User talk:Yogesh Khandke/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hi Yogesh

I noticed your post on the Donner Party talk page. I am not one of the writers, but I became aware of the article recently and have been following along with some of the discussion. I am also not a featured article writer, so my skills are not as refined as those who are. I do read many of the FA reviews, articles, and discussions in order to try to improve my own writing skills though. I thought I would try to give you my own impression of the Luis and Salvador conversation. If you're not interested, then you're free to quit reading here and just delete the post - I won't be offended.

Anyway, these are my thoughts: By the time an article reaches featured article status it has usually had a multitude of eyes reviewing, editing, tweaking, researching, referencing, and assessing the article. For that reason, it's going to be difficult to make any major changes that alter the design and flow of the article. Much of this has to do in concept with WP:CONSENSUS. Now, to the particular "Luis and Salvador" item; much of my thought revolves around these two principles: undue weight and coatrack. Meaning that while the "Luis and Salvador" situation is indeed very interesting, it is only a part of the entire scope of the article. The scope of the article covers not only the mortality and cannibalism in the Legacy section, but the background, the family histories, the route, the harshness of the land, the weather, the rescue attempts etc. I could easily say that William Pike was killed when a gun being loaded by William Foster discharged accidentally was also a fascinating factoid. But it doesn't rate its own section. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here, and I hope it helps a bit. Thinking about it though does leave me with a thought that I may post on the talk page. Thank you for your work, and the use of your talk page. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  07:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yogesh is little bit busy these days (as he told me in his last email) and due to some other problems he may not edit any article or post in talk page now! But, hope Yogesh will see your post ASAP! :-)--Tito Dutta (Message) 09:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ducking and weaving the topic ban

After returning to Indian history in violation of his Topic Ban (is there no template he has to maintain somewhere notifying others who may come to his Talk page), now YK is being quoted by others in current Indian caste system discussion on WikiProject India's talkpage:

I am informed by Yogesh Khandke off-list that "The Mahars converted to Buddhism, Chamars did not." You may like to factor that into your understanding. AshLin (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)diff

This is just getting ridiculous. I'm sure YK will insist that he had no intention for AshLin to quote him in a caste discussion, and it happened most mysteriously. But fundamentally he's only been under Topic Ban for a matter of days and he's already chipping at the fringes, with a host of buddies coming by to complain that his ban just leaves him nothing to work with (other than 150+ countries nowhere near India, entire fields of human learning like mathematics, cuisine, business, astronomy, different species of ferret, etc). MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd AGF and not read so much into this had we not known YK so long; he's banned from discussing India and colonialism and his first big interest after the ban is diving into the Donner Party article and getting into disputes over white (and thus "colonial") racism in the cannibalising of two "Indians" (American Indians). The dude is just picking more fights, and it seriously looks like a cheap shot at the topic ban to cover "Indians" (not India!!!) and "colonial racism against Indians" (not in India!!!). And more importantly, still stirring up trouble through selective obtuseness, selective slides from great English and formatting to unintelligibility at will, etc. I'm just not seeing this cat have many interests outside of being a thorn in everyone's side. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I must admit to thinking exactly the same things as MatthewVanitas raises, when I first became aware several hours ago of the situations to which he refers. However, there must be a fair few admins watching this & I presumed that they were content. I am not sure why it is that they are content but suspect that it might be a case of giving some rope and seeing what happens.

In fairness to Yogesh, he did pointedly recuse from a discussion at WT:INB due to his ban and he did recently say at User_talk:Dougweller#My_edits that he may need some assistance in understanding it. As far as Native American Indians go, well, there was a classic piece of Yogesh s**t-stirring pedantry some months ago that involved myself, him and at least one admin. It was an article related to journalism, IIRC, but it will take me a few hours to find it. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Finding it was quicker than I thought. The incident related to Sudheendra Kulkarni. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I clarified on India Talk page that this is not due to any request of Yogesh Khandke but done by me of my own accord. So in my opinion, I am the guilty party here and not Khandke. So I request this issue may be considered as closed as far as at least he is concerned. AshLin (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that if there are any future problems then the best recourse is probably to mention them directly to Dougweller because they were the unblocking admin. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.212 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My anonymous admirers - one of you almost got me blocked for socking. Please write to me. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, be happy.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I'm not worried, am just amused. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I get similar things and i see that the range of the IP is not much different :-) --sarvajna (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

More like random fellow posting randomly, per Special:Contributions/66.87.0.212. Notice the timestamps!इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Segregation in concrete

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Segregation in concrete requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 19:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Segregation in concrete for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Segregation in concrete is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segregation in concrete until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating the new article Segregation in concrete and for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for the public. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh thank you very much for your kindness. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Joshi's Museum of Miniature Railway

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Muhurat shot

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Muhurat shot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Your recent editing history at Sudheendra Kulkarni shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Give me a few minutes - I am composing a message for the talk page Sitush (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Yogesh Khandke reported by User:Sitush (Result: 48 hours). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yogesh Khandke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. The article edit history[1] would demonstrated that after the concerned editor put the 3R warning, no related edit to the page has been done by me, once warned I backed off. #Also in the case that the 3R warning is regarded just as a courtesy, and the warring edits counted from the first edit, wasn't it I who was the one who made the first edit to the article in ages, please see the historical version of the article before my present edits, it informed that Sudheendra Kulkarni was under arrest, it also informed that he had left the BJP, both of the facts were out of date, I was the one who updated this article the first time since 12 October, 2011. Then this other editor comes over, the first time since 24 July, 2011 and I get the edit war warning. See article edit history[2], also though I am over six years old here and 6000 edits, I am a little puzzled, the edit war warning reads: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert., the first edit was mine, was I the doer or the un-doer?

