example of junk sources that should not be used in the article. Right ? (note: this is an honest clarification)
  • Can you specify what you want to use the Wilson or Muller sources for ?
  • I have no problem with the Staal's book source, or the accuracy of the fact you cited in this edit. As I explained in the edit-summary, the issue was the relevance of fact in the lede sentence. If you wish to spell out that GM is not the only mantra in the Gayatri meter, nor the only mantra addressed to Savitr, it would be fine to do so explicitly in the article. In fact, at some stage, the article could use a section on related mantras and commentaries that build upon or reference the GM.
By the way, specific suggestions about improving the GM article may be best discussed on the article talk page, where other editors can participate more easily. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think I shall be editing on the GM article for some time now as it spoils my batting average - I mainly edit at WP (at an approx average of 2.5 edits per article) as a sociological exercise to see how people/editors/admins act/react on the WP battlefield. There is of course no "truth" at WP ("Quid est veritas" <--> ""Est vir qui adest" Anagram). Since you asked honestly, I must reply similarly - The assertion that the GM is named after Gaytri)goddess) is junk, and as is equally the assertion that the GM is named after the gayatri metre. To assert that the RV (or any ancient document) is carved in stone (or is frozen in some 12th, 13th, or 14th cent manuscript from Nepal) offends the intelligence of any person with half a brain. Unfortunately, there is a clique which goes about pseudo-scientifically proving (Wiki warriors are not very different from blog warriors) that the "true" Vedas are frozen somewhere in the 18th century (dubious) fragments which the East India company "obtained" or which Max Muller (sacred-verses) "obtained" from equally dubious Brahmins. BTW the 10.14.16 RV ref is equally "junk" (sorry Rudra). Annette46 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of major famines in India during British rule

Kindly note the obscurantism efforts by primary editor of the article. References from Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis (scholar) are being deleted in an attempt to hide the darker shades of the Victorian rule. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.40.23 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you ask the other editor User:Fowler&fowler for his reason for removing the reference to the book on the article talk page, and take it from there. Also, having just looked at the article, I think it needs to split the "References" section into a References and a Further reading sections, so that the reader knows what sources have actually been used in writing the article. Abecedare (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Its the number of deaths that is the point of contention. The figures mentioned in Late Victorian Holocausts are being removed on the rationale that "Mike davis is not an authority on this subject". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.100.77 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the reference and this is not a clear case for exclusion or inclusion. Mike Davis doesn't seem to specialize in the relevant fields of British Indian history or economics, but neither is he a self-published crank. In such situations, the only option is to discuss the matter with the other users on the article talk page and examine the source's credibility by looking at its reviews, how it is cited by others, its methodology, and compare it with other available sources on the subject, with regards to authoritativeness and how its numbers match up with scholarly consensus. I encourage you to begin such a discussion on the talk page, and ping me if you are ignored or there are any other issues. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag of India FAR

I think you'll have to keep an eye on the content on that one YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't contact Abecedare yet as his standards are "very high" and the article isn't there yet ;) Drmies is helping with some ce and checking out the confusing parts. However, I really have no clue about the protocol bits, it can only be primary referenced and I've just condensed what was in the article before, nothing new there, so if you can help with that, it'd be great. The only area that I think was significantly improved was the history section. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Am somewhat busy IRL at the moment, but feel free to ping me for a quick 2c once the current set of revisions is complete. Is there a deadline for the FAR to be closed ? Abecedare (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It gets closed when everything is in order as a keep, or gets demoted if problems are there and nothing happens for more than two weeks, notwithstanding the workers saying they are busy and need and extension or what ever. But if work keeps proceeding, there isn't any need to pull the plug YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Great. This should be a savable article, since the topic is well-defined, limited and non-contentious. That should make it relatively easy to write a comprehensive article based on a handful of good sources. And there are good editors at work at it! Lets see if WPINDIA can save one for a change. Happy 2010! Abecedare (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Do either of you have an opinion yet on the manufacturing process and protocol sections? I can say that work is necessary on those, but can't pinpoint to something. Also, would you mind semi-pping Tamil people and Tamil language for a couple of weeks? Kalarimaster is active again as an IP, and waiting to see if a rangeblock might be ok. -SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protected the two pages.
I took a quick look at the two sections of the article, and they seem to be generally okay. The sections are sourced mainly to GoI publications, which I think is acceptable for their content, since this is an topic where the government simply makes up the rules, and thus their publications are authoritative sources. Of course, if we can find sources that compare Indian flag protocols with other countries', that would be excellent, but I am skeptical if such sources exist. Perhaps we should cut down a bit on the actual protocols though, so that the article is less of an how-to manual (on the other hand, the article is short enough that keeping these in does not raise length issues ... may be worth getting other reviewers' opinions too). Note that this is just a high-level review; once the main editing is completed, I'll be happy to read through it more carefully. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Gurjar

