User talk:Abecedare/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Help

Greeting! I am from a Serbian Wikipedia and I need help on making an article about Serbian actress and journalist. The page is here. Because I'm not Autoconfirmed, I can not move the page and link it to a page in Serbian Wikipedia. Thank you. Serbian Nickmen (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Serbian Nickmen: Thanks for your contributions to the English wikipedia!

Unfortunately, your submission had to be declined since it did not cite a reference that complies with English wikipedia's sourcing policies. If instead of citing a Wikia article, as in the current draft, you can cite mainstream newspapers, magazines, or books for the included information, it is likely that your draft would be suitable for mainspace. Please see WP:RS for English wikipedia's sourcing policies, and WP:NACTOR for how we evaluate notability for an actress. I expect that the article reviewer Knightrises10 will be able to help you through the process. Abecedare (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for Your help! I can add in the biography in which newspapers she worked and to add filmography (which contains only one role). During the day I will add other information! Thank you very much! Serbian Nickmen (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ref desk talk page

Hello. That stuff you just deleted, can it be permanently struck instead? Floquenbeam did something similar on the page a couple of days ago. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 07:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Viennese Waltz: Good point. Done. Abecedare (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the swift action. --Viennese Waltz 07:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

2011 multilingualism census data

can you try to find the all-India 2011 census data for bilingualism and trilingualism, for eg. how many speakers chose a particular language (eg.Hindi) as their 2nd language and third language? No one has published data on multilingualism 2011 census data of India. maximum, it is reported in media The number of bilingual speakers in India is 31.49 crore, which is 26% of the population in 2011. 7% of Indian population is trilingual. But how to calculate data for each language from this excel sheet given by census department?
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/C-17/DDW-C17-0000.XLSX
Hindi multilingual speakers share may have gone to near 60% from 53% in 2001 census
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/hindi-migrants-speaking-marathi-rise-to-60-lakh/articleshow/66061624.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/52-of-indias-urban-youth-are-now-bilingual-18-speak-three-languages/articleshow/66530958.cms
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011Census/Language_MTs.html
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/C-17/DDW-C17-0000.XLSX
https://twitter.com/iPatelJay/status/1058618808791777280
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_India#Multilingualism
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/C-17.html
--Rabiaanumrandi (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Clear a dispute

Hello, there has been a conflict of understanding in the page:List of sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India. One of the user keeps on adding the name of judges in Hindi and I keep reverting it. I thought that you being administrator would know what is to be done and end this mess. If you want to see his argument :User talk:Adithya harish pergade#Do not delete hindi name from List of sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India. Adithya Pergade (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Abecedare hasn't edited for a while. I've warned the editor and will block if they continue to edit war. Best. --regentspark (comment) 22:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Abecedare. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Abecedare. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Hi ::@Abecedare: I am sorry for disturbing you. I was hoping If you could help me out with wikiedu.org. Will that be possible. If not can you recommend an Instructor who could help me. (Purplecart (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Abecedare, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 07:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings.

Hello Abecedare: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ 17:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 17:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Durganagar, Kolkata

A new person name Jeet Dev remove previous Durganagar, Kolkata page Information. Today i again write previous page information of Durganagar, Kolkata. About 4 months ago of date 4 October 2018 time 8:23 the page information i put and you verified it. But recent 2 days a person name jeet dev remove the all previous page information which information is no need for this page as compare previous information. Today again jeet dev remove all previous page information so i again put previous page information because it is better from jeet dev information. So you Kindly take a action jeet dev which information is no good than previous information which edit 4 months ago. The previous 4 month's edit information is better than jeet dev information. AmitMondal1299 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Today again jeet revert the better information of this page. Kindly take a step.

@AmitMondal1299: Since the edits to the Durganagar page are disputed, perhaps you could start a discussion at Talk:Durganagar explaining the reasoning behind these additional mentions to Kolkata in the article lede (you can link to this previous discussion at WT:INB). That would be a better strategy than repeated reversions and trying to communicate through edit-summaries alone. Same advice also goes out to Jeet Dev (talk · contribs).

I'll ping @SshibumXZ, Chandan Guha, and Dwaipayanc: who are knowledgeable about the subject and may be able to help. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Abecedare! Now, I would have to agree with much of what you have suggested, in that, I think this seems to be a content dispute and should warrant a discussion at the article’s talk page. However, I must suggest that the page be named just ‘Durganagar’; ‘Kolkata’ is an unnecessary [and probably incorrect] disambiguator in my view. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 03:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@SshibumXZ: Good point. I haven't looked at the relevant MOS guidelines for geographic articles but what you say makes sense to me especially since 'Kolkata' (or, any other qualifier) in the title is not needed for disambiguation purposes. The article was moved to its current title last November by User:AmitMondal1299; an WP:RM discussion to move it back is perhaps warranted. Abecedare (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

1. CambridgeBay Weather had made it abundantly clear that that Durganagar does not need a disambiguation but AmitMondal1299 forcibly made it Durganagar, Kolkata.

2. Kolkata district is well defined as the Kolkata Municipal Corporation area. Administratively only that is Kolkata. Therefore, the suffix Kolkata should only be added for areas in Kolkata district. Lake Town needs a disambiguation, but it should not be Kolkata. It can be West Bengal or something else.

3. Unlike Greater London or Delhi National Capital Territory, Greater Kolkata does not have any official/ administrative sanction. Therefore, both Kolkata and Greater Kolkata remain vague. The use of Kolkata or Greater Kolkata may not be a right definition for the area covered by Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, but may be allowed in the absence of a better alternative or till such time Greater Kolkata is officially defined. And again, may be, it should be Greater Kolkata rather than just Kolkata.

I hope I have been able to throw some light on the situation.

Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for those additional notes, User:Chandan Guha.

Btw, last week I had blocked User:AmitMondal1299 temporarily for sockpuppetry but if on their return (the block expires in a few hours) they are interested in discussing the disputed edits, I would suggest that the discussion about the article name and content continue at Talk:Durganagar so that all interested users can participate. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Shifting the discussions to the article page is okay with me. Thanks and cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Chintu6

Since you're familiar with this case, you should probably know the abuse continues here and xwiki. Praxidicae (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedied the draft and blocked the latest sock. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

I have read all the criticism. Frankly, I remain unclear as to how I could have handled it better, other than not make the period and en-dash errors in the move, which I corrected myself anyway. The period got caught in a sloppy copy/paste on my iPad (I've never made that mistake before, and I'm sure I'll never make it again), and frankly I did not know about the en-dash convention for titles at MOS:DASH. Now I do. The discussion about the close decision continues on my talk page with JzG where there is further clarification about how and why I closed the way I did. If you could read that, and give me some insight, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, --В²C ☎ 19:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: I don't think it is worth re-litigating the particular closure that started the the ANI thread but, as I read it, the relevant feedback for you and User:JzG was:

• For you: desist from making NAC closures of move requests that may be controversial, and doublecheck to avoid typos
• For JzG: prior discussion with the person you are in conflict with and less exasperated/inflammatory mode of communication would only help your cause.

Now these are really universally applicable recommendations that all of us occasionally fail to follow, which is why my close was in the form of a reminder and not a warning or sanction. Hopefully you both will take the above in the spirit it is intended. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. Perhaps you're not aware, but I, like many other non-admins, close RMs "that may be controversial" all the time, per WP:RMNAC, usually without any issues. On those occasions where there is an issue, a note at the NAC's talk page results in non-controversial revert and often a relist (see User talk:Born2cycle#Park Street for a recent example). It's normal procedure at RM and keeps everything flowing smoothly. So, for the record, I don't think it's fair to single me out as someone who should not make NAC closures of move requests that may be controversial, especially given my solid record of usually getting those "right" (uncontested decisions), as anyone who bothered to check my record would readily see. Like all closers, there are exceptions, and this just happened to be one of them for me. I think I'm still well above par for this course. --В²C ☎ 20:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ANi close

Your close at ANi for Mountain157 was inadequate and against consensus. Please revert. Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: See my reply at ANI. Incidentally, my close was drafted, in part, to address concerns of the kind you raised in your "06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)" comment on the page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for that revert. I am either going senile or something happened---my password being comproomised? I don't get it. I don't recall making that edit. I had not even been following that discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem. See also my reply on your talkpage about the most common cause for such edits. Abecedare (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

My browswer edit history shows that at the exact moment I was supposedly editing ANI I was actually editing the Green Book article using Visual Editor. This appears to be a Visual Editor glitch and a really bad one. Coretheapple (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: See if the folk at WP:VPT can help with that, or if it is a known problem. Abecedare (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Should add: don't intend you to expend more time on this on my behalf. Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem---I just find this spooky. Coretheapple (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Brunčević Bekir

Please deleted this wikipedia remove from google :http://deletedwiki.com/index.php?title=Bekir_Brun%C4%8Devi%C4%87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunčević Bekir (talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Brunčević Bekir: I believe that is a copy of a previously existing article on the Serbian wikipedia (that you created?), which is now being hosting by deletedwiki.com (as, assuming proper attribution, they are allowed to do per wikipedia's content license). Unfortunately we on wikiedpia have no control over the contents of that website and I could not even locate any contact information for the website's sysadmins that would enable you to request them to delete the piece. Sorry I could not be of more help. Abecedare (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Good

sanctioning over here :-) ∯WBG^converse 08:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

