User talk:Abecedare/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abecedare. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Sir, I urge you to delete my account Aryanjat on wikipedia because I'm highly unsatisfied with the admins,,,mods here. I'm new to wiki and was trying to build new articles,and edit existing ones with my concern but whenever I edit or crete new page,,someone or the other revert it or delete it,,,sad thing is this that I was editing and creating pages with valid references...and even after providing references all that was done. So,plz.,with due respect,delete my account on wiki as this is my last visit. Thank you for injustice!! (Aryanjat (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)) Aryanjat (talk) 02:09 IST, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Another task for a wise admin! Can you review if this article has sufficient secondary sources and if you have any concerns highlight them on the talk ? Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the article left me wondering why this person is notable enough for a wikipedia article, since all the claims in the article are pretty non-specific (it indicates that he is a "telecommunication entrepreneur" but doesn't list any companies he founded; it says that Infinity foundation "promotes" Indic studies, without saying how - does it fund research grants, publish books, set up a research institute or library ... ? ). In short, is Malhotra, notable as a philanthropist, as a entrepreneur, or an author ? If his claim to notability is the founding of the Infinity foundation, it may be better to have an article on that (assuming it satisfies WP:ORG). Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, only now it hit me why the name was familiar - the article somehow avoids any mention of his activism and the Sulekha column, which is perhaps the root of his name recognition! I'm afraid that while the current article is simply non-informative, it is likely to become a coatrack in the future for all the associated controversies and debates. Instead of a pseudo-biographical article focussing ona person, I think we'd be better off summarizing the debated issues squarely, perhaps in Hinduism in the United States article. Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have purposefully avoided mentioning about the activism ( see talk for comments from me and also from Rudra where he talks about 2002 timeline ), but that is the most notable part and poses challenges in presenting neutrally. I got plenty of info on activism from the books cited, but initially wanted to keep the article simple and stupid. Probably first I will write it in a sandbox, review and then we can add, but even after that this will be a hot spot for trolls from both sides and I find this discouraging. I think that its easy to establish WP:ORG. There is info related to grants etc., thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your motivation but you may have ended up throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this case. :-) Agree that these articles are draining to write, review, or maintain since every sentence has to be fought over and truly neutral editors are rarely as motivated as the POV warriors. Should be careful that not all our time is spent on these debates, since that's a recipe for burnout. Thankfully, wikipedia (and real life!) has many more pleasant distractions. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, agree with the baby part and to add to this we have BLP. Yes the endless debates are sort of tiring, but sometimes^{[weasel words]}--as you have seen in other articles--one has no choice, esp when other friendly, polite editor(s) are having extremely friendly, polite, civil discussions and trying downplay everything, even legitimate scholarly views as Hindutva / religiously motivated. Coming to the point, what you highlighted above is available in Race, Nation, & Empire in American History Initially from the publisher (ReadHowYouWant.com ) I though this was some WP:SPS, but later found out that its from a reputable publisher. This book summarises the issues and also establishes WP:ORG.Will add it and try to move on, unless there are polite, refereshing, friendly debates started. Thanks for your time. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it meets WP:ORG now and I have added a line on activism. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

PMFJI, but it will be difficult to treat the subject(s) properly. The vast majority of relevant material will "fail" the usual canons of reliable sourcing should anyone wikilawyer the matter (i.e. steadfastly refuse to WP:UCS.) The basic reason for this - and the root issue - is that the scholarship of established academics - i.e. exactly the ones who most securely have WP's WP:RS rules on their side - is being questioned and challenged. This challenge could not be prosecuted in the standard WP:RS loci - peer-reviewed academic journals - for obvious reasons. WP coverage is thus obliged to wait for someone suitably qualified academically to write about it in a book that might squeak past WP:RS. (As of now, this kind of literature is just beginning to appear.) Further, these academics have successfully preempted the (meagre) media coverage and suborned inveigled impressionable journalists into represent the issue as one of death-threat-fulminating yahoos, yobs and otherwise benighted malcontents assaulting the hallowed principles of academic freedom... or something like that. So news coverage is off the mark too. Finally, it isn't a subject for Hinduism in the United States either, because, again, the root issue is pseudoscholarship (thus, Theorization (and Consequent Pedagogy) of Hinduism in American Universities is more like it), but on WP you can't say that "scholars" in the WP definition are not scholars. Truth gives way to verifiability, and that's why Rajiv Malhotra will eventually be Afd'd. rudra (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify why Hinduism in the United States is not the correct place: that article is mainly about Hindus in the US, and where it isn't that, it's about the reception of Hinduism among the American people (in private and/or public capacities). This is normal, because the article is, properly, about the living reality of Hinduism, manifested in its adherents, in the US. It is not about pseudoscholarly, fashionable, faddish theorizing about Hinduism in "Religious Studies" departments of some American schools, and should not be, because the root issue to be covered is not Hinduism. It's bad scholarship (which happens to have glommed onto Hinduism as the favored toy/accessory for intellectual masturbation.) rudra (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Malhotra's purported "critique" of such, however, is a facet of and a reflection on Hinduism in America. — goethean ॐ 16:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hinduism in America figures only as a potential victim, when academic hubris spills out into the real world. Such as at the Walters Museum. rudra (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That can go without saying --- ideologues always represent purportedly victimized groups...and the more manipulative the ideologue, the stronger the sense of victimization which is necessary. As for the museum which you refer to, the exhibit would be puzzling and odd to me, probably in poor taste, but victimizing? That's difficult for me to sympathize with, perhaps because I lack the necessary sense of resentment towards the world. — goethean ॐ 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(Addendum: Pseudoscholarship, Exhibit 1) rudra (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think a semi-pp would be in order? Dab did a lot of cleanup to remove OR. since then multiple IPs have come back and added back in. Sikh-history and I have been trying to maintain it, but reverting so many times is a bit difficult. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The 16 references appended to the first sentence speak volumes. I have protected it for 3 months - hopefully some of the anon and fly-by users will start using the talkpage. I don't intend to edit the page myself but will be happy to warn/block/protect if disruption continues (just ping me here). Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't intend to really edit it either, just restricting it to reliably sourced content. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound silly, but the editing of the Jat page has gone back and forth far too long. By looking at the other sections of the Jat page, or doing any outside reading of Jats, it's pretty clear that they are of Indo-Scythian descent. They are Indo-Aryan, yes, but descended from Indo-Scythian tribes who did eventually mix with the Indo-Aryans who arrived in India much earlier. There recently was an Indian researcher who was attempting to go to Ukraine to study the origin of Jats, but was denied funding because of unbelieving Indians. There seems to be some Indian obsession with calling oneself Aryan (maybe not just Indian - Hitler was guilty of this too) - I can say this from experience - I'm a Jat who grew up being exposed to the Indo-Aryan proud heritage stuff - once we started picking up academic books about this topic, other Jats were loathe to accept that Jats descended from elsewhere - some didn't want to accept that it isn't just a sub-caste. PR-0927 7:47 P.M. February 3 2010 (EST)