Please visit the discussion page of the article.Sorry i wasn't around lately.It would be great if u show up .ThanksChhora (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, the article had fallen off my radar screen! I'll read through the latest discussion and add my comments in the next day or so (am a bit busy off-wiki, at the moment). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

I had a doubt and I think you are a neutral editor to ask. There are certain set of information which cannot be classified as "criticism", for ex, point out a mistake is not criticism, and sometimes the same person who has "criticized" in some part of the review makes some +ve comments in some other part of the same review. What is the best way to organize material and build a good article ? ( The context is Kali's Child ) Look forward for your inputs. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out mistakes is criticism, but it can, and should, be included without the need for a section heading saying the obvious, and also placed in context. The problem you ask about is something wikipedia really struggles with, but is resolved by (real-world) book reviews on a daily basis, and those are therefore good places to see how a subject can be covered fairly and accurately (for biographies we should look at obituaries; New York Times provides good examples of both types of writing).
For Kali's Child, in particular, I would recommend reading Brian Hatcher's Kālā's Problem Child: Another Look at Jeffrey Kripal's Study of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, which is a well-written meta-review of the book and should provide a template for our article on the subject. After reading the Hatcher review, it's useful to ask oneself: "Does the review criticize or praise Kripal's book ?" I am betting that most will answer with, "It's not that simple". That's what we should aim for. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, as you point out, its a complex issue. I have read Brian Hatcher's journal above, but it was published in 1999, and over period several others like Gayatri Spivak, Peter Heehs etc., have given contrasting views...adding to the complexity :-) "without the need for a section heading saying the obvious" is a good advice. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar

I took Priyanth and your advice on using Google Books. What a great resource!!! Please take a look at footnote 28 for Avatars of Shiva in Avatar; I added this note, See section on Sri Vijayîndra Tîrtha, pg. 412 of A History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and its literature, by B.N. Krishnamurti Sharma, available at http://books.google.com/books?id=FVtpFMPMulcC&pg=PA412&dq=Sarabha+dvaita&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good find. Google Books has become an indispensable resource. I often consult it even for reference works I possess, since it is so much easier to search within the online books and also to find related references. I am sure you'll be hooked soon :-)
As for avatar: I refined the sentence a bit to mention Vijayindra specifically, and also mention what the Dvaita scholars base their beliefs on; that should, I think, make the sentence more informative for the reader. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Great rewrite. Yes, you are right; I added sections on Karma in Hinduism using your sources and Google Books! Raj2004 (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Upanishad Brahmayogin

Your experienced eye and sober judgment would be very helpful, if you can spare a few cycles. In a nutshell, I prod-ed this, and looked into it again when someone counterproposed a merge (see history, it's blessedly short). My research is on the Talk page; there is possibly some spillover of material for the Muktika page, which also needs some work. Input welcome, thanks! rudra (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Will try to find sources and add my comments at the page in a few hours. Abecedare (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread

If you have anything to add on the IP stalking you were investigating, pls do so here --TheMandarin (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look. Abecedare (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge

I blocked the IP for 48 hours, he seems to be removing names written in languages he doesn't like, esp. Malayalam. It's a RAILTEL India IP address. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the IP history, I think he is more of the only-Tamil persuasion, rather than being anti-Malayalam in particular; either ways, blocking was a good call. As for Adam's Bridge, frankly the page would be better off semi-protected given the constant edit-wars, but I have edited it too much to do so myself. Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye on it! Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Hi Abecedare, I've suggested a new proposal here. If you find time, do pl drop in and give your suggestions. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look and add my comments if I have anything new to add. Abecedare (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 19:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A question for a wise man

Wise administrator, Abecedare, I come to you again with a question.