About ban issue

Hi, Firstly i said sorry for my mistake.please help me from getting ban.i understand little bit you said in my talk page but tell me what i have to do now?arbitration enforcement means?can i appeal arbitration enforcement here? Plz help me as soon as possible to prevent from getting ban.sometime talking about my country i was one side so mistake happen by me so plz forgive me i am sorry for all incident. Thanking you Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Indiamerijaan2001: The English Wikipedia has over 5 million articles. You are free to edit any of them (or create a new one) except for perhaps ~1,000 pages that relate to Indo-Pak conflict. I'd suggest that you find a subject you are knowledgeable about and have less emotional investment in to gain editing experience instead of continuing in a contentious area where even minor mistakes easily blow up. Abecedare (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: sir,many other user also break rule or use bad language in pak-ind conflict.sir request you to plz also block them.sir plz unblock me give me one chance. If u give me one chance i convert it into gold. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Indiamerijaan2001: The issue is not about apologizing but of demonstrating that you can comply with wikipedia's content policies. You can do so by editing outside the area of your topic-ban. And best to leave the problems at the Indo-Pak conflict articles to the contributors there and to the admins who keep an eye on the pages, especially since your topic-ban forbids you from discussing these in any detail. Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: sir,from next time idont participate in india-pakisthan conflict.one question,can i edit in abhinandan varthaman this article or not? because this article not releted to ind-pak conflict. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your talk-page. Abecedare (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

POV Edits with misleading edit summary that says "Grammar fixes"

Hi Abe, I have warned this user User_talk:Tufayl_Ahmad#POV_Edits_with_misleading_edit_summary_that_says_"Fixed_grammar". I was curious to know if they continue the same behavior, should they be reported at ANI or ARE ? --DBigXrayᗙ 09:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Their "POV Edits with misleading edit summary" problem extends beyond the Indo-Pak area (example: [1], [2], [3]). So a topic-ban from IPA alone won't solve the problem and ANI may thus be a better venue. Alternatively, we can wait to see if they stops such editing after your latest warning today; I'll second your note in a admin-y voice, in case that is needed to get the message across. If not, they can be simply blocked. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:International organisation membership of India

Template:International organisation membership of India has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

explain

A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source, the device in question within the article requires hydrogen constituted from water as fuel, hence it is not a perpetual motion machine according to the definition. I have edited out the phrase perpetual motion machine and replaced it with hydrogen generator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbledorf (talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbledorf: Please read this Nature column (already cited in the wikipedia article) for the reason Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, if it hadn't been fraudulent, would have been a perpetual motion machine. Abecedare (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ask for help

Hi dear friend in this page : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_Khuzestan

We have a great deal of problem with what appears to be Persian users Community that wants to push their view and block other information, There are phrases in this Article that ment to change clear historical records and don't even has a Refrence , any request for Refrence being removed by these users with no logic, we even explained the problem in Talk page but they refuse to responded and keep,reverting the ask for reference, they simply use our lack of understanding of wiki rules to push their ideas and block any opininon , please check the page and help us to deal with this issue

Ted hamiltun (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Ted Hamiltun

@Ted hamiltun: The article does seem to be a mess but I don't know enough of the subject to evaluate its content, or even the trustworthiness/POV of the few cited sources. I'll ask around to see if I can find some outside eyes to take a look. Abecedare (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you my friend , any ways my calls for help was being reported by one of those users (user: historyofiran) who was involved in Reverting our request for Refrence to Wiki administration as what he described there Ranting ,how asking for a source is against the Rules of wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted hamiltun (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please help me with referencing. These are two books that I have read myself and have sourced from Goodreads to be genuine books related to The Nine Unknown. My objective isn't to promote but to simply inform and improve Wikipedia. William.broyles (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

re:The Nine Unknown

Hi. Please help me with referencing. These are two books that I have read myself and have sourced from Goodreads to be genuine books related to The Nine Unknown. My objective isn't to promote but to simply inform and improve Wikipedia. William.broyles (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jean Mill

I respect your opinion and I thank you for taking a look at the research. I asked the living relative a few questions which led me to much more research, my mistake was writing that in the edit notes. I am glad that you waited for the article to get sorted a bit more before voting. I was hoping that you would vote. I am of course disappointed that you found that the research was unimpressive. I endeavored to improve the article so that it may address the inadequacies. However, three weeks of careful research and article improvements have not moved the notability needle, so then I have likely run out of time. All my best. Lubbad85 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lubbad85: There is no harm in contacting people off-wiki who may be able to provide information about an article's subject; the key though is to ask them for published references rather than their personal knowledge or opinions since the latter is unusable on wikipedia. By the way, did you find any published obituary for Jean Mill? I tried searching on google by limiting the search to sources published within the last year but didn't find anything RS. Such a source could still be useful assuming it is an independently reported obit and not just a memorial written by the her family. In any case, I want to be clear that I don't doubt your good intentions and am glad that you are not taking the critique of the article too personally.

A total aside: it was jarring to read an US Appeals Court ruling talking about Mexican nationals, commonly called "wetbacks,". Plus ça change... Abecedare (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

So odd that there apparently is not an obituary according to the relative. She was also very tight lipped because there is a pending estate. Apparently Robert Sugden- her first husband was wealthy. I have an associate of Jean Mill's lined up for more sources. Unfortunately he has been slow. And yes, I was taken aback by the United States attorneys casual use of the derogatory term Wetback. Lubbad85 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Question of Topic Ban on Hockey Stats

How long am I topic banned from Hockey Stats? NicholasHui (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: Your topic-ban is "indefinite", i.e., it will not by itself end on any particular date. It will last at least 1-year at which point you can appeal for it to be be lifted and if your editing during that period has been unproblematic, the community may decide to do so. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I read the discussion on NicholasHui's talk page very carefully, but I may have not read it as carefully as I thought. For clarification purposes, does the topic ban only prevent him from editing the players statistics section in articles, but still able to edit other sections of an article, or is he prevented from editing an article in general? Thanks for clarification. Yowashi (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yowashi: Since the ANI discussion talked only about "sports statistics," Nicholas is allowed to edit other parts of the players' articles. Note though that the restriction is not limited to "statistics section"; playing with the numbers in the infobox or general write-up will also violate the ban, and trying to game the restriction or test the boundaries (I won't spell out how) is unlikely to be looked upon too kindly either.

In general, I'd advice Nicholas to be conservative about what they edit and to consult involved editors/admins when in doubt. You and other editors in the area are also welcome to approach the admins familiar with the issue if you have a concerns about their editing. And finally, now that the immediate editor-conduct issues have been settled, it would be really great if WP:HOCKEY members completed this discussion and formulated some guidelines on when and how the game and player stats should be updated. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Editors blocked at Fraser Anning.

You don't think your edit block is a bit excessive? I reckon you're abusing your privileges there. Bacondrum (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

also, why'd I get an immediate block (which you removed) but Onetwothreeip just got a warning for doing exactly the same thing? Poor form mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Given that my note on the article talkpage did not stop the edit-warring and BLP violations, I chose to full-protect the page so that the participants have enough time to discuss the issue properly and reach a consensus that complies with wikipedia's content policies. Hopefully, some outside experienced editors will also have the chance to chime in (see my request at BLPN). If you wish to have my actions reviewed, you can consult any other admin you trust or raise the issue at WP:AN; however, I'd suggest that the time would be better spent searching for secondary sources on Fraser Anning's speech to the parliament and see if and how they covered his mention of 'cultural Marxism'. Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry I gave you grief and assumed the worst, you've obviously done nothing wrong - I guess I really should leave this one alone I get too emotional about these disgusting Nazi bastards like Anning. I'll lay off it all together. No hard feelings. Bacondrum (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: No problem. I realize how difficult it can be to remain "fair" when editing a bio for such a subject, and how easy it is assume that others arguing for "fairness" are closeted supporters of the person's ideas. WP:AGF and checking the users' editing history often helps dispel such suspicions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

S. Kalyanasundaram ‎

Hi Abecedare. If you deleted this article because you saw WP:AN#S. Kalyanasundaram, then thanks. If just stumbled upon it by chance and deleted it, then perhaps you could post something in that AN thread explaining why (1) creating it just to stop disruption on a dab page was a bad idea and (2) why the article was deleted. The original creator seems to be a new editor who's might be connected to the subject of the article and who also probably doesn't quite understand WP:NOT and WP:42. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yup, it was in response to your report (thanks!). Btw the new user Ntkkalyanasundaram is either the candidate or impersonating them. Abecedare (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't these two edits violate the AE edit restriction in place at Sarah Jeong? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Thanks for letting me know. I have left a note on the editor's talkpage. If they ignore the discretionary sanctions again, a block/topic-ban would be warranted. Abecedare (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

You reverted my edit, and now you seem to ignore me. Please, say something on the article talk. Vikom ^talk 06:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vikom: Had missed the discussion you started on the talkpage. Have replied there. Abecedare (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Pardon me. I certainly don't want to continue editing. I had actually requested page protection, but it was declined. And there's only one editor that disagrees with whom I now am debating. He actually made an edit without any summary, which is what made re-edit it. Chippy pest (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Chippy pest: I have seeded a discussion about the issue on the article talkkpage. Please take a look and participate there. Abecedare (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chippy pest (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

a star

		The Original Barnstar
		For being a great Wikipedian Lubbad85 (☎) 02:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Lubbad85. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Protecting a page?