Decline reason:

You have been around the block before and you should know that an edit waring block != a 3RR block. You should also know that this isn't acceptable behavior and that it is disruptive. I can't find you explanation compelling. I have taken the liberty to extend your block to a week based on breaking your topic ban [3]. I suggest you avoid the area with a 50 foot pole when you return and that you stick to the 1RR. Guerillero | My Talk 06:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Personally, I would find that more convincing if you were a new user who didn't know what edit warring is. As it is, you've been around here long enough to know what edit warring is, and I would have expected you to recognize it. However, I'll leave that determination to another administrator. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right so I withdrew when I was warned, please see the article edit history. See the article it has text that the editor put back which I didn't edit out because the 3R tag was placed, I was warned and I withdrew. My last edit to Sudheendra Kulkarni was at 11.13 hours UTC, which is about four hours ago. The article needs editing in my opinion, but I stayed away and have been editing else where, because of the 3 R warning, I heeded the warning. I wasn't "Undoing another editor's work", why the block then? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2. Yogesh, this one reverts me for a start. Or perhaps you have forgotten what you were told in the past: that a "revert" is not necessarily the removal of something that was inserted. Among other issues in that diff, you have reinstated the "card carrying" bit that was under discussion, reinstated poor phrasing (nothing to do with "Indian English"), added a rather odd mini-quote, despite your tendency to do that also being under discussion, and so on.

I realise that style is a subjective thing, but hope that most people can recognise good writing when they see it. Your English comprehension seems to swing around a bit, as I think was mentioned at ANI during your topic ban discussion etc, but generally I reckon that you are more than capable of generating well-written articles if you so chose; instead, it seems that the anti-colonial etc chip on your shoulder, which was a major factor in your ban, almost forces you deliberately to make things worse if I or another Brit are involved. "X did his education" is not great writing when you could say, for example, "X was educated at". Can you not see this? - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit[4] was my mistake, which happened because of the large amount of text involved, it was immediately corrected by the next edit[5] (edit summary: reverted to edited status reg RSS Advani etc) which reverts the text as it was before the layout was changed. Any ways user:Sitush is a better judge of matters in this case, did I "edit war" after the warning? I hope he is honest. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush you report YK's edit warring after giving him a warning, did you observe that YK was continuing with his edit warring after you warned him? is it rational? Also The Blade of the Northern Lights you suggest you've been around here long enough to know what edit warring is, and I would have expected you to recognize it 1. If you look at the page history even Sitush has reverted YK's edits but because YK did not report it Sitush became a good guy and YK a bad guy 2. Considering that YK did revert Sitush’s edits but he did not do anything after the warning, what if he is an editor with experience, even experienced people make mistakes, blocking was not an answer warning was enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the AN3 report for my rationale; I'm not repeating it here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

This edit is in clear violation of your topic ban. However, as you are currently blocked (albeit on an unrelated issue) I'm not asking for enforcement, but am informing you and Dougweller (the last unblocking admin). —SpacemanSpiff 07:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and violating your topic ban. I seem to have made a mistake in unblocking you. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh was banned from editing topics related to Indian history, what made Spaceman and Dougweller to think that he violated the ban? I can say that you are being very innovative in making such a connection sarvajna (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This has already been addressed in the topic ban note and clarification on this talk page (and I see that you were involved in that discussion). You are welcome to take this up at ANI if you wish.—SpacemanSpiff 09:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

correct I was involved in the discussion so I do not see why you say that YK violated the ban, you should revist the discussion sarvajna (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a pointy historical edit and violation of the topic ban. I supported unblocking YK the last time around but this calls for an extension of the current block per the topic ban. --regentspark (comment) 16:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