Feel free to discuss this on the article talkpage with accompanying sources. Abecedare (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the discussion I initiated on the talk page. I've added quick references to make my point - I'm trying to present the least bias view here - of Jats being descended of both (which is referenced/mentioned by numerous articles/books, etc. - it's very well-known). But the "war" between the Indo-Scythian and Indo-Aryan origin supporters is getting silly. I'm beginning to think that even the people well-acquainted and established in Wikipedia, with much knowledge, are starting to put a personal bias about this in there again. Many articles in the "Further reading" section also list Scythian descent business, and the entire rest of the article (just not the intro) makes these same references. I feel like no one is actually taking a look at the discussion aside from the same folk who made the edit to be "of Indo-Aryan" descent. Appreciate any input. Thanks! PR-0927 (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked at the sources myself, and cannot comment on the content issue. But I am glad to see that you are attempting to discuss it on the article talkpage. I would suggest that you wait a bit to let the regular editors of the article respond to your post, and see if consensus can be reached on what the article lede should say. If that doesn't work, you can try using one of the dispute resolution processes (like WP:RFC), to request more eyes to take a look. This process may seem long and convoluted to you at the moment; however, its advantage is that edits made after establishing consensus tend to "stick" and persist in the article, while simple edit-warring just makes the article unstable and a mess (as has been the case with the Jat people article for years!). So I hope you'll give the process a try, and also assume good faith of other editors on the page - you may have different views about the content at present, but you all are trying to improve the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you took the time to respond. The main culprit of continuing this "edit war" is Sikh-History, and his responses to my discussion post have been skirting the issue, making really ambiguous, off-topic comments. I don't expect him to cooperate. He is just on one non-objective side of the silly "Scythian-Aryan origin" war that, yes, has been going on for years. It needs to end. Most evidence points to the shared background of Jats by both groups. Do you happen to know who else is considered a regular editor of this article? It seems that only the Indo-Aryan origin-supporting folks have a current monopoly on the page - I haven't seen the Indo-Scythian origin-supporting folks for a bit now. PR-0927 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the Indo-Scythian claim was again inserted into the article and gain removed; as you must realize by now, trying to re-add disputed content without reaching consensus on the talkpage before, is pretty non-productive. What is more useful is the discussion that you are having with Dbachmann and Sikh-history. A suggestion: check some authoritative sources on the subject and see how they cover the subject; you should search for recent review articles or university/academic press publications in the area of history or anthropology (the sources you have included on the talk page simply mention the origins in a sentence or two and are not really good sources; all of them do not even support your claim!). Abecedare (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am contacting everyone who participated in the previous AFD to inform them the same exact article is up for deletion again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags_(2nd_nomination)#List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags Dream Focus 04:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Commented at the AFD. Abecedare (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion at AN/I in which you may be interested in participating. Radiopathy •talk• 00:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with the latest ANI consensus that lifting the restrictions would be premature at this stage, but didn't wish to pile on. If you are able to continue editing constructively over an extended period, I am sure the restrictions will expire or be lifted eventually. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, vist the discussion page here.Chhora (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Abecedare (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I also received a request from WGB through email, asking for me to bring his case up at ANI. I declined for three reasons:

1. Since being blocked here, he went on to get blocked on the Simple English Wikipedia, the Italian Wikipedia and Commons. (I had advised him to make useful contributions to other Wikipedias, which he started doing on the Italian Wikipedia, and then he was asked not to alter templates or something (I can't read Italian, just Google Translate it) and then was rude to a couple of admins there. On SEW he edited "No Personal Attacks" and edit-warred. On Commons he was abusive towards admins. Looking through the contributions and his talk page on all three took me about 3 hours, which is longer than he was editing on SEW or Commons!)
2. Yesterday, a suspected sockpuppet of his (Euroleague Basketball Project (talk · contribs) (EBL) was indef blocked. Despite me mentioning "your other account" (and in the first email of the current exchange, mentioning this account by name), he has ignored that bit, so with no denial I am hearing a quacking noise
3. I pointed out to him that were I to bring his case to ANI, it would be quickly closed as no action, and it would harm any future attempts by him to be unblocked.