Another editor disagreed with my comments and removed them from someone's user talk page. I think this is improper. The comments were not incivil. The comments were suggestions on how to get more respect as a new administrator (edit more articles because one criticism was a lack of editing experience and seek the blessing of another bureaucrat because the bureaucrat who gave a defacto endorsement by reviewing the edits of their secret account also closed the RFA). This is not incivil at all. These are just suggestions to gain the respect of all Wikipedians.

So my guess is that it is not proper to remove others' comments but I will let the matter rest and not complain to mommy or wiki-mommy about that other bad person. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with the premise of your suggestion at User_talk:Floquenbeam‎, they shouldn't have been removed as they were. As usual, my advice is to concentrate on wikipedia content though, and I'm glad you didn't escalate the dispute. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jyoti Basu

Take a look? I've tried explaining to Notacommunist (talk · contribs), well over three right now (also a couple of IP reverts before the four user name reverts), also discussed at the article talk page, mine, Salih's etc. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation and guided user to relevant policies. Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, Abecedare. I have a new, sourced article written up for an American author named Carrie Jones. I was going to create the page with "Carrie Jones (author)", but I see that there's also an article called Carrie Jones which is currently not being used. I was wondering if I should use the existing page, or whether I should wait for it to be deleted (which seems where it's headed)...or...what, exactly? :) I'd really like to just use "Carrie Jones" if I could. -- James26 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It would have been fine if you had simply overwritten the redirect page, but in order to keep the editing history clean, I have gone ahead and deleted the page so that you can create a new article on the author in its place. Just add a {{otheruse}} note at top of your article to link interested readers to the Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious page. Let me know if you have any other questions or need any further help from me. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. -- James26 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the DYK tip. By the way...does the whole "You may be looking for..." thing really need to be there? Just wondering, since that other article has been inactive for so long. -- James26 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
About the disambiguation hat note: it's necessity is arguable, but best to not waste time actually arguing about it. The particular "Carrie Jones" a reader is interested in is likely to depend heavily upon the reader's country, age and interests, and if we can accommodate all potential readers at a relatively low cost of a note, we may as well do so. Abecedare (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
All right then. Thanks again. -- James26 (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Darjeeling FAR

Phase-I of the upgrade is nearly done; I've attempted to incorporate all recommendations on the review page. Could you please take a look and post follow-up comments for further work that may have to be carried out on the article? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! I'll take another look tomorrow (or latest Thursday) and add my comments at FARC or article talkpage. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
SBC, I didn't get a chance to look at the article yesterday as I had planned; will complete the review this Saturday. Abecedare (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Take your time - after all, you're a busy admin these days ;-) I might not be able to begin the next phase of work on it till Tuesday, though. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I should report you for the "busy admin" personal attack ;-) ... but have to admit there always are many on/off-wiki "distractions". Abecedare (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin squared

Are you suggesting that the cliche !voters should !vote in the oppose section? (If he's already an admin, one can't possibly vote to make him one.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Confused. Too much logic. Admin !brain can't compute ... guess I'll have to block you for doing that to an admin. Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, does calling a non-admin "I thought you were an admin" fall under WP:NPA ? Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought calling an admin a non-admin is a compliment of sorts. Now, knowing that they are not an admin is a different story. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Upanishad Brahmayogin, again

Take it away! (I'm terrible at Categories, could you do the honors? Thanks!) rudra (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Rudra. I am not really adept at cats either; added category:Advaitin philosophers for now, although I am not really where he would fall along the scholar-philosopher continuum. Will add more later if I can think of any. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IMDB

Is that considered to be a reliable source? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have seen this question posed at RSN often and the answer supposedly is that some parts of IMDB are based on industry sources/databases and are considered reliable, while other parts are user submitted and are not RS. But I don't know which parts are which, and especially how it applies to Bollywood movies, which I assume is the context of your question. (Howzatt for a thorough and a thoroughly useless answer. ;-) ) User:Shshshsh, User:Dwaipayanc etc may have a better idea of what Bollywood sources are regarded as reliable on wikipedia.Abecedare (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me check with shshshsh. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Generally, for biographical and awards related info IMDB is not an acceptable source. However, for filmography it's acceptable, but not preferred (although there's both user submitted and RS content in both). I've linked some generic sources at the top of the page, including Filmfare award listing. If you find any new ones, feel free to add to the linked WP India page. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 04:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fun, fun, fun