For admin Dougweller's attention

1. You write: Edit warring and violating your topic ban. I seem to have made a mistake in unblocking you. My last block was for alleged socking, you unblocked me because, as far as I understand the evidence was inconclusive and perhaps because you trusted my word.
2. The following is what I wrote on user:Sitush's page before he put the 3R block warning, I tried informal dispute resolution
   1. You started with Sudheendra Kulkarni, saying that you had no idea who the subject was.
   2. You have deleted my edit on its talk page.
   3. There was no editing done by you since 24 July 2011, you started editing on 28 May 2012 after I edited the page. Which looks like hounding.
   4. This suspicion (hounding) is strengthened by the general lack of constructive edits. (Apart from pointing out that one link was not good and was dead - which was immediately heeded by me and replaced by other links).
   5. Your ignorance of terms like or "card-carrying member" "judicial custody"[6] (not a wp:RS but an attempt to bring forward the different terms) should not force them to be removed from the article, as you are doing so.
   6. You are pushing a line like " In 2011, Kulkarni was remanded in custody for a period and In November of that year was released on bail" which has punctuation errors and are vague, "in 2011" does that not warrant a "when" tag?
   7. You misrepresent discussions on notice boards.
   8. You have indulged in name calling (personal attacks) (see edit summary of talk page edit).
   9. You tag a line which is to denote that a period mentioned is ambiguous. The exact statement is "The time period in the vicinity of this tag is ambiguous". There are many instances about which information is not available, for example when he was born, when he joined school at Athani, when he passed from school, when he joined CPI(M), when he left it, we do not have information, similarly the article doesn't inform when he joined Blitz and when he left it. Do you want the article to be full of tags? On the other hand you remove information which gives specific dates eg. dates of arrest and release. Why?
   10. You force vague statements regarding a living person's arrest and release on bail, you disallow quotations from the judge granting bail explaining the reason he granted bail. Everyone is free to do constructive edits, yours in this case are not as far as I see them. Please note that this edit of mine would be followed by an official appeal (whenever I have the time and stomach for it). I have not bothered with diffs as this is an informal attempt to indicate that my editing pleasure (which I am entitled to) is adversely affected by your edits .
3. user:Sitush responded with deleting the above, he wrote in the edit summary go away.[7]
4. My topic ban was enforced on 4 April, 2012, since then I've had about 500 edits, and created 17 articles. For one of this I received a barn star, and had a DYK for another. Except for the one edit regarding Madras/Chennai for which user:SpacemanSpiff invoked the "topic ban" clause, there have been no other incidents.
5. I request you to take a long hard look at the facts of the matter.
6. Do you opine that my contribution post-ban has been un-constructive enough for you to make the comment "...I seem to have made a mistake in unblocking you." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• user:Dougweller: The two of us had interaction on the Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar page. You thus have a first hand experience of my editing. I hope you look at the facts. Take your own time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Kulkarni issues should have been dealt with on the article talk page and your accusations concerning my behaviour were baseless, hence "go away". Dealing with your machinations at article talk pages is bad enough, without having them spill over into my talk space. And, btw, some aspects of the Kulkarni article violated your topic ban and some of your new articles (I have by no means looked at them all) were poor for someone who has such a grasp of policy knowledge etc.

I leave the rest to Dougweller. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no standards that define exclusive rights of talk pages. I am also not aware of nomenclature of 'spilling over' into talk pages, 'go away', and so on and so forth. Sitush, are you violating WP:AGF?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I am doing anything wrong then you know where to report me. Otherwise, I request yet again that you, TT2011, stop poking your nose in with unfounded accusations disguised as queries. Or, to use a colloquial expression, "put up or shut up". - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The most important part here is still the heading For admin Dougweller's attention. I hope he is around.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 15:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have been involved in various ways with both of you, at this point I think someone else should be involved. Maybe try WP:WQA? Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller: This is not about the dispute alone, this is about your statement, it is between you and me - Edit warring and violating your topic ban. I seem to have made a mistake in unblocking you. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone involved here please check Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unequal_treatment_from_an_admin. Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

e-mail

Hi Yogesh,

Can you please send your e-mail id to my e-mail as it is on Wikipedia currently. Had to delete earlier one.

Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 15:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback - Krishna Desai

Hello, Yogesh Khandke. You have new messages at Nick Number's talk page.
Message added 01:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blocked

As a result of this ANI discussion, I have blocked your account for a week for editing disruptively and breaching your topic ban. If you want to appeal this sanction, please use the {{unblock}} template. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

No sooner than you have returned after your last block than you are already violating the terms of your topic ban. By creating the page for Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761, a book of Maratha revisionist history, you are flying too close to the sun. Among other things, you halved the title of the book to Solstice at Panipat when you first created the article, to remove the obvious historical reference in the title. Be warned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite the less than intelligent classification of the genre, I thank you for warning me that I may be violating the ban, I have been very careful while writing the article keeping history away from what I have written. I think I will refer this to the topic ban implementing administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is about a book released about a year ago. That isn't history. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The book may not be but the subject of it is, and it is claimed that the thing is revisionist. You have been told on several occasions that you should query before jumping in when situations such as this arise. I realise that this might require a degree of circumspection but it has been acknowledged at ANI etc that (a) you are an intelligent person and (b) you have a revisionist etc POV. Consequently, when you do things such as this it is understandable that people feel you are gaming your ban. Go write some articles about Indian competitors at the 2012 Olympics or something, would be my suggestion. Or, better still, something unconnected with both India and colonialism. I seem to recall you having an interest in serial killers in the US or somewhere at one point: that would seem to be pretty safe ground in terms of your current topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The appearance on Wikipedia of a new user Milind01 (talk · contribs), who was welcomed aboard by you, and who, thus far, has edited little but Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761, has been noted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This is beyond ridiculous. You are topic-banned on Indian history. You write an article about a book. The book is, quite obviously, about Indian history (and related to contentious ideological issues in that regard). Obviously, in an article about a book, the first thing the reader needs to know is what the book is about. In writing your article [8], you fill the article with all sorts of trivia (how many pages and how many illustrations there are and so on), but avoid answering this most basic of questions: what is the book about? Writing an article about a book in this way is objectively damaging to the encyclopedia – you must have known that you could never produce a reasonable article in this way. But obviously, you could not answer this question without breaking your topic ban. Skirting a topic ban in this way is not "being careful" to observe it; it means thumbing your nose at it. If a topic is such that you can't produce proper encyclopedic content about it without breaking your ban, then don't write about it.