On EBL's talk page, I pointed out that as I had received an email from WGB just after a post by EBL on the talk page, I had WGB's IP (from the headers). EBL seems to be saying that they are happy for a Check User to compare this IP with their own - I don't know if my forwarding the email with the headers to a CU would be acceptable? If so, I presume I'd have to forward it to the CU mailing list - although in the meantime, I will send the same offer to WGB through email. I'll also explain that a CU would be able to definitively say if they were the same IP.

I was not aware that WGB had been in contact with BASC. In fact, in one of the emails I received this morning, he specifically said that all the emails which he had sent to the BASC address had bounced back.

Anyway, I thought I would update you. Any advice would be welcome!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a lost cause. I wouldn't waste any more time on it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. PSteve, I'd suggest that you forward EBL related information and his record at Italian, Simple Wiki and Commons to BASC and they can run a CU if needed. I know for a fact that WGB has appealed to BASC since I forwarded his unblock request myself on Jan 21, after WGB complained that all his emails to the list were bouncing back. I received a confirmation the same day from User:Carcharoth that the request had been received, but I have no idea how they dealt with it. As before, WGB is simply admin-shopping and I'm afraid only lessening his chances of ever being unblocked. Abecedare (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've initiated a discussion at ANI, but not the one he wanted. I think it's time for a ban, and those of you that have been emailed from outside WP will probably want to either adjust your email filters to block him or get new addresses. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  I have set up an auto-reply which basically says "Your email has been ignored." - I let him know that this was going to happen, and about 10 mins later the auto-reply was triggered! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also gotten a few more emails and have given a last answer on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I too have received 3-4 more emails from WGB today since my one and only reply. I'd tell him that he's worsening his chances of ever being unblocked but he doesn't seem to have taken any feedback on board - so it's perhaps best to just ignore him. Abecedare (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I got one from a new email address... *click* not any more I won't! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi.. some user has been adding offensive information like this and this for some days now. He is calling ladies from other castes as concubines and Sudras, despite enough sources given in talk page. He was warned earlier to not indulge in sock puppetry here, but still not relenting. I fear talk like this might inflame communal tensions. Can you please check his IP and whether he is an established user? 122.177.232.141 (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The first message by the IP was clearly inappropriate, while the second was borderline. If the user returns, do point him to the talk page guidelines, so he is aware of their purpose. You can also drop me or any experienced user active on the concerned page a message, and we can guide/warn the IP. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

85.210.175.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Read the discussion. We need a rest for a while. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 01:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Have dropped a note at the IP talkpage. The user hasn't edited since the 3RR warning, but if they resume edit-warring, just let me know, and I'll block them. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look? I'm a little curious about the three sources added, one doesn't look reliable, no library holdings, the other appears to be conjecture, the third can't say. Quite similar to Mkbdce contributions. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. It may be Maleabroad; have asked YM for confirmation. Abecedare (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just reverted Mkbdce on Harivamsa, so I thought it might be him. He's also on the Reliance network, and you just beat me on the Mahabharata bit! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 115.240.94.122 (talk · contribs) is surely Mkbdce. His edit-summary at Mahabharata was very sly attempt at deception! Abecedare (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, could you take a look at Ss59861 (talk · contribs). I've edited a couple of pages where he inserts his POV and removes all sources that don't go with it, so I don't want to take any action, but the warning list on his page will give you an idea. —SpacemanSpiff 09:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be an exemplary wikipedian! Abecedare (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, wonderful vocabulary! I thought I'd seen him around before, and when I went to his tp today, I realized that it was on the Dhoni page a few months back. Surprising that he's lasted so long, but that just shows how little attention we pay to these castecruft articles. Glad to see that someone caught this on RCP. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Missed the pleasure of knowing him. "Mongrol farschists" exhibits brilliant word- and soundplay that would have made James Joyce or Lewis Carroll proud! Abecedare (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is as close to an unblock request as he'd get to: [1]. Happy reading! —SpacemanSpiff 10:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"mongrose" ... Wow. He's a natural.

(I should perhaps remove his talkpage access, but can't bring myself to do it.) Abecedare (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mkbdce on Sarasvati River with another IP? —SpacemanSpiff 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Could be him, but ca't be certain yet. Anyway, he was correctly reverted, and we can see if he chooses to edit-war, filibuster, or discuss. Abecedare (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Was him, see the conversation on my talk page. He's inserting similar nonsense in different articles (revered on Nishada Kingdom), the conversation on Mahabharata is between two socks of his! —SpacemanSpiff 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are requested to visit the article once again and give your observations. 'Co-author' has been replaced by 'Contributor'. A list of their publications have been added further. One thing cannot be disputed that their volume and quality of work carried out together as scientists is remarkable. Of course the article requires some third party references, which will be provided soon.

arunbandana 11:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs)

The article will almost certainly have to be split into two unless all independent sources talk of the two researchers as a pair. However, we'll need to find third party sources before we reach that stage (see WP:GNG and WP:Academics). I'll keep an eye on the article and update my comment at AFD, if necessary. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, you should move your comment from the AFD talkpgae to the main AFD page, since it may get overlooked in its current location. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you previously blocked this guy for disruptive editing, and I blocked the account again for socking. I think the account is itself a sock of Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs), compare editing behavior with another sock, Razzinator (talk · contribs). Thoughts? (Feel free to block indef and tag if you concur, I have not done that yet.) Cirt (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007. Cirt (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded the CU request at the SPI. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again.