Could you protect the Bob the Builder episode list page so unregistered users can't change the dates? Someone changed the dates of Seasons 1-5 without source, but I reverted those seasons back to the correct 1998 to 2001 dates. I would suggest protecting episode guides of other kid shows to. ThomasSirHandel1998 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@ThomasSirHandel1998: Thanks for helping maintain the List of Bob the Builder episodes!

I assume you are referring to this and similar edits. Unfortunately, since the most-recent edit is ~10 days old and the pace of edits to that particular page doesn't seem to be unduly high, semi-protection would not be justified at the moment. However, if the IP returns or if this turns out to be a sustained problem (as WP:KIDSTVDATES seems to suggest), please feel free to contact me again (or post at WP:RFPP) and pehaps pending changes protection can be given a try. Abecedare (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning

Just letting you know, the edit warring has resumed on Fraser Anning. StAnselm (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Sorry for the late response; was busy IRL and off-wiki for a few days. I see that El C intervened and the article/talkpage are quiet at the moment. Will keep an eye in case the disruption resumes. Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Mughal–Maratha Wars talk page

Hi can you please take a look at 2 more sources that i have posted on the talk page of Mughal–Maratha Wars. The user Chippy pest and i have reached a consensus on the wording of results section and no more people seem to be taking part in discussion. Also i'm not able to find any modern authentic sources related to this war that discuss it in detail. Currently the discussion seems to be stalled. Can you guide us further on this issue without any further delay?KamalVishwas (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod and for the patient discussion. I have added my comments on the new sources on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i'm just here to know if you are you still working on wording of result section for maratha-mughal wars page?KamalVishwas (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@KamalVishwas: I have got hold of the Gommans and NCHOI books but have been too busy IRL for the past two weeks to read through them yet. Hope to do so by this weekend, and will be better positioned to comment on the content at that point. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

‎Deletion of reliable Indian Government sourced content from Indian state articles

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

1. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Citing sources it is supposed to mention all different sources. You should not copy-paste from one source only. Entire first paragraph of Maharashtra is almost just copied from Britannica.
2. If you are using Britannica source, why didn't you quote exactly how Britannica said? Britannica said that "occupying a substantial portion of the Deccan plateau" before it said "western peninsular part". It sounds like small difference but I think it means that Deccan plateau is more significant identity of Maharashtra than western peninsular part as why it is mentioned before. And I agree.
3. Britannica also said in the western peninsular part "of the subcontinent", not even India. Subcontinent means all of South Asia, its different from saying India. Since you wanted to say about India, so definitely you should also consult another source which mentions directly India.
4. Britannica is also saying different things about Maharashtra.
   1. Britannica article on Mumbai says Maharashtra is southwestern state. https://www.britannica.com/place/Mumbai
   2. Britannica Kids article of Maharashtra said it is west-central. https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Maharashtra/328879
   3. Marathi language of western and central India. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marathi-language
   4. Britannica said that Gondwana is only central India, and some part of Maharashtra is Gondwana. So Britannica says at a least part of Maharashtra is central. www.britannica.com/place/Gondwana-historical-region-India
5. I think your logic to use Britannica is it is a encyclopedia. There are other encyclopedias. They are not as much famous but still they are also written by experts.
   1. https://search.credoreference.com/content/topic/maharashtra State in west central India
   2. https://www.ancient.eu/article/874/ellora-caves/ Ellora is a sacred site in Maharastra, central India.
6. And why using Britannica rule is not applying to other articles, South India states? Telangana is having very similar opening line to Maharashtra, "Telangana is a state in India situated on the centre-south stretch of the Indian peninsula on the high Deccan Plateau." but still it mentions different directions. For Telangana you do not remove south and centre if it is written as Deccan?
7. So many thousand of news articles and government sources are there. Kautilya3 says do not give a preference to the government source. But also it was wrong to do opposite if you are completely ignoring government source. Government of India source is at least as much reliable as British Encyclopedia. BelgaumGoan (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@BelgaumGoan: The multiple possible descriptions of the geographical location of Maharashtra within India are simply a reflection of the inadequacy of words for cartography. That's why we have a map of Maharashtra's shape and location within India in the Infobox. In the lede sentence, we aim to roughly orient the reader rather than provide a comprehensive survey of what language every possible reliable source has used for that purpose. That summary is necessarily a matter of editorial judgment, and when good-faith editors cannot agree on a single option it is reasonable to look at what choice wikipedia's closest peers (such as Encyclopedia Britannica) have made.

I would advice that we move past lede fixation and see how else we can improve the article to serve the reader. For example, on a quick check of the source access dates, the Economy section doesn't appear to have been updated since ~2014, which means that the nominal figures in it are likely to be off by 50-100%. Wouldn't it be a better investment of our time if we focused on such issues? Abecedare (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare:Thank you for reply and I understand. But, am not trying to suggest to make a big change to the opening sentence. I just think we should make small change by adding two words - central and southern. "Maharashtra is a state in western, southern and central peninsular India". I say lots of sources, but all additional info they said is summarized just by adding two words. I don't think it's any confusing for a reader. It benefits reader as so many different opinions and sources are represented by adding two words.

Direct reference to southern and central is a much more effective, clear and powerful than indirect reference like "Deccan and peninsular". Because Indians are strongly aware of those directions. For example Telangana also has "centre-south stretch of the Indian peninsula on the high Deccan Plateau" (instead of just south).BelgaumGoan (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@BelgaumGoan: While it true that at least parts of Maharashtra are in central India, saying that Maharashtra is in "western, southern and central peninsular India" is not even correct (at least as per my understanding that the Vindhyas, traditionally, mark the northern boundary of peninsular India). Perhaps, the discussion would be best continued at Talk:Maharashtra or at WT:INB, although my preference would be to just stick with the current version. Abecedare (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

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

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

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

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

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

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

UTRS appeal by Jürgen Eissink

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

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

Ok, I'll flip the switch on access and we'll see what unfolds. Cheers, -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

SourceForts

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

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

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

Durganagar,Kolkata

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

@AmitMondal1299: Your edit was reverted, because as is clear from previous discussion listed below, you do not have consensus for the changes:

• The local man (Sep 2018)
• Information of Durganagar (Oct 2018)
• Durganagar, Kolkata (Feb 2019)

Again: if you wish to change the lede, start a discussion at Talk:Durganagar and establish a consensus for your version. Edit-warring to force or sneak-in those revisions will just get blocked again, or topi-banned. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

Pending changes protection in Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol turns up to be of no use. If it is protected for persistent financial vandalism, then pending changes won't stop it. Still continuing. Vandalised Drishyam too right after protection expired. Perpetrator is a Mammootty fan and is deliberately diminishing the box office numbers of Mohanlal films and exaggerating it in Mammootty films. This guy has been doing this since a while. 2405:204:D483:7969:5C36:A7D:386A:246A (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The protection at Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol is working as expected but you're right that it may not be sufficient since the vandal can move to other Mammootty and Mohanlal films. Unfortunately the vandalism does not seem amenable to an edit-filter and so we may just have to play a game a whack-a-mole and revert/block/protect as needed. Let me know if you come across the editor and I'd be happy to help with the latter bit. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

AFD Deletion Discussion request

As per conversation with the subject and his requested for his security and privacy, i am requesting to you as an admin to please delete / remove afd articles for deletions discussions log. Please refer to this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Zachary_Danao. Let me know thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitips (talk • contribs) 12:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wikitips: AFD discussions/logs are generally not deleted and I don't see enough for it to even merit a courtesy blanking. Suggest that you drop the issue and stop making edits related to Danao and family. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The point am making here admin is that the article / page i made nor published towards the subject is not permitted. As a wikipedians i want to be able to contributed. The subject is concerned and i think we need to addressed that concerned in a professional way. Hoping for your positive response.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitips (talk • contribs) 09:20, June 1, 2019 (UTC)

@Wikitips: I am not sure what your complaint is and what remedy you are asking for. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: My complain is the AFD discussion/logs are still saved. I do want to requested coming to you as an admin maybe delete removed the discussion/logs since the discussion is closed. Also, as far as subject is concerned, what remedy do you think is applicable for this case?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitips (talk • contribs) 23:38, June 1, 2019 (UTC)

@Wikitips: OK, so the issue is the deletion of the AFD discussion and logs. As I said before, IMO that is neither needed nor merited but I'll ping the other two admins involved Scott Burley and Sir Sputnik, in case they choose to to go down the blanking route.

As for the article's subject: he can simply ignore the internal wikipedia debates, especially since these discussions are not indexed by search-engines. As long as there are no more sock-accounts created or resumed attempts to promote the subject or his family on wikipedia, we can all let this matter drop and move on. Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: If you and the other admins agreed to let this matter blanking route, drop and move on would be appreciated. Please keep me posted. Thank you very much for responding promptly to all of my concerns.

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Seat_of_government

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Seat_of_government.--Vin09 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vin09: Added my 2c although keep in mind that I am learning about all this, even as I read and pontificate. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing DRN Request

Could you please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Kamrupi_discussion#Twentieth_Statements_by_Editors? It appears that one of the editors (you know which one) is trying either to use the DRN to influence an RFC or to use an RFC to influence the DRN. We already know that neither of us claims to be an expert on the linguistics, but I know a little about languages, and I know that there is no relationship between Indo-Aryan languages and Dravidian languages except possibly overlap in territory, and I now know that Assamese is an Indo-Aryan language. Indo-Aryan languages are (surprise! surprise!) Indo-European, and their parent language is the oldest of all well-understood Indo-European languages, Sanskrit.