I notice somebody else beat me to imposing a block by a few minutes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are lucky it's only a month. Do this again and it will be either a longer block or a more wide-sweeping ban. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Violating your topic ban (here. The block should be longer for attempting to hide the historical nature of the book by shortening the title, but I'm going to AGF on that.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. regentspark (comment) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sitush (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to the Project Talk Page

I have started a discussion on WP:India talk page with topic "Why self-identification for caste verification of a person?" here

Sitush and some other members are saying that self-identification should be mandatory for caste verification of a person, while I am opposing this as it makes it impossible for names of famous people to be included in the List of XYZ caste.

So I request you to come with your views and participate in this discussion. JC Ramek (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointless, JC. Yogesh is blocked from editing for a further fortnight due to breaching his topic ban. Also, as you have been told on umpteen occasions, this issue is dead: it was discussed recently, you have been referred to those discussions and the outcome had a substantial consensus. It is also supported by, for example, WP:BLPCAT. You really do need to drop this subject before you become accused of tendentious behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Just wanted to keep you informed that your name was mentioned by an editor in a discussion not concerning you. other two editors were mentioned but looking at their contribution I don't think they are very much active so have not informed them. Feel free to inform them as well..--sarvajna (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Golden Tara

What is the nature of help you need? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not know about this golden Tara. I can help in cleanup and copyedit, but not in research. The figurine is probably the Buddhist Tara, not the Hindu one. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sahakari Movement

Namaskar Yogesh, I have been looking at Maharashtra related websites and what I found lacking waa articles devoted to the cooperative movement in Maharashtra and other parts of India during the last sixty years. As you and I know, the Sahakari sugar movement has played a huge role in the politics of the state. I have added a section on it in an article on Agricultural Cooperatives but a lot more can be done. I saw your article on MART and therefore I think you may be uniquely placed to start an article on cooperatives and cooperative sugar mills. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Will start with Shree Warna Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Ltd. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! I visited the Sugar mill last year. Everything Tatyasaheb Kore has done is impressive. Thanks == Sahakari Movement ==] (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh

Hi, Why is there no reason provided for updating this page to the current content from the last version dated April 06, 2012?

Thanks, Kulkarniv, October 29, 2012.

Please see talk page for replyYogesh Khandke (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

nothing

vjdklvjdsk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.53.139 (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk page: Not a forum

I removed your rant delightful comment about "giving other editors enough rope to hang themselves", etc. (updated 15:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)) about the category Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian. That CfD has been closed. If you want to discuss it further, ask the closing administrator to re-open it.

The user essay has the usual guidelines for user essays. In particular, its talk page should be directed towards improvements in the essay. Its talk page is not a discussion forum for the topic of the essay.

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Arguing for civility and then calling another's edit a rant, I think that is remarkable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would not call your last note a rant. Thanks for addressing the essay and toning down the forum comments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

But it was a rant, Yogesh, albeit a civil one. So far, and to the best of my recollection, you've been wrong on every single policy-based discussion that you have taken part in. That includes the CfD, and the recent deletion review: even when things have gone your way, they have done so for reasons other than those that you stipulated. Let's not make Kiefer's point above yet another embarrassing episode, eh? - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In this case, Yogesh has responded and shown consideration of the WP:policy point, for which thanks are due. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

KW please read my edit one more time, hanged was a metaphor used for deletion of the category. Secondly in my dialect of English the proverb "to give a long rope" means to give the other person time, to be less strict with him, to be less restrictive with him, please see the following articles for how it issued.[9][10][11][12] It has been a case of misunderstanding. In the view of your concerns for civility: "This category was created out of solidarity with Malleus and in support of civility and decency"; I hope that you would reconsider your description of my edit, unless those standards are for selective application, a situation which I am quite familiar with and wouldn't be the least surprised. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I read your edit, which not only included "give enough rope" (to divisive editors) but also "the category was hanged". The juxtaposition of the two parts of the cliche and the rope-hanging's prevalence in WP (e.g. Worm That Turn's essay in progress) "were concerning".

Thank you for informing me of alternative usages of the first (but not both).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In usage "give a long rope" is the opposite of "keep someone on a short leash". (Mentioned here to help understand the former).

I have no reason to lie, I used hanged metaphorically in place of deletion, isn't is a common practice to use figures of speech? Or is it no longer fashionable? The "rope" and "hanged" weren't meant to act in tandem, it was entirely coincidental. I hope you accept my explanation and act on it.

Similarly "not Wikipedian" was IMO an innocuous hyperbole if I may call it that. I am surprised by the profanity that is accepted here and the fuss over the parody of the idiom "it's not cricket". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find the essay you have referred to above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling and wasting our time with "rhetorical questions". If Sitush, who is much nicer than me (if you can imagine), left you the previous warning, you really have made yourself a nuisance on many occasions.