On 28 July 2009, an admin decided on the AFD of Conrad Murray as keep. On 5 August 2009, another administrator (NuclearWarfare or NW) stated on that talk page that he wanted to redirect the article. 4 days later, NW did so and also protected the article to prevent re-creation. It seems like an admin starting a redirect so soon after the AFD then page protecting it is thumbing their nose at the AFD. It also seems like a conflict of interest because they are proposing the change (like a prosecutor), deciding it (like a judge), and locking it up (like a jailer). Furthermore, nothing of the old article exists in the redirect target. This really doesn't seem right. I just wanted to find some bio info on Murray and it took a lot of work to uncover.

On the other hand, maybe quickly defacto deleting after a keep AFD can be done in this way? I thought Deletion review was the correct way?

I do not seek punishment against anyone or even change in the articles. I am just confused seeing the behaviour. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Suomi, I don't see anything nefarious here. After the AFD was closed, NW took it to [[|Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_4|DRV]], where he was rightly told that a merge discussion on the article page would be the right way to go (and is not precluded by a "keep" at AFD). NW started such a discussion, and there was a rough consensus for merger, which NW then implemented. Incidentally, the Personal physician section of the DoMJ article does seem to reflect the old Conrad Murray article.

Now you are welcome to dispute the outcome of the process and this RFC would be the place to discuss the issue, but the process itself was fine. Finally note that, you should have brought this issue up at NuclearWarfare's talkpage first, since 9 times out of 10 such confusions are easily resolved through "face-to-face" discussion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I did not discuss it with NW because he is liable to become defensive. Furthermore, he is not one of the best administrators in Wikipedia and does not have the wisdom that you have.

I don't have much interest in the outcome so I will not dispute the process. The process seems flawed because if you dispute the delete, you can sometimes destroy the article by a merge, depending on the traffic. Besides, not only did NW start the merge discussion but he closed it and page protected it. That would be like submitting an AFD and deciding on it and page protecting the delete.

You also mentioned that there is a personal physician section in the Michael Jackson article. I put it there! It can be mostly removed but I was interested in where this doctor did his medical training. Not seeing it, I put it in. Thank you again for your advice. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's him. And I had to nag you for a participation in an amusing photo poll YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do! Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:NJA for my proposition about a new article about Britannica's list of The 100 Most Influential Inventors of All Time. If that's not the right place to talk, could you show me the way as an administrator? I'm new. If I'm not welcome here, I can leave. Is putting references wrong? If I weren't User:Yuzgen but somebody else, would that be OK to give links to external sites? Because you said links to web sites with which you are affiliated here: User_talk:Yuzgen.

You reverted linkspam here: [2].

Yuzgen (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a few issues here:

• Why is being listed in this book written for young adults a noteworthy honor about persons who have often won Nobel prizes, National medals of Science/Technology etc ? Have other reliable sources noted this as a significant biographical detail ?
• Secondly the information you added in your edits ("*In 2010, listed amongst The 100 Most Influential Inventors of All Time") is non-specific since it does not specify who made up the particular list being talked about (such lists are a dime a dozen)
• Thirdly, you linked to your website as the source for the information. Since your website does not qualify as a reliable source on wikipedia, is not the original source of the list, and you have a conflict-of-interest in linking to it, that is considered spamming

Now, while your edits were inappropriate and thus reverted, you are most welcome here. We encourage new editors to be bold and even make good-faith errors, as long as they rectify any mistake (i.e., violation of wikipedia policies or guidelines) once it has been pointed to them.

Finally, on the issue of creating an article on the "Britannica's list of The 100 Most Influential Inventors of All Time": such an article would have to pass wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines (WP:NBOOK in particular), which it is unlikely to do unless several other sources have independently covered the list or the book in significant detail. Also note that simply listing the 100 people on wikipedia (as you have done on your website) may also raise copyright issues. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your explanation. I see now. Blogs are self-published and are not reliable sources. I will also delete links directing to blogs from now on.

• Another bunch of thanks for welcoming me.

• Last but not least, what about copyright issues? Will Wikipedia sue me because I linked to information here? That would be ridiculous. Are you talking about Britannica? It makes more sense, but then they should also sue Wikipedia for copying a lot of info from them.

Yuzgen (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, wikipedia will not (cannot ?) sue you for violating another party's copyright. Britannica perhaps can sue you, although even if it cares it's more likely to send out an email asking you to remove the information; you, on the other hand, could possibly make a fair use argument for keeping up the list on your website - I won't pretend to know who's case would be stronger in this hypothetical, and very unlikely, situation.

More relevant: see WP:Copyrights, WP:COPYVIO and WP:Copylink for wikipedia policies in this area. Note too that Wikimedia Foundation probably enjoys a safe harbor exemption from copyright law, and it is the user who adds copyrighted information on wikipedia, who is legally liable for the infringement. Again, copyright laws are complex, and on wikipedia we simply try to avoid both the forbidden and the gray areas. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess this will get a lot longer but I still want to ask you a question... Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page#Awards_and_recognition. There are references to Forbes and PC_World_(magazine).

Now, the question... Are Forbes and PC_World_(magazine) more reliable than Britannica? If you say "No.", please let me start to remove some references from Wikipedia. If "Yes.", I will go ahead and say "You don't deserve to administrate here." and contact other administrators.