Be ready to spend some time dePRODding and sourcing based on this and this. Luckily I've only come across two India articles so far, one where a source was removed to justify the unreferenced tag! But based on the new drive, I expect a lot of articles from earlier on will be cleaned out and PRODded over the next few days, mostly politicians I think. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 08:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we may not even get an opportunity to review and source these unsourced stubs since some are simply being speedy deleted. Frankly, wikipedia at some stage had to get more serious about sourcing of BLPS. It's just unfortunate that such developments are so often accompanied by much drama-mongering, brinkmanship, overblown rhetoric, and posturing. Abecedare (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
One of you should post this on the India noticeboard. Also, is there an easy way of finding unreferenced India related BLPs?--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Posed your question at WP:VPT. Once we get a response (hopefully positive), we can post this at the INB talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:CATSCAN is available, but it wasn't working for me yesterday. I normally do PROD sweeping once/twice a week, so I would generally catch these, but given the volumes now it'd be a bit difficult. –SpacemanSpiff 15:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It's also available as a monobook script at WP:US/S. –SpacemanSpiff 15:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Found this tool, which seems to work. Will post the generated list at /Unreferenced_India_BLPs in a few minutes. Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Done (the list could use some wiki-formatting, but it should serve its purpose). Abecedare (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
for some of the articles concerned, they are also copyvios of the subjects academic CV. I've been marking them accordingly. This is a much clearer basis for deletion than unreferenced, and therefore I use it whenever it applies. (If the person is really clearly notable, I'll rewrite, but many of them are not really appropriate for the effort). DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Forward class or forward caste

Which one should it be? Talk:Forward_class#Forward_class_or_forward_caste. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Just recovered from flu and catching up with some real life work, so may be a bit tardy in replying this week. Abecedare (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

Hope you feel better! If you have a chance, please take a look at the debate on the Talk on Wendy Doniger. Goethan keeps on removing the criticism section. I agree that the current criticism section is not NPOV so I have revised it with counteropposing views. Please take a look. Raj2004 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Raj, while I have not looked at the current discussion in detail, I am familiar enough with the locus and history of dispute to offer the following suggestions:
  • It is an example of bad writing (too prevalent on wikipedia) to write "criticism" sections where all negative information on a person/work are presented in isolation. Instead we should aim to present a balanced and integrated critical review of the person based on what sources have said. This can be in the works section, or in a separate appraisal section.
  • In order to write the review section, one should first choose the 5-10 most detailed and authoritative sources that either profile Doniger, or review her work and then try to summarize what they say. Unfortunately, no one has taken up this drudge work till now (I myself am not interested enough in the topic to make the effort) and we have inevitably ended up with dueling quote-farms, and even some over- and misrepresentation of sources.
Incidentally, the comments above parallel the advice I had given 3 months back to User:Spdiffy (see here and here), and the sad fact is that unless someone is ready to put in the the 5-10 hours into the literature survey and writing, the situation is unlikely to change in the coming months. If you are interested in the undertaking, I'd suggest starting a draft in your userspace, and then inviting comments before moving it to the actual article - I'd be happy to provide my 2 cents, if that helps. Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. These guys would still remove your work, even if you did put in 5-10 hours. I have far more important tasks such as Karma in Hinduism then waste my time on a left-wing anti-Hindu university fanatic. Raj2004 (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, impeccable sourcing is the best prophylactic against edit-wars and content disputes, so if someone makes the effort a fair§ appraisal of WD could be added to the article, but I also agree with your sentiment that it is more fruitful/enjoyable to focus on tasks one finds pleasurable on wikipedia. FWIW, I don't think the current disputes at WD reflect fanaticism on either sides, although passions may be running a bit high. (§: by "fair", I simply mean reflecting mainstream published sources; wikipedia cannot correct real world errors and should not be used as a tool for that purpose). Abecedare (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gender in Hindu mythology

The article is moved to this new title against the views expressed by other users on the talk. What to do, the move can't be reverted? --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, nothing prevents you from moving the article back to the old title and asking for discussion, but given that all involved are experienced good faith editors (and not drive by/inexperienced editors), it would be more productive and less confrontational to start a discussion first instead, to see what title would best suit the article's scope. My personal opinion: the former (LGBT) title fit better but was perhaps too buzzwordy, and arguably unsuited, for the subject - if we put our heads together, we may be able to come up with a more suitable title than the current 2 alternatives. I'll be happy to chime in on the talkpage after I have given the issue some more thought and heard other opinions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
A discussion Talk:Gender_in_Hindu_mythology#Evidence_that_this_is_a_topic.3F was held in past where the editor who moved the article was against the title, while 3 others opposed the idea. How can I technically move it back with the history etc.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Initiated Talk:Gender_in_Hindu_mythology#Requested move and informed the main contributor, GA reviewer and mover. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Curious