Well, many have..., even yours truly, no doubt. ;D Try to learn from mistakes. :)

For the time being, I ask that you please stop commenting on civility issues---which have enough pathologies without you bumping about---and rather focus your attention and focus work on improving the encyclopedia.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hypocrisy seems to be the name of the game, having said that You're right we all ought to focus energies on positives, on and off Wikipedia. We all ought to practice what we profess to believe. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yogesh Khandke. You have new messages at OrangesRyellow's talk page.
Message added 01:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Beware infringing your topic ban

Hey Yogesh, I've just seen your request at RSN (yes, it is on my watchlist) and I note the connection to Cattle#Hindu_tradition. Are you confident that this falls outside the scope of your topic ban? I have doubts whether you should be involved in anything related to that section and, certainly, it would be safer to stay away even if you are thinking that Nepal is out of scope. Or has your ban ended now? - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

India and Nepal are two sovereign and discrete nations. Stop wasting your and my time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your topic ban was "broadly construed", IIRC, and this relates to Indic history. I'd be very careful if I were you. Perhaps ask who ever it was that put the ban in place? This certainly was the suggestion that you undertook to consider when you last breached. I doubt that you'll get another chance if you ignore it and are found to be wrong. Surely, it takes little time to clarify and could save you a lot of heartache. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about 1960 Nepal and not historical India. As different as chalk is from cheese. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. We'll see what happens. I might raise it myself if/when I can find the text of the ban. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no control on what you do. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. I found the discussion and it seems that the original proposal to ban you from South Asian history was reduced to one of Indian history, widely construed. Furthermore, it was ThisThat2011 who got hit with a short-ish ban on editing Hindu-related topics, not you. So, it would seem likely that all is good. Mind, it would probably be a lot simpler all round if you went back to doing work on mass murderers in the US etc as you did for a while ;) - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning

You really, really need to stop gunning for Sitush at every chance you think you get. It's getting very tiresome for admins to look at, and unfounded complaints inevitably lead back to sanctions for the person making them. You're on very thin ice right now; don't push your luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You give me one example other than the AN/I? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of talkpages, a couple of which are on my talkpage as demonstrative, not exhaustive, examples, where the pattern is very evident. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh! You meant from the beginning of time. I thought after my AN/I. I don't seek him out, he does, calling himself a pagestalker. Calls my edits "usual Khandke screw ups", "farts" and my arguments "bollocks". You are requested to check each other's histories. "Gunning " is a word you have used, describes well my perception of his activities, latest example is above, would it be too much to expect that you check the other side of the coin. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not expect Blade to investigate **anything** before he starts using his mouth, and admin powers, in favor of Sitush.OrangesRyellow (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You might not think that, but you'd be proven wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You're on very thin ice right now; don't push your luck. seems to be the favorite sentence of Blade, he did tell me the same for some imaginary Hindutva POV pushing. YK be very careful, yes your history would also be considered by few admins. Never forget animal farm All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Also not sure whether Sitush informed Blade or is it just the proactiveness of Blade.--sarvajna (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you intend to prove me wrong by starting to read what other people write at talk pages, and ANI threads, I would be happy to be proven wrong. You seem to read comments selectively, focusing on comments by Sitush (99% of whose comments seem to be sitting there only to malign others). If you continue to read his comments only, and continue to hand out t/bans etc. to people who were having disputes with Sitush, you would not stop me from concluding that you too have been receiving a range of intoxicating substances from Sitush [13].OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Kindly do tell me where you acquired your capacity for mind-reading, as I could certainly use it myself; I might even tinker with said power so it actually works. You may find point six of Q:The Vile Village rather enlightening (though I'd recommend reading the whole series; they're really great books). Your argument essentially boils down to "I don't like Sitush because he's frustrating my attempts to push my point of view, and therefore when he alerts an administrator and that admin can see what's really going on despite my attempts to obfuscate the issue, I'll attack them both". While you might well be able to play that smoke and mirror game with a lot of users, I can see right through it. Incidentally, Ratnakar.kulkarni, if you really must quote George Orwell you 1. should add some fresh material to your repetoire, as the Orwell trope gets very monotonous after a while (I rather prefer to quote Lu Xun) and 2. should seriously gain a sense of perspective. I don't actively go looking for reasons to ban people, so don't present me with one instead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Blade, 1. thanks for your advice, I will read Lu Xun if I find any translated material in a store near me(or may be you can gift me one) 2. Are you threatening me that I will be blocked/banned for calling spade a spade? You did call me Hindutva POV pusher and despite asking for evidence you never provided one not only that you had even accused me of supporting some editors ( Mangovongo if I remeber correctly) whom I never interacted with. --sarvajna (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

He probably still does not understand how it became obvious that he only reads Sitush's comments, but not others'.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow, you don't seem to have checked out the link above. R.k, I'm not threatening you, I'm disputing the notion that you're actually calling a spade a spade. I doubt we'll agree on this, and I don't want to abuse the hospitality of Yogesh's talkpage, so I'll step back from this now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Coming here with talks of warning on one hand without acting on complaints of abuse is beyond common sense.