PS: I'm talking about WP:Notability and WP:NBOOK when I'm talking about reliability. Remember that you gave me those links above and claimed the Britannica book does not suit them. Yuzgen (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's important not to confuse Encyclopædia Britannica with other books published by Britannica Educational Publishing (a collaboration of the EB publisher with Rosen Publishing). The latter are aimed towards the K-12 audience, and don't have close to the same reputation as EB. Note too that reliability is not an issue here: no one is questioning the fact that a particular book listed Cerf etc in its list of "100 Most Influential Inventors". The question is dueness, i.e., is this fact noteworthy enough to include in the subject's biography ? The Forbes list of richest people, for instance, is definitely noteworthy (as in, hundreds of other sources make note of it). I am less sure of the PC World Magazine magazine's "50 Most Important People on the Web"; you are welcome to remove the latter if you think it should not be included on the Larry Page article, and if someone objects you can discuss the issue on the article talk page.

PS: "Notability" and "reliability" have distinct meanings in wikipedia jargon; the former refers to whether a subject is "noteworthy" enough to have a wikipedia article on it, while the latter refers to whether a reference work is trustworthy enough for us to use it as a source in an article. I realize this may be confusing at first, but you can look up WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS for more details on how these terms are used, and the qualities evaluated on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Added my 2c at RSN. Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear adminstrator, one of users of Persian wiki has insult me in my English talk page (in Persian language). How can I ask for protection of my User page and talk page and all sub pages against that I.P address? I have some valuable photos in my pages I dont want let him/her to damage them. Regards Pournick (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I've left a note at the talk page for Vijai S. Shankar, and given your involvement in the proposed deletion, I thought I might give you a heads up. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted the page, since the conversation between you and User:CambridgeBayWeather confirmed that the G11 tag had been accidentally removed. Abecedare (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was only interested in the original copyvio. Cheers. something lame from CBW 06:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for semi protection but why its just 3 days for my talk page?, I have seen some admins of Persian wiki who sometimes protects one's talk page for two weeks or more! So it should be illegal according to you as I understand. Also the problem is: that user attacks me by I.P.address not by his/her real username, so I guess the admins will not be able to block his/her usernmae next time when he/she will attack me by a new I.P. I have a question too, what is the differences between semi and full protection? why didn't you protect me full? Regards, Pournick (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The 3 day period is based upon the fact that as far as I can see the IP has made only 1 edit to your usertalk page. If the abuse continues after the current protection ends, we can consider extending the protection or blocking the IP. A full protection allows only admins to edit a page, so applying it to your userpage would prevent even you from editing it. The semi-protection only prevents IPs and new users from editing a page. Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please discuss this issue on the talk page, as you said you would? Dark Laughter (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I was in the process of composing my message, which you can read now at Talk:Hindu views on evolution. I am glad you are attempting to discuss the issue instead of edit-warring. Abecedare (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

thanks for advise !

plz delete all my images as they are not lisenced and falsly uploaded by me.

thanks

-- Last Emperor (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I have deleted "File:Minisha lamba.jpg, and the two images you uploaded at commons are already up for deletion. For future refernce, please look up WP:IUP before uploading any more images. Abecedare (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. There are 3 persons who say something about the article Dr. Shankar.

One was agree with the article after copyright suplement. One had remark and give some time to respond.

You did not respect and removed everything.

I can not understand.

Please undelete and let know where we have to change.

Regards, Gerard (Gerabene (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC))(81.206.31.54 (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.31.54 (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerard, copyright was not the reason for the most recent deletion of the article, since you had updated the website to release its content under a eligible free license. The article was deleted because it appeared to be a purely promotional piece about the subject, and would need to be essentially rewritten from scratch to be suitable for wikipedia. I would suggest that you (1) read through wikipedia's notability guideline to see if an subject would qualify, and (2) develop an article in your userspace (say at User:Gerabene/Vijai S. Shankar) and ensure that it complies with wikipedia's sourcing and neutral POV standards. At that point the article can be reviewed at WP:DRV and moved into mainspace. Finally, in case you are associated with the subject in real-life, you should also read through wikipedia's conflict of interest policies.

If you wish I can move the deleted article to your userspace, for you to work on. Let me know if that is something you'd be interested in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for explaining. Understanding is better now. We go for a new text and hope better for you/wiki. Please move article to userspace. Thank you, Gerard (Gerabene (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

Gerard, I have moved the article draft to Articler Incubator, where it can be worked on to meet sourcing and neutrality standards. You can find it at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Vijai_S._Shankar. Let me know if you have any questions. Abecedare (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you A, Wil let you know. Apreciate your help!! Gerard (Gerabene (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

Hi A, Please look to new text. Would this be wiki proof?? Thanks, Gerard (Gerabene (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your effort. However the draft still reads like a devotional profile, rather then an encyclopedic article. The main issues:

• None of the listed refrences seem qualify as reliable sources by wikipedia standards. For example India Herald is just a community weekly, apparently not held by any library or archived by any newsmedia databases (such as Nexis). The other references are similarly obscure and marginal publications.
• The references need to be cited inline to make clear exactly which statement each reference is supporting, instead of being dumped at the end of a single sentence.
• Most of the claims in the article are vague and promotional ("is a sage", "clarity to his awakening of the understanding of mind deepened", or opinions stated as facts in wikipedia's voice ("Today, what is accepted as knowledge and is accepted as authentic contradicts age-old wisdom expressed in the Upanishads").
• No clear statement is made as to why Shankar is notable. Has he published noteworthy books (if so, include book reviews), is an influential philosopher (if so, give reference to published articles and their reviews), or is he a important teacher/propagator of existing philosophies ?