Hi again, Abecedare. Lately I've been wondering something about a page I've worked extensively on. I'm not asking you to rate it (still expecting an assessment from Project Television), but at a quick glance, can I ask if you see anything especially wrong with the Naomi Clark article? -- James26 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable of the article's subject, but at a quick glance the article seems to be in good shape. Rather than relying on simply the wikiproject assessment (which are typically based on a quick read and don't provide detailed feedback), I'd suggest that you try out the peer review process, and/or nominate it for a good article review. That should provide you more structured feedback on areas where it can be expanded and improved and perhaps even help prepare it for furure featured article status. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow...I didn't expect to hear anything about GA or FA potential. I know it's unlikely to receive GA status, but I suppose I'll go ahead and try one of the things you mentioned. Thanks for your comments. -- James26 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More WP:RS jollies

The issue, outlined here, could be radioactive. (There could be some WP:OWN issues too, given this, which was about this, but I'm hoping not.) What do you think? rudra (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Karma in Hinduism

I agree with Rudra's edits relating Shani but many Hindus believe that planets are tied with past karma. What do you think? Raj2004 (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Hello. Just a small task: I want to move Disney Channel Romania and Moldova to Disney Channel Romania (which already exists) in order to save the history of the article. Currently, the content of Disney Channel Romania was moved from the other page, but not the history. Thank you—Sebitalk 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. I have restored the page to the title it had before the recent moves - if you or anyone else wishes to move it to another title, it would be best to dicsuss the issue on the talk page first. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The official name of the TV channel is Disney Channel Romania, although it can be received also in Republic of Moldova. Thank you—Sebitalk 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wise man, I seek your wisdom

Hello, I seek your wisdom as a wise administrator again.

I wrote something on Village Pump about reliable sources can be in error. It was about a CNN report quoting a Wall Street Journal report. However, they misquoted the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal's original story is on the internet.

Someone removed my section in VP. I think this could cause anger if it happened to someone else, can be vandalism, and is not a smart thing to do, particularly if the removed material is sensible and not libelous.

I wrote...

Please put back my VP comment. The purpose is to get a discussion on how to assess reliability and how to improve reliability. Because of this, I no longer automatically consider CNN to always be a RS anymore. I hope you did not remove it because of censorship as you are a journalist. That would be like a lawyer removing a comment relating to lawyer because she didn't like it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The response from the editor, who is a journalist, was...

You're welcome to return your comment to the miscellaneous page, just as I was welcome to remove it. That's how wikipedia works!... User:DavidWBrooks

It is my impression that I shouldn't remove others comments and that I could be blocked if I do. For example, recently you wrote this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=341541061 It would be wrong for me to remove it with DavidWBrooks' excuse "just as I was welcome to remove it. That's how wikipedia works!... "

I have no plans to reinsert my edit and allow the other editor to be happy in creating a conflict. Furthermore, Wikipedia would shrink by 50% if everyone had to put back their edit twice. Do you have any comment on DavidWBrooks' behaviour? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Suomi, I doubt it was your intention, but reading your VP(M) post alone, I couldn't decipher what link you were trying to draw in relation to wikipedia policies or practice - and thus your post did appear to treat the page as a forum. As you probably know such posts are justifiably removed from wikipedia pages. The only (minor) fault I can find in David's actions is that he could have dropped you a short note explaining why the post was removed, although I guess he thought the edit summary was sufficiently explanatory.
Now, it is is fair to discuss the fact that a source being reliable in general doesn't mean it always gets all details right. This is well known in real world, and by most experienced wikipedia editors; that's the reason WP:RSN starts off by saying,

"The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs.".

If you have a concrete suggestion how to recognize or deal with errors in otherwise reliable sources, I would suggest that you lay it down plainly and give the WSJ article only as an example, instead of seemingly asking editors to discuss the WSJ error itself. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk)
Thank you for your wise answer. You should try to sleep. If my watch is set for London, turn it upside down and the watch reads the time in India. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Surprise, surprise! It works the other way around too. ;-) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Except that the watches never work properly in India. :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

I need to do a wikiproject report for signpost. Are you willing to be interviewed for one on India? I'll focus on project resources and pov pushers. I'll ask others as well (if you say yes). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tempting, but I'll give it a pass for now since my time on wikipedia is likely to fluctuate in the next few weeks and I am "resolved" to stay off meta-discussions for a bit (you can see how well that resolution is working though ;-) ). Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Flag of India and Darjeeling

Update? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will review Darjeeling from scratch in the next day, and add my comments at the FARC. Don't know if I'll have time for a comprehensive review of Flag of India, but I'll at least take a look and comment if it's an obvious keep or delist. Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wise one

DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk · contribs) has been creating a lot of AfDs, but not listing them on the AfD log, I asked nicely, then clearly; I was told he wasn't going to do it, then I asked to follow process or not nominate AfDs, and was told to do my paid job, and I gave a final warning and was asked who my boss is. Now the editor is back to nominating more AfDs without listing them on the logs. Since you're my boss, I figured I'd check with you if this is enough reason to block or it should go to ANI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Will keep an eye and block if he continues. He has received more than enough entreaties and warnings by now. Abecedare (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently it helped. The new ones are on the log now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate when block threats are needed to ensure compliance with wikipedia polices and practices, but preventing such disruption is the sole reason for MediaWiki software providing blocking and protection tools. Some of the noms. by the user are ill-considered too, but I guess (hope) that will improve with experience. Abecedare (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yup, sad that block notices are needed for such issues. As far as the noms, given the recent precedent set by more experienced users, I'm not sure I'd blame the newer ones. —SpacemanSpiff 03:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
True, but by that standard anything is justifiable ;-)
More seriously: I am not sure what to think/assume in this case. At least one of the articles the user nominated for AFD was created by him (Basappa A. Uralegaddi), and most of his nominations are theoretically justifiable (although I suspect many of the Indian author/professor bios will end up being deleted simply because they do not have as prominent an online presence as their US counterparts). Even the kerfuffle regarding the AFD process may have been caused by a misunderstanding of the role of "admins". At this point it may be best to simply assume good faith, unless we have reason not to. Abecedare (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in. But this user is doing AfD nominations without reading guidelines. shouldnt he prevented from further nominations?--Sodabottle (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
He has moved on to adding {{expand}} and {{notability}} tags, which is at least less disruptive and doesn't need immediate response. What we have here is, I think, a well meaning editor who is unfortunately not familiar with wikipedia policies, practices, and jargon (which is fine), and seems to be unwilling to read the policies and heed the constructive input he has been receiving (which is problematic). Lets see if the disruption resumes or escalates over the next few days, and respond accordingly. In the meantime we should try and ensure that no valuable articles or content is lost dues to our oversight. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I did see that, he was warned nicely by CactusWriter (talk · contribs) who also reverted some of the ridiculous tags. It's getting to be rather disruptive, but I'll ignore for now and do a mass cleanup after everyone else does their bit and he gets bored. He's apparently used other accounts in the past, and he used a previous one Donotask-donottell (talk · contribs) after rename. One prior account of his was Localsales (talk · contribs) according to a post he made. Just doesn't seem to get WP policies and admits to it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That is my style

I don’t keep after reading or understanding them. Don’t feel sad. Respectfully it has nothing to do with you or anyone who leaves message in my talk page. (I'm not a wiki administrator - I don’t need all those. And I don’t want to store them on my talk page). I do work on wiki as and when I get time. I’m trying to go away from wiki editing. I hate bureaucracy the one I see on wiki – their rules how notability is defined etc. I see lots of bias over there – just my opinion.). --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Asiagh is back as Sihag

Want to take a look at it for G4? Looks like it to me, the only thing missing is the Jutland bit. Editor is also getting all the OR to the Jat people article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

G4ed and warned user for page recreations and slow edit-warring at Jat people. Will block if the disruption continues. Abecedare (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Perfect, I wouldn't have caught it if not for the EW. I also retargeted Sehwag to Viru where it was a longstanding redirect until Dec'09. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
For future record: seems to be using IPs 117.242.108.63 (talk · contribs), 117.242.108.244 (talk · contribs), 117.242.108.88 (talk · contribs) etc.
(I was going to create the Sehwah -> Viru redirect myself after dealing with the immediate mess ;-) ) Abecedare (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah ok, BSNL Delhi, technically static I think, will make it a little easy to identify. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 08:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_15&oldid=1142829306"