I don't fully understand what Bh is trying to do, but it seems vaguely disruptive. I will continue to try to moderate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Hatt-ed the discussion at Talk:Assamese and warned the user. They are really on thin ice here. Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Chola invasion of Srivijaya

There are some serious issues with this article. I have briefly elucidated them in its talk page. Would you please look into it?

Thank you. Destroyer27 (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27: Replied at the article talkpage. Can continue the discussion there. Abecedare (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Response

Hi Abecedare, I got your note here. I appreciate your comment that the vast majority of my edits are in good faith. Regarding the suspicion of POV, if you are comfortable with it, whenever I add that term (as mentioned, I will be very, very careful moving forward), I will clearly note it on the edit summary (the exception being if the term was pre-existing on that page); a simple edit summary search will locate where I added this term (will make sure that does not happen on mass and to a minimum). Let me know if that works. That will preserve my positive contributions "while preventing the ones that prove to be disruptive" - since those few possible future edits will be edit summery search away if anyone is uncomfortable. This is just a proposal to work around, since you gave me a chance. Not to seem as a means for me to change large amount of content to that term. Again, let me know if you trust me with this workaround. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC))

I still think that it would be easier and safer for you just to forget that terms such as Indian subcontinent exist. I said as much in a reply to you on my talk page yesterday but you seemed then and now to be insistent that you want to continue risking your editing privileges. It isn't worth it. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Highpeaks35: Thanks for the positive response and the suggestion for how to move forward. I would also recommend seriously considering Sitush's advice.

As an admin I don't want to place any formal limit on what exact words you can/cannot use in an article because I think any such restriction is unworkable (for example, a narrowly worded limit wouldn't prevent addition of a similarly fraught term 'ancient India' willy-nilly, while a broadly worded one would prevent innocuous corrections to spelling and capitalization). Instead, the basic bargain is really the same as with any other wikipedia editor: you are trusted to edit responsibly and then held responsible for your edits. The only difference is that given the previous disruption and warnings, the potential penalty you face is higher than what a newbie would. Keep that in mind and happy (cautious) editing! Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Shehla Rashid /

Could you take a look at User:Sheelarashid? Their first edit was at Shehla Rashid. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Abecedare (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

NEED HELP

Good morning.

I contact you because I was banned from modifications on the French Wikipedia ! You'd like to know why ? Because I deleted the discussions on my own page and I put in the Infobox the flags of countries and cities, states, counties ... Some French administrators decided that it was forbidden or not recommended... Then Gemini1980 banned me... I find it unacceptable, this person uses his "power" and his fellow administrators too. I can not do anything against this. What should I do ? What can you do ?

Sincerely TH2M8S aka THOMAS TH2M8S (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@TH2M8S: Unfortunately, since I am not involved at the French Wikkipedia, I can only second the advice Ivanvector and Vanamonde93 gave you. Abecedare (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Highpeaks35

I am a bit concerned about Highpeaks35 again. They have gone on another spree of replacing various terms with Indian subcontinent. I can't spot a prior discussion at WT:INB but I am sure this behaviour/issue has been discussed somewhere before. Any ideas? I've left a note on their talk page anyway. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Warned here --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Add: Looking at their talkpage history I also found these prior discussions about the "Indian subcontinent" issue (these sections are not archived):

• Indian subcontinent in Feb 2019
• Misleading edit summaries in April, 2019

The first of these discussion led to this AE report, block and warning. Definitely a repeat problem. What I am struggling with is the appropriate remedy. Pinging Vanamonde93 who is familiar with the users editing, for input. Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both. There is a bit today on my talk page here. The explanation is nonsense: Pakistan and India do not constitute the entire subcontinent and leaving them in but adding Indian subcontinent does nothing related to "prevent anachronism", as is claimed there. It is bizarre stuff. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde hasn't edited for a few days. I wonder if TonyBallioni has any thoughts, as the blocking admin last time round. They're just digging themselves into a hole on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Due apologies, I've been offline for some days. Intentionally or otherwise, Highpeaks's edits, taken together, contribute to a narrative of a unified "Indian" or "Hindu" culture in antiquity, when the phenomena they refer to often have a broader or narrower historical or cultural basis, and require broader or narrower terminology. I have tried to get them to see the problem with their editing on multiple occasions, both directly and via AE. They still do not seem to be getting it. In this, they are certainly not unique; there are several others in this topic that I can think of who make edits that seem odd at worst in isolation, but taken together, constitute a serious NPOV problem. I have always difficult to craft a sanction in cases such as this, where we have an editor whose other edits (and there are many of these) are evidently made in good faith, and add some value. I would suggest one of two approaches; leaving a final warning, with the understanding that further such mucking around would be grounds for an indefinite ARBIPA topic ban; or, an immediate topic ban, from something like "modifying broad geographic labels" within ARBIPA. I'm afraid I don't have the time at the moment to investigate which sanction would be most appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde93. You summarize the situation well.

I tried to think of some narrower editing-restrictions but don't believe any such plan is workable. It's gotta be ARBIPA topic-ban or nothing. At the risk of annoying editors who have to monitor, clean up, and file complaints against Highpeaks35's editing (sorry Sitush et al), I have issued a last last warning to the user but tried to be as plain as possible that they really need to reconsider and reform. Abecedare (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. You're probably right about wording-related restrictions being unworkable; we do not have a good record with respect to policing them, in general, and they are frequently a net-negative. I thought we should consider one, at the very least; but I think your approach was a better option. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Fingers crossed.

Btw, re-reading my above message I cringed at the "gotta be" sentence; didn't intend it to have the imperious tone and only glad that I didn't do that with someone new to wikipedia or unfamiliar. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, no worries; I didn't even pick up on any imperiousness, intended or otherwise. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

They also did a unilateral controversial move here in October, which I only noticed a week ago or so. I knew who it was with 90% certainty before I looked. I decided not to do anything about it, because it’s a defensible position, and also because of the possible EDITCONSENSUS problem at this point. However it was clearly a controversial move that should have gone through an RM (just like the properly conducted RM at that article earlier), but that’s not how they roll, especially when it’s anything remotely to do with this topic. Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Still looking for the first time I commented about their "subcontinent" monomania. Haven’t found it yet, and this was something different and o/t here, but since it’s a bit hard to find now, I thought I’d drop a link: Wikipedia:Featured article review/India/archive3. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Not Talk:South Asian pickles#Requested move 6 January 2019 either. Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Nor these edits at Kirati people. I give up; I can’t find it. Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup. You have illustrated the crux of the problem: The same disputed edit at so many articles, sparking multiple objects that eventually get lost among numerous talkpage histories. I hope though that Highpeaks has got the message now and understand the consequences on continuing in this vein. Still leaves us with the job of cleaning up after those past actions... <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

PALLAVA DYNASTY

On the Pallava Dynasty page I had made an edit with apt citations. A user is determined to remove it. He seems think that the page can only contain info that he approves of. Request your urgent attention. Destroyer27 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27: Looking at the article history, I see that there have been a series of reverts by LovSLif (talk · contribs), N.sathyaseelan (talk · contribs) and you (Mathglot and Rasnaboy have also reverted but I believe that they were just objecting to unexplained deletions; not commenting on the validity of the any version per se). Instead of repeatedly reverting and trying to communicate through edit-summaries can you and the involved editors discuss the issue on the article talkpage and explain why certain theories of Palava origin are worth retaining/excluding?

@Kautilya3: do you know anything about this subject area, or know any experienced editor who would be able to mediate? Abecedare (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare:, looking at my recent edits, do you think I have added any irrelevant or redundant info, as LovSLif (talk · contribs) claims? If an unbiased person reads it, he would find it perfectly germane. All LovSLif (talk · contribs) has said is that, just because it's a poem or an epic from Sangam Literature it must not be cited. He seems to believe that all of them are irrelevant, regardless of the verisimilitude that it has obtained from the more recent discoveries, to wit, the Velurpalaiyam plates and also Naga liaison episode, which is corroborated by another citation on the page which holds it to be historical. Also on many other pages related to history, many theories including folklore and epics have been cited, particularly as part of origin of an ancient dynasty or an empire. Now that recent discoveries have lent a great deal of credence to it, I'd submit that it must be cited. Most empires that have flourished in Tamil Nadu have been studied or documented either through Sangam literature or epigraphs, as a matter of fact. Also, the notion of origin has several dimensions to it, which cannot be confined to linguistics or ethnicity, but others too, such as former overlords, the time and the land of origin, the dominant paradigm that existed, their cultural background and the literature that flourished at the time must also be thoroughly examined, and certainly cited if they have been indeed documented, so as to be able draw a conjecture, which I am sure you know and would agree with.

What irks me in this case is that LovSLif (talk · contribs) has quite firmly clung on to his belief that the source, or the info is redundant, and has been like a broken record saying that over and over again.

Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27: Right now, as an outsider, it is not even clear to me which "one source" you and LovSLif are debating about. Is it Manimekalai or this Artibus Asiae article? If the former, then yes, Manimekalai as a 5th-6th century poem would not qualify as a usable source for history articles by itself and we would need to see how secondary sources judge the historicity of, or otherwise treat, its claims. Now, perhaps you already have such sources but, again, that is not clear to anyone who hasn't dived deeply into the reverts.

So, please spell out on the article talkpage (a) the content that you wish to add; (b) the supporting WP:HISTRS-complaint sources; and ideally, (c) relevant quotes from those sources. This will make it much easier for uninvolved parties to evaluate and help resolve the matter. Also, its best not to personalize such disputes; as far as possible, speak of the content and sources rather than editors and their motives. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have watch-listed it and can probably help if they discuss things on the talk page. If they don't I recommend full-protection for a week or two. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Abecedare:,

Well, let me explain from my perspective over this. First of all, there were numerous theories about the origin of pallavas. 1. Each one has to be in accordance with valid ref or epigraphical evidences. 2. To presented in non redundant way. Well, here what has been written by the user was a repetitive content across 2-3 paragraphs laying high emphasis on single source and mythological theory

' it says Manimekalam which is a poetic composition trace origin of pallavas to chola prince. In the same paragraph it was stated that epigraphical information of velurpalyam plates prove it wrong and it is nothing to do with chola'

So when we have epigraphical and other sources reliable content, mythological poem does not hold to be valid source. Also , paragraph 2 about velurpalyam grants was a shortned and core info.

So I asked the user not post redundant content on a mythological poem which contradicts with epigraphical sources spanning across 2 big paragraphs.

Hope nothing is wrong here and sounds well. This new user has been indulging in such addition of content in order to highlight the content of his choice thus violating WP:NPOV . Also the entire passage was self written WP:RSSELF clearly masking [WP:RS]] even I can notice news articles been newly cited today.

This user has been using highly informal language when I tried him explaining the things. He was not even signing his comments. Seems he is unaware of wiki NPOV and good faith norms and also seems poor at the subject. Please do the needful. Thanks! Cheers! By LovSLif (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@LovSLif: Thanks for your input. I agree broadly with your two numbered points but I would modify the first to "in accordance with valid" WP:HISTRS-compliant sources, since it would be as wrong for us to directly cite epigraphical evidence as to cite primary lterary sources from the era.

It would be best to discuss the actual content issues at Talk:Pallava dynasty#Origins section. I have protected the article from editing for a week to allow the participants to discuss the issue and reach a consensus on what should be included and what sources should be cited. I should add that the protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Abecedare (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: , thanks for protecting the page and understanding the same. I totally agree to what you have mentioned. Also I would like to mention one more thing over here, the historical ref were not reverted earlier by me, I have reatained the same just by shortening and removing the redundant content which was poetic and too lengthy repetitive passage. Also it contradicts with it's own statements. Single source 'Mamallapuram prashasti' was used more than thrice with redundant content and written in own way barring actual content ' so I had retained the core content over there.

Thanks again for your prompt help. Cheers! By LovSLif (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare:,you too know that I'd not just cited one source, but several sources. I'd also cited a book, other than the TOI article, which was an additional reference. As you saw, I had introduced several more citations hours ago. Too unfair to have someone remove it without discussion and protect the page. Also there's no contradiction as this user has been suggesting for a long time in the source. In fact, it's just one source that legitimises the other (as the source itself states). The user has adding and removing info that suits his whimsy. If it's really so redundant, why would he be so desperate to remove it? Also I too hadn't removed any sourced, but just had added one. Seems to me, as far as LovSLif (talk · contribs) is concerned, Sangam literature is not part of history. I don't know if you locked the page lest I edit again, or in support of LovSLif (talk · contribs), as he's trying to make out here in his thanks message to you.

Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27: please note the one theory you were trying to publish is not the only theory available over pallavas origination. I have already explained you in clear layman terms on talk page what is violating over there and the data you added being redundant and beyond the precise size. Imagine if someone add many passages just like you over all the theories how redundant and non readable way it leads the page to. If you still need further clarity let us continue our discussion on talk page accordingly. Also you can validate or crosscheck the content to the actual source if that is the same or self written WP:RSSELF. It is not good to debate or discuss further over admin talk page. See you on talk page! Cheers! By LovSLif (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@LovSLif: Well, yeah, this how a layman uses his words and grammar. Very true.

"Trying to publish is not the only theory available over pallavas origination."

That's precisely my point. I have been saying the same, although not in as much a layman way as you did.

"What is violating over there and the data you added being redundant and beyond the precise size."

What "precise size"? What do you talk about? Just because you think that it's redundant, doesn't mean it is. You've gotta prove that. As you have conceded there's not just one theory, but aplenty. So there certainly are going to be differences among them. Furthermore, as you have again committed a terminological inexactitude here, the source isn't positing contradictory theories, but is expounding two sources -- a poem and an epigraph -- that partly corroborate and contradict each other. The other citation attests the poem in Sangam literature which explains the Pallavas relation to the Nagas. The page was quite legible (of course, only to those who can read), after I had affixed additional citations and correctly arranged the info in a chronological order. You removed it and botched it up.

"Also you can validate or crosscheck the content to the actual source if that is the same or self written."

I already have. I have cited legitimate sources. As for your objection on the amount of content, it certainly isn't too much to comprehend (of course, at least not to reasonably bright people), and there are far more lengthier sections in the article, as you can see. "Origin" isn't lengthy at all. I only had added 3 paragraphs.

"It is not good to debate or discuss further over admin talk page. See you on talk page!"

Right, but he had requested for protection, which is why I'd commented. You needn't have responded to that, if you really thought it was improper to discuss here. If Abecedare (talk · contribs) is ready to moderate our discussion, I shall do as you say.

"This user has been using highly informal language when I tried him explaining the things. He was not even signing his comments. Seems he is unaware of wiki NPOV and good faith norms and also seems poor at the subject. Please do the needful."

You have been, as I said earlier, "adding and removing info that suits his whimsy," thus violating WP:NPOV.

Will you please talk about the facts rather than raising your fatuous grouches and poisoning the well?

Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27:, well yet again your statements are not sound enough. One example : your statement ' I only had added 3 paragraphs' - please do multiply and check how many paragraphs it shall span if each theory spans 3 paragraphs. This is pallava dynasty article not a separate article for origin of pallavas. Secondly , redundant data is not necessary. Last but not least , the content is not framed as per the source rather it is written with self reasearch barring original content. Mythological poems can not be emphasized so heavily to surpass or override other valid theories already proven; thus overriding good faith.

Well that's all! I will not anymore detoriate admin talk page. It's up to your concise to follow or not to follow wikipedia terms and norms. But moderators will do their job. Well hope are you a new user so I took considerable time to explain. Well I further leave your actions to admins to monitor. Good luck! By LovSLif (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@LovSLif: Hey, I can see that you are indeed a very old user (excuse the pun). Why didn't you respond to me on the article's talk page, when you care so much about the admin's page?

" Well hope are you a new user so I took considerable time to explain."

'"Hope?. I am sorry. What do you mean? I didn't quite get you. Please don't use "layman's terms," if this is what you think they are.

"It's up to your concise to follow or not to..."

Again, what do you mean? The Wikipedia article is certainly more readable and concise (although not comprehensive) than your comments.

Anyway, I have responded to the fibs, fig leaves, red-herrings, and your half-baked assertions and opinions and arguments on the article's talk page. Respond to me there. (This isn't a personal attack. Abecedare It's rather my opinion on his remarks. I am not, as you said, making it personal at all).

Btw, I am glad you admitted that you've been "deteriorating the page." Thanks.

Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27 and LovSLif: I have read the above exchange but this dicussion is best continued at Talk:Pallava dynasty. Some tips though:

• Be clear and succinct. As I said above, specify (a) the content that you wish to add; (b) the supporting WP:HISTRS-complaint sources; and ideally, (c) relevant quotes from those sources. Minimize the accompanying commentary, especially about each-other.
• See WP:DUE, the relevant policy on how much coverage to give to the "Origins" section as a whole, and the various theories within it.
• See WP:THREAD on how to properly indent your talkpage posts.
• User:Kautilya3 has offered to help at the talkpage, and others will likely join in. See Nittawinoda's, sensible advice.

Abecedare (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Kamrupi Dispute

Can you please take another look at the Kamrupi dispute, and assess whether it can be closed, and, if so, whether any sort of restriction is needed? Nobody really likes the way it was done, but I wasn't aware of any other way. If it is closed, I think that, at a minimum, some sword of Sword of Damocles is needed in case Bh starts to retrogress. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I doubt that every dispute between the editors has been settled but, looking through the last few sections at the DRN page, I also don't see any specific progress being made recently. So yes, the DRN may be ready for close in my opinion. As for Bh, if they try to employ these handwavy takeaways as they have done before, they will be topic-banned. I have told them this earlier and will re-emphaszie it once the discussion is over. By the way, I greatly admire your above-and-beyond effort in moderating this DRN. Abecedare (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Abecedare !

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I award this barnstar to Abecedare for helping in resolving Kamrupi language related conflicts peacefully, he remain patient during entire two month plus discussion at different noticeboards and shown immense compassion towards all involved editors.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bhaskar. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pallava dynasty's origins

Hey @Abecedare , I am unable to upload my response on the talk page. Please help!

Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Destroyer27 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27: Can you explain what kind of problem you are having in editing, I presume, Talk:Pallava dynasty? Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it states "error:edit not saved." After the issue is fixed will you please provide me your analysis of my arguments?

Destroyer27 (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27: It would be difficult to diagnoze the problem without know details of the platform you are using, and perhaps seeing screenshots. However, the first and easiest step is to, just try making the edit again!

I'll keep an eye on the discussion, but evaluation of the arguments and sources is best done by the participants. There are already quite a few editors besides LovSLif and you who have weighed in and Kautilya3, especially, is an old hand who is experienced in helping out in such circumstances. Abecedare (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried again multiple times, but couldn't identify the bug. With your permission, can I post my forthright arguments here? Maybe I can also tag other users, except LovSLif, since I've not directly addressed my arguments to him. What say?

Destroyer27 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27: Yes, why don't you post the intended comment here without tagging anyone and I'll copy them over to the article talkpage (or try to diagnose why you are facing the problem) so that the discussion can continue there. Abecedare (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried again multiple times, but couldn't identify the bug. With your permission, can I post my forthright arguments here? Maybe I can also tag other users, except LovSLif, since I've not directly addressed my arguments to him. What say?

Destroyer27 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27: Yes, why don't you post the intended comment here without tagging anyone and I'll copy them over to the article talkpage (or try to diagnose why you are facing the problem) so that the discussion can continue there. Abecedare (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks a ton! ❤️

Here you go:

I shall, to begin with lay the premise of my core argument. I don't and can never claim or assert, weighing the numerous citations that I have examined, that the Pallavas were of Tamil Nadu or Andhra-origin. In point of fact, their origin doesn't even to a picayune matter to me. I have already in the arguments that I'd presented above submitted that, "since very many theories of their origins exist, one cannot with absolute certainty make any claim to that effect." I get an impression from the arguments that have been posited by certain users that their entire conception of "the origin" of a particular dynasty or a ruling class is "linguistic," which is IMHO a very parochial, not to say, a seemingly bigoted approach to history, and does not even barely bear any semblance to the intellection of a proper historian. Such notions are not just anti-scientific or anti-intellectual, but eventually lethal. Being acquainted with the complexities that attend the subject, I am sure none of us can draw any certitudes. If the argument is just surrounding the ethno-linguistic origin of the dynasty, then I'd retire from this discussion. But I ingeminate vehemently, that it is not, as a matter of fact, and must not ever be. For instance, on the Satavahana dynasty or the Vijayanagara empire page, when very many users had tried to include Tamil in the common languages field, they were obstructed and opposed by dint of a Wiki regulation (supposedly formulated and enforced by editors, I do not know) that only the predominantly used administrative languages must be taken into account. But here one still sees Telugu in the field, that too sans any citation, and on the Shilahara page one sees Marathi, merely predicated on the fact that that was the language of a chunk of their inscriptions. That suggests, probably not a bias, but a clear lack of consistency on the part of the editors in the implementation of a rule. But that apart. You see, I don't make a fuss about such trivialities. I am no linguistic nationalist as certain users here seem to be. Apparently, ultra nationalists of any stripe usually have an inferiority complex embedded in their systems that are full of bile. They all shall make great politicians in India, particularly if they join any of her regional parties. Good on them! Now I, turning back to the arguments, make the following case:

1) Firstly, one has to sink in the fact that the origin of the Pallavas is still uncertain, which is attested by the very first citation in the section on Origin. None of the so-called "new researches" have in unison explicitly affirmed that the dynasty is of Andhra-origin, contrary to what certain users have asserted citing a few sources. None other than Romila Thapar herself in her book, Early India: From the Origins to A.D. 1300 in which she quite tersely in no uncertain terms states, The Origin of the Pallavas is remains a matter of debate, and goes on to enunciate the reasons for it, and narrates numerous theories on it. [4]

2) There's no solid reason to assume that the dynasty's "Northern" affiliations should directly imply an Andhra-origin. That's absurd, since on page 133, Volume 1 of the book Puspika: Tracing Ancient India Through Texts and Traditions, published as recently as 2013 (just to point out to a user that it's about a century later that 1933), in which the author examines about a thousand inscriptions (not a bare 40 or 50) clearly states and I quote, "unbelievable as it may sound it is probable that most of the Pallava inscriptions have been read in Situ and have been edited by a single person, sometimes only years later..." Visit the page for full quotation. [5]

This, validates all of my previous points.

3) As I'd said earlier, and I reiterate once and for all, that the Velurpalaiyam inscription have "partly corroborated" the soi-disant "myth," rendering it sufficient legitimacy, and also leading historians such as Rasanayagam to cite it and trace the dynasty's origin to Chola Naga, as Nittawinoda had pointed out, and therefore, I had submitted that it must be mentioned here on the page. This is certainly not a contradiction of the other theories that posit an "Andhra origin (which are quite plausible)," but is surely at odds with it. The same goes with the theories that suggest a Chola-Naga origin, which is clumsily construed just as "Tamil" by certain users. No matter what they believe or contend, the fact is still that the origin of the dynasty is contested, and that multiple theories still prevail, which certain bigots interpret from a linguistically schismatic prism and obstruct it from being posted. If certain dolts reckon that a mere mention of Sangam literature or Chola-Naga liaison episode is a desperate attempt to prove their "Tamil-origin" (a word I have not used in any of my previous arguments), then it's their fault or rather their error of judgement. Wikipedia isn't in any way responsible for that. Maybe if Wikimedia Foundation is generous enough it can pay for every surgery they undergo to cement their acid-dripping voids of empty space, as part of its CSR. This whole frantic piffle about languages is gets on one's nerves.

4) K. P. Jayaswal, for instance, proposed a North Indian origin, putting forward the theory that the Pallavas were a branch of the Vakatakas. Page 35 of the journal issued by the University of Madras entitled Administration and Social Life Under the Pallavās unequivocally states so. [6] And also page 271 of Studies in Indian History, by Kollappa Pillay: [7]

Similarly, the book Cambridge Shorter History of India, on page 196 states that the Pallavas were of a foreign origin (could be any country outside of India, maybe even in SEA or Persia as some historians have suggested). [8]

Also, in Buddhist Remains in Andhra and the History of Andhra Between 225 and 610 A.D., by K. R. Subramanian states on Pg. 75 that Pallavas were a mixed race, although a distinct one from the Tamils. Take a look: [9]

5) "After a careful study of Pallava genealogy with all the available material, of no less than 45 inscriptions, Rev H Heras put forth the theory that there was an unbroken line of Pallava kings, twenty-four of them in number, who originally ruled at some city of the Telugu country, possibly at Dasanapura, which the Darsi copper plates state as their adhisthana and later migrated to kanchi."

A quotation that probably was plucked out of some digital trashcan. Probably a blog, b'coz that's all that showed up on the web, at least to me. And I can't cite them here because those sites blocked by Wiki.

Someone who lectures others on how to not cite original researches, that too when they don't actually do it, himself slyly does it. Newspapers are considered way more reliable than blogs by the way. But anyhow it doesn't matter. After all, when one rummages through a dung heap even a plastic bead glimmers like pearl.

At any rate, even if the quote exists in any other book or journal that does not in any way refute my previous arguments.

6) Very many books still state that the progenitors of Pallava dynasty are unknown, and refer to them as either "legendary" or "mythical." Very many historians futhermore disagree about the theories of their origin, because of the languages they used other than Tamil, to wit, Sanskrit and Prakrit -- the debate on the question as to which is older, continues to this day. Historians who strongly believe that Prakrit is older have contended that the dynasty were of a northern-origin and were the erstwhile feudatories of the Satavahana dynasty (for instance, H Heras, and so on). If asked, I can cite the sources for the same here. Also, I must impress upon everyone here, that poems or literature sometimes could be a very accurate reflection of reality. Someone who has thoroughly understood literature as a subject would definitely know that. So do not dismiss it all universally as a "myth."

7) One yet again commits a propositional fallacy, scilicet, affirming the consequent, when one avers that merely because Manimekalai should be cited (which has been proven to be legitimate), other myths or legends or poems must also be cited, suggesting that it is incumbent upon the editors to do so. It's analogous to saying, "I slept last night. I had dreamt that I had a sedative, so I indeed must have," which is arrant nonsense. Such arguments simply don't hold water. That said, it was the same user who had deleted the same info from the page some months ago, citing that it relies only on one source, and that there's too much emphasis on it. Now that there are several citations, and also that the info has been proven to be accurate, considering the arguments I've floated as to why it's Wikiworthy, I think now it must be posted. Whether other similar info too should be added or not, or discarded is a separate question, which is again, subject editorial consensus, but this one now, at least insofar as I'm concerned, must be added. There's no "Wikioracle" here who has the sole authority to decide what must be posted on the page and what mustn't be, or what is a "myth" and what isn't, as certain users here believe and appear to have arrogated to themselves the same. And I wouldn't object to any further additions of gen, even if it's a "myth," just as he did, provided it contains valid citations. Lest dunces be discombobulated by the truckload of info and then begin to holler, I'd suggest we comprehensively, but concisely incorporate as many theories as possible that pertains to the dynasty's origin, and not just one or two monolithic ones, which currently happens to be that of their "Andhra" and "North-Indian origin." Maybe we can cull off certain theories that essentially infer the same, and cite others.