The article has other problems too, but the above issues of establishing notability, providing reliable sources and writing neutrally are the ones that need to be resolved before the article can be moved to mainspace. I'd recommend that you read WP:FIRST to get an idea of how a wikipedia article should be created, and look through some featured biographical articles to get an idea of encyclopedic tone (see Hilary Putnam for example; of course your draft doesn't have to be nearly as detailed). Regards. Abecedare (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Rudasharman (talk · contribs) looks to an impersonation of Rudrasharman (talk · contribs), and also a likely sock of Mkbdtu (talk · contribs), right?

Seems quite obvious to me on both counts. Abecedare (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just blocked, almost edit conflicted. —SpacemanSpiff 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My candidate would have been Vamsi Illindala (talk · contribs), based on the posts in this thread. Thanks anyway, for the prompt action. rudra (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely, that's an old account, could be a meatpuppet though. —SpacemanSpiff 09:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Found another Rudrasharmann (talk · contribs). sigh. —SpacemanSpiff 21:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And he is making it easy for us. Abecedare (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this Photo has been uploaded to commons from english wikipedia by user sundar and points to this as the source. The original uploader's (Kumar Rajendran) details, edit summary and copyright declaration were lost when it was transferred to commons. During GA review of an article, where i used the pic, the reviewer raised questions about who actually owns the copy right. The original uploaded file (with edit summary and copyright declaration) is here. Can you retrieve the information and add it to the commons image?.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The deleted page only contains the template {{PD-self}}. I suspect this means that the photograph belongs to KumarRajendran's family album, since I am pretty sure he is not the photographer. That unfortunately may mean that he is not the copyright-holder (or, at least, that it would be impossible to prove that he is) and thus cannot release it in public domain; a pity since practically speaking the image is unlikely to cause any actual harm on wikipedia.

By the way, a fair use argument for the photograph can perhaps be made for use at M. G. Ramachandran where the 1967 shooting is discussed in some detail. Abecedare (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh Ok. thanks for the help. I will ask him about who actually took the photograph.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This time I come with an observation, not a question. Some administrator are very wise, like you. Some are not very wise, at all. Some of these unwise ones frequent WP:ANI. Not all the admininstrators who post there lack wisdom, though.

There have been proposals for desysop. Rather than be punitive, I come to you with a positive idea.

What if there were very strict behavioural criteria written up? If one passes them, then they would receive a special certification good for a certain period of time, maybe 6 months, maybe 1 year. The criteria can be discussed. It could be utmost professionalism, politeness, knowledge, good editorial contributions and/or not engaging in any conflict of interest.

What do you think of the general idea? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello I am only posting this on your talk because I just came from User talk:Radiopathy, where I saw you had posted: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Radiopathy_reported_by_User:Koavf_.28Result:_.29. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I left only a reminder warning since the edits were a bit stale, but it would be useful for another admin to review the situation (especially in light of the ANI thread, which I hadn't seen earlier). Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The AN/I thread is a totally unrelated issue - that's quite a stretch. My complaints are legitimate: User:Koavf is under a community sanction for disruptive, bordering on destructive, editing, and has been blocked 22 times, mostly for - guess what? - edit warring. It is impossible to have a civil exchange with Justin, so I've given up. He taunted me enough times over two days that I had no other choice than to post at AN/I. Apparently, for better or worse, the admins just let us air our grievances without comment. Radiopathy •talk• 07:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could supply some evidence to back up those accusations of yours.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can read the exchange at the AN/I thread. You could also read the community sanction for yourself and look at Koavf's block log to verify that I'm not making this up, After that, you could also unlink "WP:NPA" from the word "accusations" in your previous post. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 08:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Going to remain linked. Your linking to the ANI thread does nothing. You accuse him of spite editing, and then provide no evidence. Just because you think it is in spite doesn't mean it is. Above, you accuse him of taunting you. I see no such diffs. It remains linked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And in case it wasn't obvious, it is linked as an unsubstantiated accusation is a personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Koavf continues to edit war and "UK troll" at Hollie Steel. Note that we've been given "instructions" on how he wants the article to appear. Notice also that I've put the issue out for consensus. I've reverted Koavf's change pending consensus. Radiopathy •talk• 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He's not the only one edit warring. You were told above by this admin to cease, yet you continue? At 3rr, you said the situation was resolved, but it obviously is not as you continue to edit war.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, you have enough time to edit war, and call this user a troll, and yet, you do not respond to my inquiries above?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy, see my note at Talk:Hollie Steel

Daedalus, please disengage from Radiopathy once you have reported any violations by the user to an admin or an admin board. The back-and-forthe between Radiopathy and you is not productive. Abecedare (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You have some more.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You got one from me, too. Radiopathy •talk• 03:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are privacy concerns, you both can post here directly instead of using email. An open process is always preferable. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In case he comes back(he's 'retired' about 3 times now), don't you think you should reset the restriction, as he violated it, and 3rr again?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets take it one step at a time. It's best to let passions cool, and then reconsider the issue of his restrictions only once the block expires and the editor can participate in the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare. Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... that was not such a useful template. My issue is not with his block, but the length of time. Could we just change this to 24 hours? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to an unblock or shortening because, the user was told at 2:16 UTC and again at 2:46 UTC by two different editors that the edits were not vandalism - and made at least 5 more reverts after that. So the unblock reason is patently false.
As for the length of the block - the user has a long history of edit-warring and was placed at a 1RR restriction last Oct. (IIRC), but has violated it at least half a dozen times since then. The last occasion was 2 days back, when I once more only cautioned the user. Note that the user is in the habit of blanking any warnings and notes from their talkpage (and often adding a {{retired}} tag) so one has to look at their talk page history to reconstruct the complete history; see for example this and this version of the talk page. The user has already served 24 hours, 55 hours and 1 week blocks without any change in behavior (one of those blocks was shortened by me as a show of good faith once the user threatened to retire, but the user broke 3RR once more even before the original block would have expired). Let me know if you need diffs for any of the particular claims. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's reasonable. I wasn't aware of that history, but thought I'd bring my concerns to you. Do you want me to decline? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I would decline, but I'll have no objections if you decide otherwise.