It is incorrect to say that a gaggle of administrators ignoring complaints of abuse about certain editors is collective behavioral festering of disease or abnormality or even barbarism. It is more about ignorance of abuse by certain editors as evolution in post-modern times.111.91.75.68 (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh,

At ANI, you again raised the "bullocks" issue to attack Sitush.

I see that Blade has given you a newer Dutch uncle talk, since our last discussion, where I suggested that you take his advice seriously. This would be a good time for you to read and think about what he's written.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with KW — well, that's probably a first... —, but your constant gunning for Sitush, as you're doing right now on ANI, is tiresome and disruptive. Please stop: next time I'll be invoking WP:ARBIPA and formally imposing a restriction on you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not gunning for anyone, however if anyone reports abuse from Sitush, at AN/II would also share my experiences, why is that wrong? Why do you want to intimidate someone? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh,

My first draft was more direct, because you need directness: "Leave Sitush alone and drop the bullocks complaint (which you insist on misreading as the singular), or you are soon going to be indefinitely blocked," but my sweet nature revised it. I cannot block you, of course, but I have a fair understanding of the policies.

Let me try to be even more direct: You have so much trouble judging your audience and writing an appropriate response, e.g. to Salvio's message, that you should avoid anything that seems like politicking or fighting.

You really don't enjoy all this back-and-forth about your and others' behavior, do you? Just try to write articles, or edit things, and you will find that others will express appreciation for your contributions. Even now, some people have written that you are often a good editor. Keep up the good work! :)

I rarely disagree with Salvio, in fact, apart from wishing that when he would block somebody for incivility or personal attacks, he would block (or issue warnings to) all parties, but that is another discussion.... :)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to intimidate you and I'm sorry if this is how I'm coming across; however, my point is that you saw a thread started by Sitush and seized the opportunity to introduce an old quarrel you had with him, which was entirely unrelated and that had already been resolved — though not in the way you'd have wanted —, basically highjacking the discussion. This pretty much contributed to the derailing of the thread... And, considering this is not the first time you have appeared on ANI to support imposing sanctions on Sitush, to an outside observer, this looked like a case of vexatious litigation. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) I dislike the description of our interaction as a quarrel. My issue with Sitush was his resort to incivility when interacting with me, Don brought these issues up, I then shared my experience of Sitush. (2) Sitush needs to be persuaded to be civil in his interactions, I've not suggested sanctions, (a couple of hours block is not a sanction) (3) How the community persuades Sitush to be civil is for them to decide, blocking or banning is something I've never liked. (4)Regarding Don, I've had no interaction with him, feelings about him amongst other editors are mixed, many were not sure how good he was at caste, I checked one example: Koli people Don was right, Sitush was wrong, also Don didn't edit war, Sitush acted like the proverbial "dog in the manger", he couldn't recognise Don's positive contribution, this also reflects badly on his expertise. Having said that about Sitush I understand that there is a consensus that Sitush is the best thing that has happened to English Wikipeida since Mr. Wales created it. I'm happy with that consensus. However if anyone brings Sitush's abusive editorial behaviour up at ANI I would be free to share my experience of such behaviour, unless there is a good reason why I shouldn't. Thanks Salvio. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought almost everyone can air their opinion at AN/I, never knew that it is reserved for the people who give some cover to Sitush's Uncivil behavior I am not accusing anyone but this is how it sounds when I read few of the statements above --sarvajna (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ratnakar, the problem is that Yogesh appears to be appearing a lot and then throwing in old complaints, which have already been discussed, as Salvio says. A complaint about the British phrase "bullocks", which appears in nearly every BBC show broadcast in Sweden, as meaning "bullock" needs to be considered only once, if Yogesh wants to be taken seriously....

If you guys want to complain about Sitush, then you may wish to consider filing an RfC/U about him. However, be aware per WP:Boomerang, that the RfC/U would be open to discussing the behavior of all parties. A probable result would be consensus that Yogesh needs to stop any appearance of attacking Sitush and avoid contact in the future. It would also have the appearance of a "pile on", I fear, which Yogesh would fine very unpleasant. Further, if Yogesh rejected the finding of this consensus, the next time he violated the consensus, he would probably be subjected to a long block.

Please read the history of this page. I defended Yogesh against Sitush. Blade has a history of defending young persons from Asia. Nobody means Yogesh harm or ill will.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Abhinav Farmers Club

What I have done is reviewed the article from Special:NewPagesFeed using WP:CURATION tool. You will find the review in the Public log of the article [here]. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks! It is all a little too geeky for me at the moment, I'll give it a good read first before coming with more questions. :-) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Yogesh. The page curation system is pretty new but the underlying NewPagesFeed has existed for years and has been the foundation for new page patrollers. Except in limited circumstances - eg: redirects, and people such as myself who have WP:AUTOPATROLLED rights - most new pages are flagged for review and an awful lot of rubbish gets filtered that way. Things such as hoaxes, complete copyright violations, gibberish, attack pages, schoolkids messing around etc.

I too saw the Abhinav article and I rather liked it. There are a couple of minor tweaks that I could make but (a) I won't and (b) NPP is not about trying to fix everything but rather about (if we continue the farming theme) sorting out the wheat from the chaff. I'm less keen on another new India-related article that appeared around the same time & was created by someone else but I guess it qualifies. I just hope that this doesn't mean we're going to see an article about every administrative form used by the ICS or the UK HM Revenue and Customs etc! The latter's most high profile would probably be the VAT 100 which, thankfully, is presently article-less. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Any chance you can move your comments at Talk:Form 2E into some sort of meaningful order? It is now very confusing and you are putting {{ec}} before the colons, which makes it even more so. I realise that edit conflicts are a nuisance but I referred to one as being "above" and there are now two. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death of Bal Thackeray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ram (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Helpme

How to find about this hoax on Wikipedia Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what you're looking for? Edward Owens hoax. Bjelleklang - talk 08:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Koli etc.

@Fram/ Chris:

1. Fram writes: "It is factual for the Kharvi, not for the Koli of the Koli people article. These are weavers, laborers, not fishermen (in origin, they probably have all kinds of occupations now). I haven't found any source indicating that the Goa Koli (better known as the Kharvi) can be equated to the "hill" Koli of Northern India. Everything so far points more in the direction of Sitush being right, and Doncram being wrong here." Your statement is contradicted at the Koli people , where it is written "As their name implies, fishing is a common occupation", Koli is a generic term for fishermen, an umbrella term, which has many suffixes and prefixes, in the Central government's Goa list cited by Doncram, entry number 6, is Koli, Kharvi, two different groups, it doesn't say "Koli also called or better known as Kharvi," as claimed by Fram.
2. I have as good an understanding of the subject as anyone else, and am not "self-admittedly and demonstratively not familiar" as Chris writes, all I had written is that I had no interest in contributing to caste articles, for the very reason that there black is called white and white is called black, I do not wish to expend energies in conflicts, so I actively stay away from them.
3. I have learnt the hard way deal with dispute[14] by withdrawing when another is edit- warring, especially if it is Sitush, and increasingly so, I have no desire to seek out Sitush and neither do I do so. I do not have his page watched, I have even complained about his hounding me all over the place, which was overturned, I have not jumped into any discussion because Sitush was engaged there. The reason for my involvement in the late ANI is because of my having been abused by him, I empathise with anyone who reports a similar experience. I serendipitously landed at the ANI, it is a page that is on my watch list, and I hit it as I was trying to check another.
4. I do not face an interaction warning with Sitush, if there are Wikipedia rules that an editor doesn't have the right to share experiences of issues similar to those discussed at AN/I please present them and they will be followed.
5. Once at ANI I found, where I had reasonable knowledge, black called white, editors were saying Doncram is ok at Churches, but they didn't know about about Caste, I considered it necessary to set the record straight.
6. Caste articles are in a horrible mess, I considered that input from an experienced editor like Doncram would be beneficial to that area of the project, that was my motivation for the role I played at the ANI.
7. If anything is not clear please feel free to question and I will reply. I have a busier couple of days ahead so the replies may take a little while.
8. There is a description of Sitush,[15] it is interesting that the ANI that ran for about three days was was closed less that two hours after it was made. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've no read all of the above because sooner or later it is all going to come out in either a ban discussion or at ArbCom. Nonetheless, regarding your first point: yes, "koli" means "fisherman/fisherpeople" or something similar (some say "fishing hook"). This is etymology and is not related to the name of the group in Goa: it is akin to "smith" as a name and as an occupation etc. It may or may not have the same etymology in Maharashtra. The Goan OBC lists names them as a communuity, with Kharvi as a synonym, and it names other fishing communities separately, eg: the Gabits. Check the sources, please, and those include the sources that I have added to the Koli article that previously incorrectly said that the Koli of Goa were the same community as the Gabit. Those sources indicate that the Koli of Goa are better known as the Kharvi. We have to go off English language sources here because the sheer number of possible transliterations from multiple languages is mind-boggling when we consider the number of identified communities in India. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) You are as I have mentioned time and again free to drag me anywhere for banning etc. (1.1) Regarding etymology please check this[16], it is more to do with "spider" who weaves and catches its prey. (2) Kolis and Kharvis are two different groups as indicated by their separate mention in the lists, in lists there is no "also called as", Kharvis are fisherfolk[17] so are Kolis[18] (3) May we have evidence for your statement that Kolis are better known as Kharvis, I'm sorry I looked but didn't find it. (4) The Koli people article informs that there are 12 million of them in western India the Kharvi article says that they are from northern India. Left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. Yogesh Khandke (talk)

A reservation list related to education in Goa has separate entries for Kharvi and Koli[19] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I never said who might be the subject of a ban discussion nor who might initiate one. Why are you citing a book published by Gyan? It isn't worth the paper it is printed on vis-a-vis reliability or, indeed, quality; consequently, I have not read the pages that you link. My statement regarding prevalence comes from reading around and following the sources that are cited, which is all we can do here. I am still working on both articles, which were a complete mess. Don't blame me for the problems that arises from the confusion caused by those who preceded me. If you think it should say "northern and western" (as probably it should, although I've not yet fully evaluated the sources) then just do it. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) The book I've cited is written by a Fulbright scholar and the project has been supported by the foundation etc.[20] (2) Goa is in western India.[21] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

My interest, as I have declared above and at the ANI, in caste articles, is, for reasons mentioned therein: zero, I am simply defending my description of Doncram's edit as correct. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am looking at the state OBC-based list that you have given, which when compared to secondary sources and to the central OBC list that Doncram is using merely goes to show that we should not rely on primary sources in this area because they are chaotic. Gyan is not reliable, end of story - this discussion has taken place on numerous occasions at numerous forums, including WP:RSN. Some examples of the problems are at WP:MF and I could give you others, eg: one I recently mentioned at User talk:Dennis Brown. I know where Goa is - no idea what your point may be regarding that.

Look, I am trying to sort out yet another massive caste/community mess here and it will take time. We can work together, which means following the policies and guidelines, or you can go write anything you like on the subject matter elsewhere. Or, I suppose, you can try to get the policies changed. We both know that there are many communities that can be called Koli and that there are not all identical, and that there are many communities that have multiple names. As sources are sifted, things can change but until you find some definitive statement that the community in Goa is the same as that in Gujarat, for example, we'll have to treat them separately because that errs on the side of caution. That is the end of me here: I am not getting drawn any further into what will be yet another tediously pointless argument of the type that, on every previous occasion I can recall, you've lost when others come along to comment. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that my judgement of Doncram's edit was correct, I have as explained above no further interest in the matter, I wish you the best. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Creating talk pages

Hi, re these edits - please note that the documentation at {{talk header}} advises "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page. Do not create a talk page just to add this template." also "In accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, this template should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages." Similar advice is given at WP:TPG#Creating talk pages. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

From the peanut gallery: Well, that's a new one for me, a complaint about Talk pages being created. Looking at the talk pages in that contributions link, I do see that the Talk pages could have more. I added WikiProject Texas to one, and I added WikiProject Chrisianity and WikiProject England to another, just now. I create a lot of articles and do try always to open Talk pages, and I have gradually become aware of more WikiProjects that can be added to them, and some of the WikiProjects' quirks. For example I have created a lot of articles about architects, and eventually learn that WikiProject Biography people really want there to be additional coding for "listas=Lastname, Firstname" within their WikiProject tag.

Anyhow, it is often unpleasant to be chided by others about unimportant matters. Maybe it is not a complaint, exactly, meaning it is not meant negatively. Redrose64 probably means well and is pointing to actual guidelines helpfully enough. Redrose64 has helpfully edited in a bunch of my recent articles, by the way.

Thank you for your attention and kind words, Yogeshe Khandke, in several recent big matters. --doncram 00:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow! That's a new one for me too. I think I too have created some talk pages and placed various templates etc. without actually using the talk pages. Redrose64 is likely concerned about unnecessary server load and I agree. Will keep this in mind in future.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) Thanks Redrose64, that was one of the many blind spots I have, now I have one less. (2) Thanks Doncram, my motivation was to stop loss of experienced editors from an area which needs them. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Redrose64 I have removed talk headers I've placed and added those articles to their respective Wikiprojects, German for German subject, Medicine portal for an anatomy article. Is it ok for a non-member of a project to do so? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about server load, nor about the adding of relevant WikiProject banners - indeed, I often do that myself. You do not need to be a WikiProject member to place one of their banners; but don't take it badly if somebody later removes a banner because they feel that the article isn't within their area.

What I was concerned about was a talk page containing nothing but a {{talk header}}. If you follow the links I gave earlier, you'll find that {{talk header}} is intended for pages where there has been frequent debate, possibly on a controversial topic. There has been discussion at Template talk:Talk header (and its archives) about adding {{talk header}} to pages where there has been no discussion: one of the points made was that if it was felt that the use of {{talk header}} on every talk page was necessary, it would be simplest to create an editnotice for the whole Talk: namespace, just like we have one for the whole Category talk: namespace. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I've just been reminded of this discussion from a few months ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that discussion goes to show that there's a good degree of ambivalence regarding that rule. Certainly people shouldn't be bulk-creating blank talk pages to add the banner, but doing it the odd time is not causing any demonstrative harm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Chris what would an editor do when he finds an article without a talkpage? Apparently, the talk header template shouldn't be added? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't personally have a problem with sticking {{talkheader}} on otherwise-blank pages, but it's apt to get certain editors' hackles up. An uncontroversial way to populate the page is to find an appropriate WikiProject banner and attempt to provide quality/importance ratings, which automatically attracts the attention of interested editors in that domain. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would find it difficult to rate articles on subjects I may be unaware of. How about adding them to a project but leaving the article unassessed? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's also an option, though in most cases basic article quality assessment does not require in-depth knowledge of the subject (at least at the stage where an article doesn't even have a talk page yet). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's one I made earlier. Notice how I set both of the |class=stub because I was confident that with just two short paragraphs and two French-language ELs it couldn't be anything higher. However, I don't know how important this ski resort should be considered - I'm pretty sure that WP France would rate it |importance=low, but I'm not 100% certain; I'm less certain as to whether the Skiing people would consider it |importance=low or |importance=mid; accordingly, both |importance= are left blank. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, that's something very useful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Essay

Good one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables --sarvajna (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Lots of déjà vu there. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not socking

This edit was made by me, logged off accidently.[22]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3