Best,

Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the bug! Thanks Ab.

Best,

Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27: I have copied over your text to Talk:Pallava_dynasty unchanged since I offered to do so. By the way, I believe the trouble you were having posting it were perhaps due to the original version containing blacklisted sites.

However I am not really happy with composition of the transferred comment, which contains too much of point-scoring and petty carping about "the other editor", and whose substantive points are likely to be lost in its verbosity. So I will again point you to the advice I gave earlier, which will save you and other editors much time and bile. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and I am awfully sorry about it. I shall, by my troth, from now on follow your advice. When one's inundated with a barrage of ad hominems and insults all the time, one gets worked up. I know, I can't let my emotions get the better off me. May be had the discussion remained civilized, and had he not poisoned the well before the debate began, things would've been much different now. Not denying that it's my fault too. But of course, it's never too late.

Do consider my points though.

Warm regards, Best,

Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare,

Assuming that you have perused through the arguments presented on the talk page, I think we can arrive at a mutually acceptable and a Wiki-friendly resolution. A user has already expressed agreement with my arguments.

Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare,

Please take a look at the awful comments that LovSLif has made on the Talk:Pallava dynasty. I was talking to him quite professionally. He's now begun to make personal attacks, thus violating good faith. I cannot stand this anymore. Request you to take action.

Destroyer27 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Destroyer27 and LovSLif: I'll be able to look over the recent posts and respond in 2-4 hours. In the meantime, please step back from Talk:Pallava dynasty, and from engaging or discussing each other. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you.

Destroyer27 (talk) 6:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are welcome sir. This wikilove is because you thanked my edit.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

And a cat toy for your cat. —PaleoNeonate – 20:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sagar S

That edit was too much deleted, the references that are listed need conversion to inline references not removal and then tagging for refs when you just removed them is poor form, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Will reply on article talkpage to keep conversation in one place. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You Wrong

Asha News is 24 hours satelite hindi news channel established on july 2012... plz dont delete thsi biography..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piushtrivedi (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Piushtrivedi: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asha News and present your evidence, based on reliable sources (not just other website you create), that the TV channel actually exists and is notable. Abecedare (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

By LovSLif (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@LovSLif: Sorry for the delayed response. Had been traveling and then distracted by RL. Have commented at the DRN page.

Since the issue is at DRN I don't, at the moment, intend to read through and respond to the discussion at Pallava dynasty talkpage, where I was pinged. Will take a second look later, if needed. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding re-revert

Sorry if I went wrong in the process.

You re-reverted my edit and asked me if I know that the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics collects and publishes religion wise population information or not. You may refer this link which confirms religion wise data in every administrative division is recorded and published. Although we are unable to search the district level data but that doesn't mean data is not recorded and further not provided to Citizens or Organizations. In Pakistan there is Freedom of Information Act whereby data is availed within 21 days. Further you claim Pakistan Hindu Council is not a reliable source for such data. I would like to ask you how do you conclude that? Did you know it is one of the largest representative body of Hindus residing in Pakistan? The founder of Pakistan Hindu Council i.e. Ramesh Kumar Vankwani is a Member of National Assembly of Pakistan with seat for minorities. Apart from this he also belongs to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf political party of Pakistan which is the governing party of Pakistan.

I would like to know what was your logic to judge this organization or how you claimed it was unreliable? Hope I was able to clear your doubts about the source of information and the my edits gets added again. Thanks :) Vikram Nankani (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vikram Nankani: Do you mind if I copy your above message, and my original message to you, to Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan and reply there so that the conversation is in one place and other interested editors may participate? Abecedare (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Replied at the article talkpage. Can continue the discussion there. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: As you feel suitable Abecedare but hope it is not enough complex and time consuming for me to manage as I am not used to Wikipedia.

Regards. Vikram Nankani (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing article Pallava dynasty

Hi, The content of the Pallava dynasty article is under dispute and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) who was moderating the discussion had enforced DRN Rule A. At the moment, the discussion has been put on hold as we're trying to find a moderator who can independently review the sources and come to a conclusion. This being the case, are we allowed to edit the article in the meantime? The other editor LovSLif (talk · contribs) has started editing the sections under dispute [10]. Is this allowed? Nittawinoda (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Nittawinoda - I am not currently moderating that dispute, and that rule, which is my rule and not a more general rule, is not in effect. Finding a moderator may take months. Did User:Abecedare or anyone else impose a restriction on editing the article? If you are asking about my rule, I am not moderating the dispute and am not enforcing any rule against editing the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Since the Origins sections has ongoing disagreements, it would be best to refrain from editing that section. It is likely to lead to edit warring and blocks.
• The Etymology section also has disagreements. So any planned edits for that section would need to be discussed in advance. I would be happy to participate in the talk page discussions, but not as a moderator/mediator.
• All other sections should be ok to edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nittawinoda: There is no formal restriction on editing the article at present but, as Kautilya points out, there is a known dispute about the Origins section and therefore any of the involved parties editing it wthout first establishing consesnsus will be violation WP:BRD-recommendations.

I am less sure about the Etymology section. On the talkpage, I see this post by LovSLif, which doesn't appear to have received any responses in >3 weeks. If you or others have objections about this edit, it would be good to point that out explicitly. I realize that the subject is being discussed in different sections, user talkpages and also at DRN; so I may have missed some relevant discussion.

My advice going forward: pending the resumption of the WP:DRN process, avoid making any edits that you all, in good-faith, know to be controversial and follow the "D" in WP:BRD as best as possible. Such action will hopefully preclude the need for any formal article restrictions or sanctions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Justified Edits

My edits are entirely justified as there is absolutely zero consensus whether Brahmi has a semitic origin. It is blatantly intellectually dishonest to mark any Indic script as being descended from the Sinatic or Aramaic alphabet when it is an ongoing controversy and the controversy/dispute is mentioned in the articles. I will revert the edits.

Thanks for correcting me on the minor thing, my bad. Regards Abh9850 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I have posted on the talk page of the Brahmi script. Please share your thoughts mate Abh9850 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Abh9850: Lets continue the discussion at Talk:Brahmi script#Semitic descent on the infobox, and please wait for the consensus for your changes to be established before propagating them. Abecedare (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for putting a stop to that nonsense. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 15:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

On an completely unrelated note: Is there a place where we can post really bad articles so they can be improved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyam_Singh_Shashi Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rong Qiqi: You're welcome. Perhaps you don't realize it yet but you were the main beneficiary of my hatting the discussion, since otherwise you were driving yourself towards a block or page/interaction-ban. I don't intend to extend the debate any further but at some point you should give a second look to the feedback you received from numerous experienced users without the pressure of having to think of a riposte.

Moving away from that train-wreck: the best way to deal with Shyam Singh Shashi would be to be bold and edit-it yourself! The subject is clearly notable and I don't see any immediate WP:BLP or copyright concerns (there are specialized boards and guidelines for handling those). You can ask others to do that at wikiproject pages such as WT:INB but the article formatting is unlikely to be a high-priority. Abecedare (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rong Qiqi: I have reverted the article to an older version before Aakashchhikara added some 5 kilobytes of text that was probably copied from the subject's CV somewhere. Better now? Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, excellent, that looks a lot better. Let's agree to disagree once in a while; there are probably many other things we agree on. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 16:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

RfA talk

Thank you for posting the question out on the talk page (where it belonged in the first place) I'm glad some folks know how to find the high road. — Ched :  ?  — 01:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Delete user page

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

Discussion closed before I could reply

Hi, I was going to reply to your comment but it got closed before I got a chance to reply. I just wanted to say that I promise not to make any further NACs for at least a little while. I am curious about whether or not non-admins can tag users as banned when they have been banned by the community (which I have done many times before with no one saying anything), but until I get clarification, I'll hold off on doing that, too. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone: That tagging is best done by the closer of the ban-discussion and if they choose not to do so, it would be better to ask them the reason rather than tag the page yourself (I don't recall the exact location and details at the moment but there was even a recent discussion about deprecating the ban template altogether). More broadly: many of the editorial, and especially admin, actions on wikipedia rely on judgment and if experienced users are telling you to step-back from adminy-areas, it is usually not helpful to make "there is no rule saying I can't" arguments. Abecedare (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As far as deprecating that template, you may have been referring to the blocked user tag, which was deprecated per this discussion. I'm just really surprised because I have been editing userpages to correct mistakes about whether or not they were banned, etc, for a long time and this is the first time anyone has ever complained. In fact, I updated most of the users in the banned user categories with links to their ban discussions months ago (I haven't gotten to all of them yet), and everyone seemed fine with it. I suppose that there is a major difference between updating a banned user's page to link to the discussion and marking a user who hasn't been marked as community banned as community banned. I would really like to continue being able to add links to community ban discussions following the ban policy, but I'll definitely wait before making any more changes to userpages. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right about the discussion I was thinking of.

To be clear though: in this instance the fundamental problem was (1) NAC closing a discussion that was better handled by an admin, and (2) closing the discussion after participating in it! The userpage tagging is a side-issue but given the questions about your judgment I'd strongly advice you not to resume those (non-urgent and often unnecessary) actions for, say, at least another 6 months. Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There was also this and this, both of which were related to the "badge of shame" of such tagging.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I personally disagree with the deletion of LOBU, but that's in the past. Perhaps there should be an RFC once and for all about whether or not we even want to mark users as being banned anymore. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The policies page regarding non-admin involved closures is really vague. I wanted to change it to clarify that non-admins cannot close ban discussions, but that was also reverted by Bbb23... it seemed to me at least that they were on a rampage for whatever reason (I'm sure they weren't, but that's how it was perceived). At any rate, I guess the category will stay at "G" (I was going through the whole banned user category alphabetically) for quite a while longer . Thanks for your help. All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have decided to follow your suggestion and avoid making any edits to administrative policy, tagging banned users, links to discussions of banned users, or performing non-administrator closing, for a period of six months. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: I'm glad. Hopefully the hiatus from the area of dispute will make your editing in the short-term more pleasurable and at its end allow you to see the issues with fresh eyes. Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope so too. I have never been blocked on Wikipedia in the 12 years I've been here, and the last thing I want is to get blocked now. All the best! -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Conversational and self-deprecating was what I was going for. I'm bewildered that it's being taken as arrogant; but RFA is so weird, if you disagree with someone when they call you arrogant, it's badgering the opposes. I guess if nothing else, it wasn't as obviously non-arrogant as I intended, so that's on me. I can see one or two things I could have definitely worded better. But anyway, I wanted to thank you for confirming that I'm not 100% off base. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I shared your bewilderment at for example, "grumpier than I used to be", being cited by about six opposers as arrogant or a self-indictment, and therefore thought I'd make a note about this relatively minor point. Glad at least one person is reading so far in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This very locus was something, I was thinking 'bout too! Cultural difference, it seems .... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Modi (name) page

Hello, I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, but not someone who is registered on the site. I wanted to contact someone because I have noticed what I consider to be a problem with the Modi(name) page. It seems to have been edited to include some opinion of a political nature which seems inappropriate for Wikipedia, specifically dealing (as I am sure you might imagine) with the current Prime Minister of India. Not wanting to take the step of editing to delete what i think inappropriate, I instead took the step of initiating a "Miscellany for Deletion" request before realizing that I could not explain my request for not being a registered user. My intention is simply to have the material on the page reviewed so that any material not appropriate for Wikipedia can be removed, and then the page might be surveilled for what I am sure will be repeats, given the current happenings on the subcontinent, of such inappropriate additions. I wonder if you might attend to this little problem, or if you might find a Wikipedia administrator who can. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.86.146 (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@68.112.86.146: Thanks for bringing attention to the problem. It was recent vandalism by another unregistered user who was inappropriately using wikipedia to vent. I have reverted the edit and will keep an eye on the page for any immediate reinsertion of such material. I encourage you to get an account and help us further write and maintain wikipedia content (of course you can continue to contribute even without registering); either way, we can always use more conscientious users like you! Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, and thanks for that. I would not be surprised if you have to repeat your reversion process on this page at some point in the coming months... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.86.146 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		Thanks for responding to the request on User_talk:Ivanvector, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts duttaditya18 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Duttaditya18:Thanks. This literally made me laugh. Btw, fyi. Abecedare (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Haha! It is heartwarming to meet people who are willing to help. Truly brightened up my mood! duttaditya18 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		May your Holidays and the Year that follows shine as much as this coin still does beneath the tarnish of bygone weather and long use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Wishes

Long time, no see! Belated wishes of the new year, to you and your's .... ∯WBG^converse 13:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings for New Year, Abecedare !

Sessions Greetings!

Sir,
I wish a delightful New Year to you, you are like a ray of sunshine on a really dreary day.
भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

South Asian languages

Welcome back! I would have notified you about the AN3 excitement and asked for your opinion, since you closed the 2019 ANI. You seemed to be on a break. For the moment the issue may be resolved. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ban

Hi Abecedare, I have a question about a topic ban you gave last year: [[11]]. I see you haven't been around that much, so maybe you can't answer, but I wanted to know if there was any reason to think the ban was lifted at some point? If not, the user is evading the ban by editing logged out. I made an SPI report, and I just wanted to ask you about it. I hope I catch you while you're here... thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@IamNotU: I haven't lifted the topic-ban and see no indication that Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) ever appealed it. Can you point me to the relevant SPI report? Abecedare (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, found it. I'll read through the voluminous evidence you have presented to see if I the sock-puppetry/topic-ban-evasion looks clear enough to issue any follow-up sanction, but it may be 48-72 hours before I can get through it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Abecedare (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, glad that I caught you! I could probably have been more concise with the evidence. There was a previous report that was turned down, so I thought I should be thorough. Probably the first few diffs, plus the ones halfway down about things being "intertwined with the broader Indian subcontinent", and the list of edit summaries, are enough to make the point, especially if you're familiar with them already. The closing admin in the previous report seemed to be unable to find evidence of the topic ban, so that's why I wanted to ask you about it. If you want to look into it further, please do, but no problem if you're too busy. I guess someone will get to it eventually. --IamNotU (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@IamNotU: You were right. The evidence was compelling and didn't take as long to review as I had expected. See my note at SPI report for details. In case you have suggestions for any particular pages targeted by Highpeaks35 that would benefit from semi-protection, please let me know. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I saw your note at the SPI report, thanks. I'm going to start reverting their edits, so hopefully they'll realize that the jig is up and just quit editing. Let's see what happens... --IamNotU (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Do you think the word Tackle sounds funny? NicholasHui (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: Not off-hand. Will need some context to give a more concrete answer. Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Another thing you mentioned about me was that when you asked whether or not I my interest was only NHL Hockey, I asked myself the same question about my edit history whether NHL Hockey was the only thing I edit on, it turns out it wasn't the only thing I edit on. Take a look on my user page if you asked what other areas would I have been interested in if its not just NHL Hockey. NicholasHui (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: I realize that not being able to edit in the area that so greatly interests you cannot be pleasant but, unfortunately, I cannot support the lifting of your topic-ban and have said so at your AN appeal. Assuming you don't find any other topic-area on wikipedia to be of interest, perhaps you can find some hockey-related projects outside wikipedia where your contributions will be more suitable; if you wish you can ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous for suggestions. All the best. Abecedare (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

NHL Hockey is indeed the most area I edit since June 2015 even though it was not the only thing I did. You also asked why I got a bit too impatient when appealing the ban, its because I had been editing NHL Hockey for so long that it would have been hard for me to predict how other editors would comment on my good faith editing. NicholasHui (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification sought

@Abecedare: regarding the discretionary sanction you placed on 2020 Delhi riots imposing a moratorium on making any further unilateral edits to the lede till April 15 2020: Would there be an exception when editors have identified a possible WP:LIBEL violation? I direct your attention to this talk page section, initiated today by Yoonadue, for details. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking into it, although at the moment I am having problems editing several pages on wikipedia (hopefully, a transient issue ). Abecedare (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Please take a look at my edit to the sentence and the associated talkpage note. Hope that resolves the immediate issue. Abecedare (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Doubt

Respected sir, what is the meaning of sock. Can I know about it sir. You added a discussion in talk page of Regents Park sir. I didn't understand. Like there was another user with my name mks Harsha. You told Im not sock of other user. Can you explain me sir. I just want to know so that I can edit without creating vandalism. Thank you

Sri Harsha 14:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sri Harsha 191817: See WP:SOCK and the SPI report on why I suspect you to be one. You are welcome to respond at the SPI board. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Self-reporting careless violation

@Abecedare: As explained at Talk:2020 Delhi riots, I today removed a reference from the date parameter of the Infobox at 2020 Delhi riots because it failed to support riots continuing through 1 March 2020. I left the time interval template intact but added {citation needed}. Only belatedly did I realize that an Infobox is considered an element of the lead, and that my edit unintentionally breached the moratorium you imposed on making any further unilateral edits to the lede till April 15 2020. I did not mean to disregard your moratorium. Please review my edit and, if you believe it infringes the discretionary sanction, revert accordingly. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Thanks for reporting and explaining the edit. I haven't looked into the material and sources discussed at the related talkpage discussion but given that the edit was done in good faith and there doesn't seem to be an objection to it (yet), I think it's fine to let it stand in place and no "sanctions" are warranted.

I hope that everyone involved with the page understands though that this should not be taken as a license to test the limits of the DS and, in general, the best remedy to even an unintentional violation of DS (or, 1RR/3RR etc) is to self-revert. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ramayan and the bridge

This is familiar, I've had the impression that fans of Diriliş: Ertuğrul have tried to edit articles based on that apparently popular drama. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: We should perhaps be thankful that Game of Thrones wasn't set in any pre-existing historical/mythological era. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll drink to that!

Persistent Vandalism.

Hi there, the user YaRaabAlHind is still making a mess out of many pages even after you warned him once and I warned him later on. Take a look into his editorial history. Thanx. HinduKshatrana (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@HinduKshatrana: Both you and YaRaabAlHind have been edit-warring Pran Sukh Yadav, {{Social groups of Gujarat}} and other pages and need to stop before either of you are blocked or topic-banned. Use the article/template talk page to discuss the issues instead, along with sources that support the edit you wish to make. Unless reliable sources are available that establish the notability of Pran Sukh Yadav, the article is likely to be deleted. So instead of warring over the exact (unsourced!) content of the article, please try to find such sources and list them on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated the Prem Sukh Yadav article for deletion; feel free to produce and discuss sources that help establish the subject's notability at the AFD. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)