Just dug up two more links: recent thread at 3RR board, and a recent ANI thread. Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Although you have told me to disengage unless reporting, I feel the following should be said at his talk page, in response to his latest reply:

• here(02:16, February 21, 2010 UTC), you are warned at AIV that those edits were not vandalism and were a content dispute. This is the first time you were warned by this admin. The time you refer was the second.
• You reply at AIV, disagreeing with them.(02:40, February 21, 2010 UTC)
• Another revert after the warning and your response as linked above(02:42, February 21, 2010 UTC)
• another revert(02:52, February 21, 2010 UTC)
• another revert(03:00, February 21, 2010 UTC)
• another revert(03:03, February 21, 2010 UTC)

Thank you for your time. I have not said this yet. I also feel that if I point this out, he'll just blank it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daedelus, I think that we are all aware now :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the consensus at ANI enough for the indef 1rr restriction?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe so, but an uninvolved admin will review the discussion, close the thread, and enact any restrictions. I expect someone will stop by in the next 24 hours or so; there is no immediate hurry since Radiopathy is anyways blocked for a few more days. Abecedare (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What are some good sources for the Sankaracharyas? Wikidas has nominated a few for deletion, and I can't think of many search strings to find the right sources. —SpacemanSpiff 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know any off-hand. The recent ones should have newspaper media articles, but the older ones may be a problem - I am pretty certain sources will exist, but they won't be of the type that are collected in US/UK libraries, and so won't show up on Google Books. Will try and search later today though. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

These are pre-1900 Sankaracharyas, e.g. Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati VII is verified on the Kanchi website [3], but I'm not sure that sources would use the VII and can't figure what's about him vs the others with the same name. And then the article itself talks about VI and not VII!—SpacemanSpiff 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That will have innumerable alternate transliterations! Will try to find sources later today, since my intuition is that all Shankaracharyas of the main mathas are likely to be notable. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

An interesting paper (by an amateur Indologist, yes, but with impeccable credentials, and endorsed by a premier Indology website. Worth following up on, IMHO.) rudra (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Any genealogy/succession list from official Kanchi madam publications should be taken with a pinch of salt. The madam has been accused of fabricating genealogies to trace its lineage back to Adi Shankara. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rudra: Thanks for the link. I haven't ever looked at this topic, so look forward to reading the pdf for my own curiosity.
Sodabottle: Definitely a concern, especially for the early Shankracharyas. The description at kamakoti has to be treated pretty much a matter of faith, rather than a historical account. (e.g, they place Adi Shankara in 6th c BC).
Spaceman: Haven't found anything useful yet besides the kamakoti site. Not much use in having a separate article if all we can say is "... was the 66th Shanakaracharya of the Kanchi Matha". Will keep looking, although search is complicated by the fact that the 68th Shankaracharya who served from 1907-1994 (!) was also named Chandrasekarendra Saraswati. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was my biggest problem (which is why I came to you ;)). BTW, there are also a couple of Sringeri Sankaracharyas at AfD with speedy delete !votes against them. I'll try to search a bit more in Tamil. I do have a book by 68, let me see if I can locate it and if there's some mention of 66 in that. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

May not be directly relevant, but looks like a good source on the topic (see chapter 5 in particular): A Tradition of Teachers: Sankara and Jagadgurus Today. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The kamakoti site is a disaster area, salt by the bucket-load recommended. There doesn't seem to be any attestation of the Kanchi mutt before the 18th CE or so, yet they claim a parampara that goes back a gazillion (2500?) years, with tithis for each and every one of the sankaracaryas: IOW, a tour de force of creative bullshit. (Vidya Sundaresan again, with a useful lead, an Illustrated Weekly of India article of 1987 that may be worth tracking down). rudra (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, an even worse tangle of late. It seems the Times of India has produced a coffee-table glossy buying into the myths, and much to the satisfaction of some partisans. WP:RS and POV issues on the horizon... what fun. rudra (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Kanchi has always been a bit troublesome in many different manners, but shouldn't Sringeri be easier as it is one of the original four? There are two Sringeri Sankaracharyas at AfD too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem here may be that Sringeri has kept a low profile. The less noise you make, the harder you are to find in "reliable sources", WP-style. rudra (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I just checked on those AfDs. What a nuisance, going through a formal AfD process for what should have been no-brainer redirects of stubs with no future. The real issue may be whether the list of Jagadgurus should be a section in the Peetham page or a separate page for convenience. rudra (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And more. It seems that some 30 odd Sringeri Jagadgurus have been stubbed (see Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham), the Chandrasekharas were just the tip of an iceberg. It makes the list on the Jagadguru page look very impressive ("wow, so many blue links!"), indeed :-) This is actually a cleanup project, methinks. rudra (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) The TOI self-publicity is a hoot: "The book is a good mix of text and photographs, making it pleasing to read through even while experiencing spiritual upliftment." ... prose fit for a wikipedia article and I'm sure we'll be seeing it here soon. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored.

Here is pointwise reply to your comments

Afoul of neutral POV,- Disagree

[As per NPOV policy content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.]

Manusmriti’s most controversial part is discrimination against Women and Shudra, is a significant view (references given on main article).It is been burnt and condemned by different historians and social reformers all over Indai, It is considered source of gender and caste oppression in India which still exist.^{[1][2][3] [4]} References published by reliable sources(including preview of online books by famous authors/historians) Section created under controversies and criticism , which indicates good faith in putting this most important controversial part.

NOT including this section or significant view as a part of controversy & repeated deletion of this section/view indicates bias towards showing good an Ad like page, which violates NPOV.

No original research policy not followed: Disagree

It is not an original research. Criticism mentioned can be find out in almost all books written on Manusmariti/Ancient Indian Society, womens, (some references given on main article).

No reliable sourcing:Disagree

References of online Books by famous authors/historians given,books can be read online.

Inappropriate use of primary sources:Disagrree

Only 1 primary source(website) has been mentioned, Other references are published books from famous authors/historians references available on main page.

In the same article if you go back and check some edits about (14:58, 21 December 2005) under section Criticism of Manu Smriti, you will find the same points , now deleted by you, already there. Some people (they are not wikipedians) want to write an Advertisement page on Manusmriti (like a series on Hinduism already mentioned), hiding most controversial parts/views.

Wiki reader shall be given an opportunity to know all about Manusmriti including controversial views Such type of excuses for deletion of content produce biased Ad page not a wiki page. --Jugal (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem adding discussion about Manusmriti's views on women and lower castes. But the way you are going about (by quote-mining the primary text i.e., Manusmriti itself, and randomly adding the first few hits found on a google book search for "manusmriti burnt") is not the way to write an encyclopedic article. We can discuss the finer points on the article talk page if you wish. Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You deleted text again. All type of references given , you some time showing either primary sources or burning , thats why u missing other references.--Jugal (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure what you meant in your last comment. Anyway, if you wish to discuss specific issues about the article content, it may be best to do so on the article talkpage. Also, the best way to contribute to the article would be to look at what various books/articles dedicated to the subject (you can find some listed in the Reference section) say about Manusmriti and then summarize their content. Simply mining google books to find support for what one already wants to include is not a good way to write an encyclopedic or balanced article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Propaganda Machine, Whatever Manu wrote became history, along with all criticism raised by people thorugh all means & Shudra, women.You can not revert or undo History , but i do not know how many people are going to beleive this wiki article only.What about other sources.Wiki loses its credibility because of people like you.India already lost everything because of ur ancecstors and became a 3rd world ctr. --Jugal (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

By using another account same user reverting edits , removing views , reliable references.You can varify by last two edits 18:27, 25 February 2010, 18:27, 25 February 2010, .These edits made by same user by two diffrent account(see talk page on both user) --Jugal (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the biblio at Manusmriti (and a number of other pages) this is a book by Patrick Olivelle.

• This seems to corroborate existence (at some point in/after 2008), not of a book, but of an article in a book.
• However even the Library of Congress draws a blank on that book.
• Google Books draws a blank.
• Google Scholar draws a blank.
• And Google Search has succumbed to wikiality.
• Meanwhile, the reference was introduced by this edit.
• And roughly at the same time it was in this page creation by another editor, who has/had a short but interesting edit history.

Which, to say the least, is odd. How did more than one editor back in late 2008 know of and cite a book/article/whatever by a well-known scholar that seems untraceable since? rudra (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Let me look around to get an idea for myself if this is just a made up citation, or an incomplete citation. Will get back in a few minutes. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think I know what happened: Firstly, unless I am gravely mistaken, User:Jcwent is on the up-and-up. During that time when he was editing there was a course project of UW-Madison students taking a class on Hindu Law (IIRC), who were being guided by their professor in editing wikipedia pages. I had interacted with a few of them (see this), and they did a good bit in making a few wikipedia articles in the area encyclopedic. I can imagine that the students had access to a pre-print version of the Cambridge Handbook of Law and Hinduism, ed. T. Lubin and D. Davis, which has either still not been published, or was published under a different title. Of course if the book remains unpublished, we may need to remove it, but I'd tend to trust material added by that group of editors. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for solving the mystery:-) The problem is that without knowing the reference, copy-edits become problematic, as it isn't possible to check what exactly the reference says and does not say. This is mainly in the context of Manusmriti, which is in poor shape (even without the current assault on it by a True Believer). The Hindu law article, OTOH, is quite good (the C rating is inscrutable). rudra (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Donald R. Davis, Jr. was probably the class instructor, and a co-editor of the book (along with Timothy Lubin. It seems to have been retitled, Law and Hinduism: An Introduction and still seems to be in the process of being published. I haven't checked to see what exactly it is being used to cite in the Manusmriti article, but we should try to find an alternate citation if possible, or just cull the content if the claim seems dubious. Agree on the article poor; haven't worked on it before, and only took a look when I saw the mass quotes in it. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another ref to the book's potential existence. The CUP site doesn't have anything on it (not even forthcoming, no T. Lubin among authors). This is mildly annoying: clearly there is a book, we just don't know its title or its publisher! rudra (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually did not know that there was an Europa version. Otherwise, i would not have added a pic of Nano Europa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs)