User talk:Abecedare/Archive 20

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 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

The two files about whose speedy deletion you posted on my talk page, have been clicked personally by me. I would like to know which copyright tag will be suitable for them as I do not need them to be deleted. Point 2- Thanks for your explanation. I agree there has Ģa discussion. But the participants were not aware of the way things work here in India. Wikipedia is responsible to provide knowledge to readers worldwide about a country. And wikipedians can not know a country better than its government. If none of the Identity crds issued in India have a problem with Bharat Ganrajya written in Hindi, the local minority dialects wouldn't have the problem here on Wikipedia too. Hence, wikipedians need to stop worrying """on their behalf""". Based on solely this solid assertion, I want to re-open the discussion. Thanks Mousanonyy (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mousanonyy:

About copyright: Photographing/scanning a book cover or book page does not give one copyright ownership over the underlying work, or the right to release that in public domain. As an analogy, I cannot use my camera to film a Bollywood movie playing in the theater or on my TV and then legally release it in public domain as my own work. See derivative work and this FAQ at wikimedia commons for more details. (Note: I am not going into issues of fair use here, since per wikipedia policy fair-use images cannot be used on talk-pages in any case).

About devanagari: Union GoI ≠ India, and Wikipedia's India article is not a govt. website (or akin to a govt. issued ID). Of course, we seriously consider the govt. POV, and therefore, as I had pointed at the talkpage, India having 22 scheduled languages and having chosen not to have a national language are also important elements in the debate. In any case, if you wish you can continue the discussion at Talk:India and see if you gain consensus for your proposal. My only request is that you not make the proposed change to the article, until you have done so. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again. The passport picture had no problem in regards to the concern you raised above. Why delete that? Also, the 22 sheduled languages have also been decided by earlier governments. ( By the way, India did not choose a National language in order to not piss off the 23% muslims that live here. But, that can not be proved.) However, I since Bharat Ganrajya is a Hindi word, why is it even mentioned it then? Why not simply Republic of India? BECAUSE- Hindi is important is many way - Official Language, used in govt IDs and documents. So if ONE HAS TO WRITE BHARAT GANRAJYA, why not write it in its indigenous script too! Don't write it then. Bharat Ganrajya has different names in the 800 languages spoken in India. Why write Bharat Ganrajya- the Hindi version- only? I hope you try to understand. Cheers to you too! :) Mousanonyy (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I recall there was tentative agreement on removing Bharat Ganrajya from the lede sentence and leaving in only India, Bharat, and Republic of India. Someone needs to actually craft a lede sentence along those lines and then establish consensus for the change. I would be in favour of such a proposal. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a student ; help me do it. I am putting the jest of my thoughts here now-

1. If you write India, Bharat , and Republic of Indi, it is still injustice to other 800 languages because not all of them call India as Bharat.

2. If you have to write the Hindi word Bharat, write it in Hindi; or just don't write it. 14.139.229.43 (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mousanonyy: Bharat, just like India, is a proper noun and thus not restricted to Hindi or any other language. And while it is arguably true that in Hindi (unlike English) the name Bharat is used more often than the name India, that is also the case for several other Indian languages. And fwiw, both India and Bharat trace their etymological roots to Sanskrit. So I don't see a reason for a "write Bharat in Hindi; or just don't write it" restriction; an injunction that not even the Indian Constitution obeys.

As an aside: There was a proposal in the Constituent Assembly debates to make the country's name language-specific ("Bharat or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States") but it was rejected. Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it true or my fault or the side effects of intricacy of wiki that it appears to be biased. According to FAQ, "wiki wouldn't use Bangluru but Banglore because more often Banglore is used in media and paperworks, awesome reason. becuase media is made up of things like wiki itself. Wiki wouldn't write in Hindi on India's page! This time paperworks don't matter. One question- can a celebrity, on her/his wish, make it happen that no article be written about them on wikipedia? Thanks. 14.139.229.43 (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

To address your last question: Celebrities cannot have their article deleted on wikipedia. However for non-public figures, many editors will give some consideration to the subject's wishes when deciding whether an article should be deleted. Abecedare (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

When someone doesn't want to have her/his article/information on wiki, why won't wikipedia let that happen? And I would also like it if the other question isn't left unanswered. I know you are being patient. But all have their own approach and ways. Thanks 14.139.229.43 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Many wikipedia articles are biased or otherwise flawed for varying reasons (editor ineptitude, editor bias, systemtic bias, source errors, source bias etc.). But taking that general observation to imply that the particular editorial-choices that you are referring to are evidence of bias would be a syllogistic fallacy.

On the other question: letting subjects determine what we do and don't cover on wikipedia, or in any particular article, goes fundamentally against our role as an encyclopedia (as I mentioned before, there are some exceptions at the very margins). If you want to learn more about the issues involved (even beyond wikipedia), read up on the Right to be forgotten debate that has been in news lately. Abecedare (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That was helpful again. Since I can not manage to devote much time to editing or requesting changes on wiki, and I have tried teahouse, talk pages etc. Is there an ultimate contact where I can address what I feel. Going by these wrong list of rules makes biasing easier. Thanks in anticipation. 14.139.229.43 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "ultimate contact where I can address what I feel".

• If it is a discrete matter pertaining to a single article, the article talkpage is usually the best place to discuss the issue (or, one can take it up to one of the content discussion noticeboards).
• If it is a concrete matter concerning multiple India-related articles India noticeboard is a good venue
• If you want to voice your general thoughts on how wikipedia policies are/are not working, you can write an essay in your userspace.

My advice to you though would be not to get stuck on issues relating to one page (especially a featured-page like India, which is watched by numerous editors and where the editing environment is necessarily finicky). Since you appear to be editing from a G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology IP address, try your hand at improving the page for Pantnagar. You are likely to be well-situated to lay your hands on some good published sources on the city, or at least can take some photographs of major landmarks around town and upload them on wikipedia. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. GB Pant University is in India itself! So, I am also one of the best people to improve the page India :) I will try to voice my opinion using the options you told me whenever I am able to. Cheers!!!! 14.139.229.43 (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you just undid my changes to the History of Delhi page. May I ask why?

Thanks, Bhavika1990 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw your message, am now editing and paraphrasing my edit. Thanks!

@Bhavika1990: Great! Make sure to use your own language, and cite the sources you are using. Also note that we typically avoid using other encyclopedias as a source, so you should minimize the content directly sourced to Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Delhi (which has also been republished in the book The Geography of India: Sacred and Historic Places). Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice! - Bhavika1990 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a tip that someone - probably RexxS - gave me some time ago. Don't use semi-colons for bolding, as done here. Use our standard bolding methods instead because the semi-colon idea causes problems for, IIRC, people with screen-readers.

We seem to at least try to do a lot for people who use screen-readers but, as is almost always the case with the world, those who suffer from eyesight problems get more sympathy than those who suffer from hearing problems. Wikipedia does sod all to help the latter and it is becoming increasingly frustrating as people are deploying YouTube etc as sources more and more frequently. We really should be insisting that if a video is used then a quotation must be supplied unless the thing is itself captioned. I've had a lot of success in persuading the BBC News website that they need to subtitle their vids but somehow I doubt I'll make much impact here :( - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I was trying to follow H:DL formatting (from memory), but did mess up.

About audio-visual sources: knew of the problem but didn't think of the easy solution you suggest of transcribing the relevant text. Use such sources very rarely, but will try to do my part of following that practice and proselytizing it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't know of H:DL. Another backwater of WP space to read! - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I too must have read in my "early days", and therefore misremembered the exact formatting. Had to search for the "H:DL" wikilink in order to confirm that I hadn't dreamt it all up. :-) Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare,

Thanks for the guidance on the Urine Therapy. My goal is not to be disruptive. However, I'm unclear as to why fringe theories (or a fringe theoretical basis) can't be published. If we look at Acupuncture or Reiki, which Wikipedia classifies as fringe and pseudoscience, the articles still present the fringe "basis and effectiveness." Other pseudoscientific pages do the same: Magnetic therapy uses a "Purported mechanisms of action" section. Leaky gut syndrome uses a "Conceptual basis and background" section. Chiropractic has a "conceptual basis" section. Homeopathy has a "plausibility" section. They are all described in a pseudoscientific light. These explanations on the mechanisms does not discount the fact that all of these are still pseudoscience. I don't see a reason why Eldor's paper can't be stated as an unproven/purported mechanism for urine therapy. For instance, I would imagine something like, "unreliable sources claim that autourine therapy may be a treatment for cancer due to the antigens present in urine provoking an immune response in the dendritic cells." That would be a factual statement in that people like Eldor have made those unreliable claims. What are your thoughts on that? Most pseudoscientific Wikipedia pages are taking this approach. Those pseudoscience editors aren't censoring the conceptual/theoretical basis by mandating that the basis come from exceptional sources. So, I don't see why the urine therapy page can't shed light on its proposed pseudoscientific mechanism as well. If anything, it seems like urine therapy is one of the few pseudoscience pages that isn't proposing a mechanism. Thanks in advance. JamesPem (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@JamesPem: To avoid duplication and to let other interested editors to weigh in, lets continue the conversation at Talk:Urine therapy. Abecedare (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare, you are named as an involved part in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Content on Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. Abecedare (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Your recent edits and huge changes without consensus on Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir were distressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifciw (talk • contribs) 04:36, April 12, 2015

@Mifciw: Please see my explanation for the rewrite on the article talkpage. I'd strongly urge you not to engage in an edit-war since it will only result in you getting blocked. Use the talkpage instead to discuss any issues you ave with the current version, or to bring forth more sources. Abecedare (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

<Sigh> As you have probably noticed, our friend is back. The latest round of edits seem fine and I've made some tweaks with explanations on the talk for you. The disruptive behaviour hasn't changed and if it worsens, I would suggest we report somewhere. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Passed the buck. Will take a look at the edits themselves in a couple of hours; the route details may be worth retaining. The petition seems redundant/undue, at least with the article in current length. These judgments are always tough/arguable when we are trying to synthesize an article based on sporadic news account, and don't have have any reliable source that provides an overview. Process becomes worse, and more tiresome, when faced with clueless and confrontational editors. <sigh indeed> Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Content on Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, L235. Abecedare (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey how dare you removed those two quotes from Krishna's literary section page, who are you to remove those? please bring those back as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadhaKrishna Das (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@RadhaKrishna Das: I removed those quotes, not all of which were added by you, because:

• The Literary sources section is to outline the main primary sources for the subject, and not go into details of what exactly those sources say (the current version of the section requires further clean-up to better match its purpose), and
• Selective quotation is a bad way to explain the topic given the immense amound of primary and secondary literature on Krishna. There may a few instances in which including a quote from primary sources would be justified, but in those case we should provide enough context based on scholarly secondary sources to explain why that is the case (see WP:QUOTEFARM which discusses some of these issues). Even in those instances we should try to avoid sectarian translation of the quotes unless, again, there is a particular reason not to.

If you wish we can discuss these issues further on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your reasons are not valid, these are simply excuses because you just wanted to remove them, that is unfair. who you are to remove those quotes? those were the most accepted translations of the text, and they made a big difference on the page, they were helpful for me, they were helpful for the whole community, helpful for everyone. your excuses doesn't make sense to me, you should have directly said that you removed them just because you wanted to, those quotes were there from 2010, no one removed them. there are so many pages that consist of quotes like those on literary sections. its really very unfair. how would you feel if i edit one of your pages and remove some content from them and then say i removed it because it doesn't make sense to me! how would you feel? i request you humbly to bring back those quotes.

Anyways, i have emailed an admin. telling about the whole issue, he will act as soon as he gets online. its better that you restore the quotes soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadhaKrishna Das (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@RadhaKrishna Das:Best to discuss this on article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance in that little matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You remaining blocked and I (or, someone else) having to do all the work you do versus posting a single message to get you unblocked asap. I picked the easy way out. :) Abecedare (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be familiar with some of the history relating to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaketo. - Sitush (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Didn't expect Zaketo to use sock-puppets, but this seems quite obvious. Added note at SPI. Lets see if checkuser catches other related accounts. Disappointing. Abecedare (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary punctuation etc seemed obvious to me also but I was concerned about BEANS. This smacks of nationalism and that made me even more concerned about revealing my hand. I'm never sure how much to reveal at SPI and how much to leave out. - Sitush (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

True. Only hope is that the editor's interest in this instance are so narrow and idiosyncratic that newer socks would be caught even if they tried to change the mentioned patterns. But, honestly, can't be sure of that. Too late anyway. Abecedare (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not criticising you. It is a judgement call, and your judgement generally tends to be better than mine. - Sitush (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't take it as "criticism". Saw it as plain discussion. And in any case, I'm not that sensitive to criticism either. :) Abecedare (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Now at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I should have remembered from my daughters on-line chats. Thanks again121.223.2.171 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I see that you have posted images of the object. Lets see if we can solve the puzzle you posed. Abecedare (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your mail informing me not to revert the edit I need resolution of the issue The person who has deleted my edit says That the image I added is dark and is not of encyclopedic quality The person gives me this link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=buildings%20at%20night&fulltext=Search&profile=images and says this "The pictures is too dark for the article. Check out this to have a look what is expected from a night view." I have tried to explain in my mails that the link which he/she has given is of buildings that have been lit by artificial lighting and in this case of Taj Mahal the photo is on moonlit Taj Mahal and I uploaded the image, again the person removes my edit and says it is not of encyclopedic quality without clearly defining what are the aspects that can be considered that can pass a photo as encyclopedic quality, I understand that the best images should be on WIki, but here it is moonlight and there are no images of the Taj Mahal in moonlight, I am trying to make the person understand that the image is important for the page I want to know if you understand my position and I also want to know who decides the encyclopedic quality of the image and what are the criteria that is considered specially when there are no images of Taj Mahal in moon light, and when taking pictures in moon light this is about the best one can get. Please do let me know as to how I should proceed, please note that the person has been threatening me in every message that I will be blocked, inspite of the fact that I am trying my best to make the person understand that the image is important. Does wiki have any rules on other editors threatening that they have the power to block another person when ever there is an edit that they dont like, this shows that the person is trying to say that he/she has the ability to block another person if they don't follows what they say inspite of the fact that they themselves don't understand the edit and give irrelevant links like the one above in which there are photos of buildings the night with artificial light, when my edit clearly shows the image with a caption that says Taj Mahal in moonlight Sincerely Arun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunshank (talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Arunshank: It would be best to have this discussion at Talk:Taj Mahal, here other editors interested in the topic can participate. And I would suggest that you focus the discussion on the content issue (ie, ehether or not the image shouold be included in the article), and not on any editor issues. Abecedare (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have seeded a discussion at Talk:Taj Mahal for you to make your case (again focus on the content!). I haven't stated my own reasons for removing the image in order not to pre-bias the discussion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare,

the pic of karpaga vinayaga already was there in the Ganesha article .it removed with out reason.so i reinsert back.if you want src you may place citation needed tag.Please simply dont do revert.thank you..Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 18:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Eshwar.om: Not sure what you mean by "already was there in the Ganesha article" since, unless I am missing something, you added the image a few hours back, with a dubious claim in the caption. Note that the burden in on you to back up your claims with reliable sources, especially in featured articles where such information is especially liable to be removed. Highly encourage you to discuss the issue on the article talk page, instead of edit-warring to keep the image & caption in, since the latter is likely to see you get blocked. Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare please see diff. there is no explain for that removal.already discussed in the article talk page.yes well i will add reliable source.thank youEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 18:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Eshwar.om: Not sure what that diff is supposed to show, since that was a different image that you added a year back and which was subsequently removed by User:Redtigerxyz (with an explanation). Again, per WP:BRD feel free to discuss the images and/or sources on the article talk page; just don't edit-war in article space. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: that image not removed by redtigerxyz.because it is deleted in commons.so only removed by bot see diff.No need to discuss again in the talk page because already discussed.i will add reliable source.i will look on that.thank youEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 19:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Eshwar.om: That's a yet another image! Really hard for me to make sense of what you are arguing here.

But I see that you are continuing to edit-war on the article, and replacing scholarly citations with self-published books that copy wikipedia content and generic temple website. I have left a 3RR warning on your talkpage, and if you make another disputed edit to the article, I'll request for you to be blocked. Again, you are welcome to discuss the issues, along with the sources, on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask why you closed the case without action and without enforcing policies? The precedent is now clear. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@AusLondonder:, as I stated in my summary and as many uninvolved users pointed in the thread, editors at the article talk page could have assumed good faith and been politer. That said, their conduct hardly rose to the level that would invite admin sanctions in the form of blocks or even trouting. Keeping the ANI thread open any longer would just make the exchanges more rancorous and uncivil, which is neither good for the editors involved or for wikipedia. So I sincerely urge you to accept the community acknowledgement of your contributions and good faith, and move on. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If nothing happens at the ANI thread in, say, the next 12 hours then I think OccultZone's deployment of the sanctions template might have to be escalated to the enforcement pages. I was hoping that some admin might use their discretion and save us all more work but, yet again, it seems that they run scared of India-related stuff. I'm not sure that I blame them! - Sitush (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is disappointing. I can see though how from an outside perspective disputes over whether an idol can be dated to 400 AD or not; whether a particular Tamil poem is due or not; why Swami Vivekananda and Tamils or Aludaya Pillaiyar Tiruchabai viruttam do not meet the notability standards; ... can appear non-obvious and even esoteric issues to editors not familiar with the subject area (and I intentionally avoided calling upon admins active in WPINDIA, to avoid canvassing/involved concerns). Lets wait and see if someone takes up the issue; would like to avoid AE because this issue should be resolvable using normal process and simply applying universal rules such as WP:DE. Abecedare (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare,

Firstly, thanks for warning me. I will use article's talkpage before editing here after.

But my point in my previous edit is: In the Ancient India section,for my summary on mentioning of rivers;

A simple question, if any one talks about a child, don't they need to know about his/her parents? In the same way, when one talks about a civilization, don't they need to know about the river which led the civilization to flourish? Because if there is no river, there is no civilization, as there is no mother, there is no child. Here, Ancient India is the child and Sarasvati River is the mother.

Thank You, Abecedare. -- BodduLokesh (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh: I hope you noticed that that Kautilya3 already added the name of Sarasvati river in the section, and as I commented on the talk-page I have no objections to that part of your edit. This also illustrates the main advantage of using talk-pages to discern where the disagreement (if any) lies, and come up with solutions agreeable to all (and consistent with sources and wikipedia policies!). If you haven't yet, you should take a look at the recommended bold-revert-discuss edit-strategy, which I find very helpful when dealing with other good-faith editors. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead of the Aryans, it's now the IVC which has become "the craddle of civilisation"? Essentialism, always essentialism, instead of contingency, complexity, and world-wide systems. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup. And actual history is too rough and bumpy to serve as a tool. Needs to be shaped and sharpened to suit ones purpose. Abecedare (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The Aryans were the IVC. Don't you get it? :) Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, you just blew my mind with that! It's like The Sixth Sense, only with "I speak Sanksrit now" instead of "I see dead people", and IVCers realizing at the end that they were Aryans all along. :) Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi I understand your concern.
1. I only linked to schools which DONT have their own website.
2. I have nothing to do with that website. It is NOT mine.
3. I am cognitive of the fact that they are nofollow tags. Since this isnt for marketing, its irrelevant.

Those links were for the comfort of anybody wanting more in-depth information about those schools; something which for one is impossible to be done on Wikipedia, and secondly would make Wiki into a directory of sorts, which is majorly against policy.

Hope you will understand.

Highfever2015 (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Highfever2015:, the editing looked suspicious because almost all your edits involved adding links to classfever.com website, but I can see how those edits could be made in good faith. Don't worry about it; just don't add further links to the website since it doesn't qualify as a reliable source on wikipedia (because we don't know who runs it, their editorial policies, and how conscientious they are about verifying the information on their website and keeping it updated. Also their Advertising policy and twitter feed don't engender confidence.)

If you have any further questions about this issue or editing in general, feel free to ask. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently only have little access to the net, and just before this technical problem, a sock of a persistent troublemaker Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar/Archive arrived and edit warred over the Mughal flag at multiple pages. You interacted with it on Talk:Flag of the Mughal Empire. I think that damage is fixed mostly, but I checked the contributions list and saw that Imperial seal of the Mughal Empire was created. It's fully unsourced but there can be a marginal chance that it might be not a hoax. Anyway see what you can dig up on it or if busy, I'll come back and see it. Also, note Category:Suspected_Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mughal_Lohar which shows the sock's lack of imagination with usernames or its extremely similar pattern of editing; it would be good of you watch out for it too. PS: I just survived three days with no net, I can't believe I'm still sane. -Joel. (Ugog Nizdast (talk)) 09:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Mughal Lohar! The good old days are coming back:) I got rid of the page, valid or not blocked editors cannot create articles. --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As if the business of proliferating fictional flags was no bad enough, now we have socks involved ?! Thanks RP for cutting the Gordian knot

I had thought that deleting the Mughal flag template would have solved most of the problem, but it hardly seems to have made a dent. The following files still are used in dozens of articles from where they need to be removed (join the posse! pinging @Sitush: for help):

• File:Flag_of_the_Mughal_Empire.svg
• File:Flag of the Mughal Empire (triangular).svg

Abecedare (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been removing them as and when I find the things - maybe three or four a day. Mughal Lohar, eh? Long time since I saw that name. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Refer this link for all articles using it File:Flag of the Mughal Empire.svg#filelinks. - Ninney (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Those lists should contain no mainspace article. Join the clean-up gang. Can use edit-summary, "remove fictional flag; see discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 30#Template:Country data Mughal Empire and Talk:Flag of the Mughal Empire#Fictional flags redux.3F" if to indicate where this has been discussed before. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi just saw you undid my changes for Ramanuja? May I know the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.26.213 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@RamanujaDasa: I had outlined my reasons in the edit-summary, but to expand:

1. the website you cited is not a reliable source for the claim,
2. the claim (Ramanuja "is the first person to fight for equal rights among all human beings"), as most claims about superlatives (first, best, greatest), is a redflag assertion that either requires an extraordinarily solid source to support it, or we need to attribute the opinion to the persons/groups who hold it. And the latter would be justified only if the opinion and the persons holding it are notable enough as judged by whether secondary reliable sources cite that opinion. As an example, Donald Bradman's opinions of Tendulkar's batting is worth noting in the Sachin Tendulkar article; what Barack Obama or Narendra Modi think of it, if anything, is not.

Abecedare (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I am confused now. In the same wikipedia page it is already mentioned the below: He treated all people as equal without considering their castes. At that time low caste people were prohibited inside the temples. He led the low caste people into the temples in many places. Due to this, he is praised as a "social reformer".[9]

Is it not the proof for him being the first person to fight for equal rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.26.213 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The question is not whether Ramanuja was a social reformer with respect to caste and access to temples. That may well be true (although the current source cited in the article is pretty poor for the purpose). But that does not make him the first person to fight for equal rights. If you want to include the latter claim (which is surely false!), you'll at least need a reliable source that actually says that, and then attribute that opinion to the source. Abecedare (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

But it is well documented that no one fought for equal rights in the history before Ramanuja. You may say it as social reforming, but the same thing is called "Civil Rights", "Equal Rights" in west.
More over the most authentic acharya and great scholar like His Holiness Sri Chinna Jeeyar Swamiji stamps the authority of Ramanuja based on all the available scriptures.
It is already a big shame that Ramanuja name and his works been submerged and we need to fight for it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RamanujaDasa (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@RamanujaDasa:, I don't find the claim, "no one fought for equal rights in the history before Ramanuja" to be credible but we can't, and don't really have to, settle this debate amongst ourselves since wikipedia content goes by what reliable sources say. Since you believe the point is well-documented, it should be easy to back up the claim with such sources and we can continue the discussion at that point. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As per the reliable sources section of wikipedia, His Holiness Sri Chinna Jeeyar Swamiji words are to be taken as authority. I guess we are not deciding it among ourselves. We are just debating the denial of the truth about Ramanuja's works. Also, the same sources that you have agreed upon for social reformer comments hold good here too. When you say that something is not credible, on what authority we can say it. History says that. We cannot deny the history. If one does not understand/see from the history, we can generally speak and impress on their own belief. By the way, either of us are not scholars or experts in this matter. Why don't we just listen to the experts and scholars like His Holiness Chinna Jeeyar and other likes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamanujaDasa (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@RamanujaDasa: If you want a third opinion on whether statueofequality.org is an adequate source for the claim "Ramanuja is the father of Equality. He is the first person to fight for equal rights among all human beings.", you can ask at wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A bit premature but I have this feeling that the crat chat will be in your favor :) Offline for a bit so an early welcome back to the mop squad! --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, Abecedare--you might still squeak by. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Drmies (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL! A less likely example of squeaky bum time would be hard to find. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Phew he made it! *starts taking down his hair dolls and shrine* (PS congratulations) Mkdw^talk 19:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I had changes the content already existing in the wikipage of Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP). This was however deleted due to conflict of interest. I do respect the policies of Wikipedia, but want to make a humble submission that an exception may be made to government schemes and policies. The content must be verifiable from the horse's mouth. BBBP is a recent initiative of Modi government and content that reaches the public at large must be at least informative. You may like to visit Vikaspedia (an initiative similar to Wikipedia, but dealing only with government schemes and policies in India). I had earlier contributed content on BBBP for Vikaspedia as well^[1] But still open for discussion and with no intention of challenging the policies...:) Suruchi AggarwalAggarwalsuruchi (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Aggarwalsuruchi: The primary reason for my reverting your edit was that it was a copyright violatation of content from vikaspedia, whose copyright is, if I am understanding correctly, held by CDAC. If instead you are the rightful owner of the copyright, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions on how such material can be donated to wikipedia under a free license.

Secondly, any content on wikipedia has to comply with its content policies, especially verifiability and neutral point of view (the coi policy has been formulated mainly because editors close to the subject may be unable to write neutrally about it). We simply cannot replicate a government website since our aim is not to promote the subject, but to inform the reader about it. So while Government of India sources are fine for some basic content on the scheme, ideally the bulk of the article should be based upon what independent sources say about BBBP. Finally, the wikipedia article also needs to comply with wikipedia's manual of style, which dictates how an article is structured and formatted.

I would recommend that you start a discussion on the article talk page outlining the changes that you'd like to propose and the sources that would support such additions. This won't be an instantaneous or even quick process, but hopefully will help us all improve wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Abecedare (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

regarding ANI discussion

my statement

You need to post there as i was not aware of these lines in the canvassing page.

" Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages) ".

Because the way people are commenting about "My E-mails" other users can create an impression that i was trying to ask people say "delete" or "keep" . And you know my E-mail was not against any user. I asked you to join the discussion.How i will know whether you or any unknown editor will vote in favour or against ?. When Mar4d and Topgun are accusing me of canvassing, someone needs to tell them about the details of that E-Mail.C E (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page to keep discussion in one place. Abecedare (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Impersonation account - Sitush g (talk · contribs) - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That will ease you in. Now I should line up a really complex history merge as a proper test ... ;) - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Anytime, Sitush jee. :) Abecedare (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, I have gotten myself on somebody's radar at User talk:Cwobeel and first thing they did was reverted my most recent article edit with a completely bogus edit summary. (diff) I don't wish to speak with this individual, but I would like my work to be respected. Advise? Regards, Edit semi-protected (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Edit semi-protected: Can't say that I fully understand the background, but having read the conversation at you talk page and at Cwobeel's, what I see are some frayed tempers and some heightened suspicions (which often happens when one is editing in contentious areas on wikipedia!). But the conversations are also reasonably polite by the standards of some of these areas, and no one is stating their suspicion as fact.

So, instead of trying to analyze past actions and comments, here is what I would suggest you do: post a comment at Talk:Trans-Pacific Partnership linking to or quoting your edit, and ask for suggestions on if, how, and where to best include the information you had added. You can mention User:TheGracefulSlick's reversion and quote their edit-summary, but don't try to characterize it as "bogus" (or anything else). There are enough editors on that talk page and this should be easy to resolve through discussion. Hope that helps! Abecedare (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you much for taking the time to help. Having your efforts flat-out reverted hurts, especially when the edit summary runs completely counter to what was intended. I will go to the talk page and state my case, but want no interaction with TGS. Edit semi-protected (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know (from experience!) how annoying it can be to see ones carefully crafted edit reverted in toto especially given how much easier the latter action is to the former. But then again, this is a standard and even recommended editing approach both on wikipedia and in any collaborative environment, and I have done more than my share of "reverting". So one needs to learn to accept it w/o personalizing the content dispute. Hope your discussion is fruitful. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting my feet wet on closing - [1] Please let me know if I did it correctly. If I did not, I apologize. --Atsme^📞📧 13:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme.

I tweaked it slightly so that the {{archivetop}} template is within the section. That way it is easier to edit/modify. In the previous configuration, one would need to edit the preceding section to make any changes to the {{archivetop}}, which can get confusing. Also it would have been better to say that result was (for example) "user was left a note" to indicate at a glance how the issue was resolved.

None of the above are significant issues and I wouldn't have even noticed or bothered with the tweak if you had not asked. Hope the comments help in future ANI maintenance efforts though. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, and thanks again. This is exactly how we learn to do it the right way. 👌--Atsme^📞📧 14:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hey, I just noticed you have resumed the mantle of adminship. The encyclopedia is to be congratulated! Bishonen | talk 14:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. And now I'll be wasting spending the next hour catching up with Greek mythology. <shaking fist emoji> Abecedare (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I made the link more specific. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. No, "lived happily ever after" option in the Greek world, eh? Can see the attraction of hedonism over stoicism. :) Abecedare (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Still being used in Axact for BLP statements and in BOL. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's the same spammer at two IPs (39.48.119.146 (talk · contribs) and 39.48.196.49 (talk · contribs)). Reverted for now and will keep an eye for reinsertion. Abecedare (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that User:Beautifuldiana's 72hr block has ended they are recreating the Diana Santoke (hoax) page at User:Beautifuldiana/sandbox. Is it worth nipping it in the bud straight away? Thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank for contribution Prymshbmg (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This kind of edit took place at Visakhapatnam page. Could you check if it is proper.--Vin09 (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Assume you are referring to this edit. If you prefer the previous montage you can simply restore it and invite the user to discuss the change on the article talk page. Pinging @Av9: as an fyi. Abecedare (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I have followed your method of talk page. If you can comment there it would be more helpful. Talk:Visakhapatnam#Lead.--Vin09 (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Have the page watchlisted and will follow the discussion. Will also leave a message for Av9 so that this so this does not break out into a slow-edit war. Abecedare (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Left a note at the article talkpage since theer are quite a few editors involved. Abecedare (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on the RfC, and your sugestions. If you can please Suggest me some more section to be added in the infobox template. And I am an experienced coder and can code the whole template. The template refferenced in the RfC is just a Sample that what could be added in-to the template. If it appears to you that some-thing is missing you can suggest on my talk page or edit the sample infobox. Prymshbmg (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Will reply with some initial suggestions at the RFC page so that others can add to them. Abecedare (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

He did get three or four right out of those nearly more than 100 listings. Thanks for spotting the run and helping in reverting the mess. — Yash! ^(Y) 06:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help too in the clean-up, Yash. Abecedare (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Abecedare, in retrospect, that looked more like me trying to take over, rather than make a suggestion. It probably felt like I was stepping on your toes; sorry about that. I think this is already clear, but just to be sure, the block was 100% justified and well executed, I'm just trying to bend over backwards to help someone who might just be kind of embarrased. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"looked more like...": Didn't look/feel like that to me at all.

I am all for your attempts and the only reason I didn't undo the block myself following your suggestion was because I thought that you probably already had a specific note in mind, and two voices may work better than one in any case. Hope it works! Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare, I'm pleased to be able to reverse my previous decision and restore your administrator privileges after your recent fresh request for adminship. I think someone mentioned this is the first re-adminship after lengthy inactivity and it's quite an impressive vote of confidence from the community at that - happy to have you back! –xeno^talk 19:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations and Best Wishes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support and support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Congrats, and thanks for returning! Jusdafax 20:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Congratulations, and thank you for stepping up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Wow, congratulations. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Nihil obstat! Full support! Well done! Congratulations! Jianhui67 ^T★C 03:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Break a leg! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Abecedare (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• And from me as well, congratulations. It's great to see you getting the tools back. As an aside, I don't know of any other editor who can claim to having two successful RfAs ending in unanimous support with 100+ participants. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  That's what I was thinking as well. Two unanimous support RfAs must be a record on Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Surely a record. Still mystified why my new technique for putting on pants tripped me up this morning. :) Abecedare (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and thanks for volunteering your time and energy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Re-congrats on re-adminship! —SpacemanSpiff 14:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Welcome back - don't forget to wash the old T-shirt for reuse in these times of economic hardship!  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. And why bother with the washing; will only get mud-stained again? :) Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations (just noticed) --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tito. Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There is some more BLP violations back over at Channel Awesome (diff). Thanks -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: Edit rev-delled. Page semi-protected for a month. Thanks for keeping an eye on the IP's vandalism/BLP vios!. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I still await for your apology regarding the pretentious message you left on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

again, your comment to the arbitrators about a paradoxical scenario, which resembles my first reaction (mentioning "dare") to the first, sort of ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abcedare, I think your intervention in this dispute Talk:Khilji_dynasty#Source_misrepresentation would be useful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you can keep Ajit Doval on your watchlist for repeated POV editing. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 10:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Good day, dear admin! I have been watching this debate for a while and it has gotten to the point where you may need to step in. I think the original phrasing that "Doval claimed leverage in Baluchistan" was perfectly adequate. He is the National Security Advisor and it is his job to be a hawk. One might also summarise the Pakistani reaction in one sentence. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

RP has stepped in and protected it, and its on my watchlist now.

Btw, on a quick read the Views section, which seems to be the locus of the dispute, doesn't convey much information to me (and, presumably to readers not already immersed in the issues). Now that the edit-warring is not an immediate issue, will take some time to get up to speed on the content debate and comment on the talk page by tomorrow. Abecedare (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Have started a discussion section on the aricle talkpage to try to get the discussion back on topic. Note that my involvement is not in a "administrative" capacity; will leave that to RP et al. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger. Good suggestions. Let us see what these editors are able to do. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Just remembered that I had already gathered up sources and intended to edit this article. Will get to it this weekend. Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That is great. It will be fun to watch you in action! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this look like a duck of Mughal Lohar? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The user's edits are certainly problematic and I see quite a few similarities (esp. obsession with flags and the orthographic projection map at Mughal Empire), but am not familiar enough with Mughal Lohar to make a positive match myself. Can you file an SPI report ? Also pinging @Dougweller and OccultZone: who gave spotted recent socks of Mughal Lohar. Abecedare (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Filed an SPI. Frankly the editor should be blocked either ways for repeated additional of copyrighted, false and incorrect information, edit-warring and general disruptive editing. Will take it to ANI if it turns out that we are barking up the wrong tree as to the sock-puppetry. Abecedare (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks as always, got annoyed with such type of continuous large-scale edits which aren't actually improving anything here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

PS:Sorry for not doing the SPI before, I've just come back after a short wikibreak. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Your suspicions were spot on! We now just have to wait from the current socks to be blocked and then for the next lot to crop up. :) Abecedare (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I reckon that the next avatar has arrived. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that's them. Same venues + same obsessions + same edits [2], [3], [4]. Pinging @RegentsPark: for now; will file SPI next time I'm online, if necessary. Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Any chance you can do some digging rather than mopping? I'm working on a set of connected bios and think I have hit an issue of dodgy journalism. At Lovely Anand there is a cite of Outlook that says she was elected to the Lok Sabha in a 1994 by-election. The exact Outlook words are Thereafter, Anand formed the Bihar People's Party, on whose ticket wife Lovely won the Vaishali Lok Sabha seat first in a byelection in 1994, and then got re-elected to the 10th Lok Sabha (1991-96).

I'm struggling to work out how she was re-elected in 1994 to something that had existed since the 1991 general elections and was still sitting to 1996. I had always thought that Outlook and Frontline were as near as dammit as reliable as The Hindu but I am increasingly having doubts about the former (the latter is, of course, published by TH). - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Be happy it said "wife Lovely" and not "lovely wife"! It's likely just a typo, but they typically fix it for the web version, wonder why that didn't happen here. —SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Outlook is usually ok. The sentences are confusing because of the two Anands involved, and while I can construct some scenarios by which the sentence you quoted makes sense, let me not speculate and instead try to figure out what actually happened (may take a few minutes or a few hours to get back due, depending upon RL "interruptions"). `Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Fun fact - The author of the article is a deputy editor at the Hindu. [5] - NQ (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Journalism is a small incestuous world indeed, and that is one reason journalists at one "prestige" publication are so reluctant are to call out potential-future-employers for errors or bias (tabloids, which value circulation over reputation, have no such compunctions of course since such friendly warfare sells copies and everyone recognizes the game). Ok, enough cynicism :)

Sitush, the Lok Sabha member list shows both Lovely Anand and Shiva Sharan Singh representing Vaishali constituency in the 10th Lok Sabha (as is consistent with the Outlook article), and Anand Mohan Singh representing Sheohar constituency in the 11th and 12th. But that seems to be it. Didn't find any news article contradicting this account either. So, as Spaceman suspected, "... and then got re-elected to the 10th Lok Sabha (1991-96)." part of the sentence you quoted is probably a typo. Abecedare (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and, erm, lovely. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

On 7 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pratapaditya Pal, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that art historian and museum curator Pratapaditya Pal owes his career to University of Calcutta not offering anthropology courses in 1957? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pratapaditya Pal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks for helping with the main page Victuallers (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We're in another spate of pov-pushing by Bhumihars, this time via Diwakar Rai Bhuinhar brahmin (talk · contribs). Any chance you could take a look at the history for Kanyakubja Brahmins and related articles? I'm pretty sure that this is socking but it probably would be simpler just to block the newbie and semi-protect the articles yet again. I left a note at Talk:Jujhautiya Brahmin but am not in the mood to chase these people around. Others who have been pushing the same thing of late include Manas tiwari (talk · contribs), Manas tripathi ji (talk · contribs), Sauravbajpayee (talk · contribs), Rahultewaritewari (talk · contribs) and Saryupareenkanyakubjbhuihar (talk · contribs), some of whom have already been blocked. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Have left a note at User_talk:Diwakar Rai Bhuinhar brahmin for now and watching the two pages they had been editing. If they (or any of the accounts you listed, some of them obviously socks) return, will protect/block. Just ping me if I miss something on my watchlist. Abecedare (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, that didn't take long , did it? Semi-protected the page for now. Will block if the user continues (AGFing for now that they hadn't read the latest note before most recent edit). Abecedare (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Self-trout. I was assuming so far that the user was adding some poorly sourced, but good faith content, but turns out it was pure bile and abuse. Indeffed. Sorry it took so long! Coffee time. Abecedare (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Er, wow, that was a pretty spectacular implosion. They tend to have a go at me but not usually to debase the Kanyakubja etc - perhaps they thought I was one. Round 55 next week ... - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a lot of verbiage surrounding it (which made me miss the essence initially and waste time) but the central message was, "showing you your place... you dirty beggars... we are the biggest Brahmins". Even I can't AGF that away. :) Abecedare (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I translated it. I think it was a kneejerk reaction to the reversion of their earlier, merely pov-pushing efforts. No worries. The likelihood is that at some point this year I'll be asking The Blade of the Northern Lights to look at the various articles with a view to indefinite semi-protection - there are a few in the mix and nothing good seems to have come for ages from the anons and newly-registered. But let's first see if what looks to be a sockfarm just gives up. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And here we go again. Do you think Brahmrishi Diwakar Rai Bhuinhar Brahmin (talk · contribs) is a sock of the first named account in this section, ie: Diwakar Rai Bhuinhar brahmin (talk · contribs) ? They have not edited the same articles but they are pushing the same pov that I see time and again across a small group of Brahmin articles. I'm getting fed up of this and fear that SPI will get nowhere because I would have to explain the intricacies of their pov before they will even consider a checkuser. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Likely. Buts lets give them rope for now and see if they choose to source/discuss their edits or simply resume their former abusive behavior. Abecedare (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Dropped them a "cite-sources" message. Chose not to mention the potential issues with using multiple accounts, block evasion etc, since those technical transgressions would likely be too hard to really get across. Keeping it simple and seeing if they can follow the non-negotiable V/NPOV policies. Abecedare (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, I have been advised by SpacemanSpiff to contact you for this PR. I'm not sure how much you're comfortable with the topic, but your suggestions would be really helpful. Thanks, —Vensatry _(ping) 18:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I would rather review the 1983 Cricket World Cup Final article but since that is not an option (yet!) I'd be happy to read through the 2003 page and let you know if any improvements come to mind. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have that as well as the 2011 final in mind. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Btw, in case it was not obvious, the first half of the above reply was tongue-in-cheek. :) Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw your post on AN regarding the dashboard, there's an easy way to have it on the top menu bar, take a look at my common.js file. Has a few other handy tools too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Will give it a try. Pinging @NeilN: who too may be on the market for scripts. Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Already added when I saw SpacemanSpiff's post :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just realized that I had recently been making changes to my monobook.js page, while using the vector skin; no wonder the additions appeared to be useless. :) Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been one of the holdouts, I still use monobook, but based on some discussion with Mr. Stradivarius, I switched these to common.js, and he solved some of my writing errors that rendered the common.js page quite useless.—SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, the new phenomenon this summer is that of pro-Pakistan editors wanting to put some statement of some current day politician or other in long-running historical articles. One such saga is going on here at Kashmir conflict, an edit war started by a bunch of IP's. I don't know how to deal with edit warring by IP's. Another saga at Mukti Bahini thankfully went into an RfC. On the whole, there is a big flood of pro-Pakistan editors and IPs pushing these POVs this summer. Please keep on an eye on these articles. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I am going to be on/off wiki for the next 2 weeks, so pinging @SpacemanSpiff, RegentsPark, and NeilN: to keep an eye too. Abecedare (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, watchlisted. If the IP's are simply reverting without using the talk page consider asking at WP:RFPP for semi-protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm only dipping my toes and not diving in right now and will be staying away from anything that requires deep attention, therefore I won't be of any help in this area currently. —SpacemanSpiff 14:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Apparently edit-warring by IP's is not grounds for semi-protection, only vandalism is. This seems to be a weakness of the current procedures. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, this is a RFA test question, right? :-) Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Guidance_for_administrators. I saw more reverts without discussion so semied for one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. That helped. The IP came over to the talk page. However, note that the policy says that semi-protection should be applied when Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e., in cases in which full protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved. The intent seems to be that the anonymous editors shouldn't be disadvantaged with respect to the autoconfirmed users. But without the threat of semi-protection, it is the autoconfirmed users that are disadvantaged. Catch 22. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm barely here these days and will likely be off wiki for the next four weeks - that time of the year again! NeilN will save the day :) --regentspark (comment) 21:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: and Abecedare, Please take a look at the last paragraph of the lead at Kashmir conflict, and the discussion on the talk page Talk:Kashmir conflict#Elections 2014. Additional neutral voices would help. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I used my tools on that article so I can't really weigh in on content now. If discussion has stalled and you are having trouble attracting outside editors then you can try the DRN or a RFC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Roger. Understood. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Are there any scripts or tools you use to perform rangeblocks (I understand how networks work)? For example, I just PC protected Pear for two weeks but it seems to me doing a small temporary rangeblock would have been a viable alternative (perhaps if the vandalism was more severe). [6] I was wondering if there were any additional tools you use or steps you take. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

These are useful (h/t User:Berean Hunter):

• Rangeblock calculator, and
• Range contributions

Also the WhoIs entry for the IP will usually tell the range of IPs assigned to the ISP/client, which can be a clue (though not determinative) on whether a rangeblock will be effective. Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that rangeblock calculator is very useful. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just be sure to check the range contribs (above) to assess what kind of collateral damage may occur before blocking. It is very rare for me to block anything larger than a /24 range. NeilN, as an aside you may find Reaper's console handy.

Seeing that you know networking, if you know how to use nmap or any other tool of your choice, Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests would be something for you to watchlist. I block them when I find them but rarely report them there.

What we really need is an IPv6 range contribs checker. I suppose checking that many addresses times out on the tool server though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Berean Hunter. That tool seems to produce similar output to the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms (uses API), as well as wildcard prefix searches" advanced gadget which also supports diff popups. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So... how do we deal with IPv6 hoppers? Example. The new IP hasn't disrupted any articles yet but if they had, and continued hopping? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Most likely by blocking 2600:1014:B062:8598::/64 in this case. While that would be a large number of possible addresses, it is small relative to the greater lot of potentials in that address domain. I say most likely because I didn't check to see the other addresses he was using but in my experience that is often necessary to prevent the nuisance of playing whac-a-mole repeatedly. I'm just starting my coffee, not fully awake and trying to get rid of a bad headache so I hope I've made sense. Jasper Deng is Mr. IPv6 and may be able to share insight. WP:IPv6 and User:Jasper Deng/IPv6 for reading material. The smallest possible range is ideal but I've found that what the IP hopper says is true and after making smaller rangeblocks, they reappear. I should also add that I monitor Category:Requests for unblock to see if anyone gets caught behind those blocks and I have never seen an IPv6 address in a range that I've blocked pop up. A IPv6 range contribs checker would be neat to have.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What Berean said. In theory a /64 block for IPv6 addresses should effect only one ISP customer, and even a /80 /48 block may have that limited an effect. But (a) I am not sure how ISPs around the world are doling out IPv6 IPs in practice, esp. to their mobile customers, and (b) blocking 2600:1014:B0 users would have required a /88 /40 rangeblock that I would be nervous to make/advice on. Jasper sounds like the right person to ask (ping me if you do and I'll join in in the listening). Abecedare (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: CIDR notation works the other way around. The range in question would be 2600:1014:B0::/40. Rangeblocks of this range have been done before, but should be done cautiously since if I remember correctly, it would lead to a lot of collateral damage in this particular case (previous blocks of it have been done cautiously).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper. I knew that but still somehow made the error above (thankfully only on a talk page!). Have corrected the ranges, for the sake of anybody reading it in the future. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: You can check IPv6 range contribs by doing a prefix search via Special:Contributions (2600:1014:B0* in this case) if you have the gadget enabled. - NQ (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That's actually pretty useful, I should add it to my guide. Note that however this is limited to searching ranges whose prefixes are integer multiples of 4 (it's 4 bits per digit).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NQ. You know I had tried a few weeks ago and it failed for me but I seem to recall entering CIDR notation and didn't try the wildcard without CIDR. I will be using this. The Toggle all button helps a great deal. Very helpful tip.

In that range I see that this sockmaster is busy. This diff from last January is the same as what he is doing now. Checking for collateral damage, I see that someone edits North Dakota-based football stats regularly. If nothing else, shutting that range down to quash that puppet might be worth it so that he grows bored and goes away. There's something wrong with some people.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Btw, do you know how to get date ranges to work where we would see only the edits from May until now? The "From month (and earlier)" would be better as "From month (and later)" so that we narrow the searches to the more recent results.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: See User talk:NQ#Thanks. You can add ?ucstart=yyyymmddhhmmss&ucend=yyyymmddhhmmss - quite tedious, but gets the job done. - NQ (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, NQ. That is most useful, and something I too was looking for. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding this IPv6 calculator (does IPv4 too).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriya_language#Requested_move_17_June_2015. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) _Odia" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">16:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Public image of Narendra Modi seems like a truly glossed POV fork, given the highly controversial nature of the man. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitush (talk • contribs) 10:35, June 21, 2015

There can arguably be a legitimate article under that title, but the current article is, and is likely to remain, unencyclopedic fluff as I had commented at the talk page discussion that ha lead to its creation. That said, just not something to get too worked up about (unless there are gross BLP violations) since it is of little interest to anyone except diehard Modi fans/detractors. Abecedare (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll post a discussion on the talk page, which will be slow as I edit wikipedia on and off, but I think it's an important topic. With regards to academic coverage I think it's sufficient since most of the sections before me editing them were not supported by academic sources. I aim to distinguish India from Indian subcontinent just as the distinguishing of the European colonization of the Americas as opposed to just American the country.--Boxman88 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have looked through your reverts and I see my moves as justified. The sources also refer to them as Indian Subcontinent. Indian Subcontinent is a region which India is a part of. Unless there is a serious objection to my moves, I see no need for a discussion. If you wish for a discussion, please share your objections and reason behind them. India is distinguished from Indian subcontinent just as America the country is distinguished from the Americas, including North and South America.--Boxman88 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Boxman88: Please start a move request and make your case with sources at Talk:Colonial India, per WP:BRD. Simply re-doing a controversial move because you "see no need for a discussion" is just a waste of all our time. Abecedare (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK I'll do that, but it'll be a slow process since I am on-and-off on WikipediaBoxman88 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No hurry. As I indicated on your talk page I am open to being convinced that there is better title than Colonial India for the article, but will need to see clear evidence that modern scholarship has stopped using the popular two word description and has settled on a suitable substitute (I frankly doubt European colonies of the Indian Subcontinent is the consensus choice, even if "Colonial India" is deprecated). Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

{{subst:arbcom notice| Talk Page Etiquette}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Talk_Page_Etiquette Soham321 (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abe. Have a look at diff. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable about the subject to comment on the content issue itself, but the diff you point to is another sign of tendentious editing by the user. And what makes it worse, is that the confrontational attitude and IDHTing is completely needless and non-productive since, as at the Adi Shankara page the other participants are more than ready to discuss the substance of the contributions and sources.

In any case, the pinging won't make a material difference since, as you noted B9 and another user are long blocked, and while I am not familiar with everyone else that was pinged, John Carter is a sensible and knowledgeable editor in religion-related articles; so his participation will only help. My suggestion is to simply ignore the editor's behavioral issues (which would be a time-sink to address, and unlikely to be changed through polite feedback), and just see if their content suggestions have something of value, which would improve the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ab, Wikipedia is not LInkedIn, right? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Users get a lot of leeway of what they write abut themselves on their userpage, but I agree with you that this seems to be a bit much. Have tagged the page for deletion; that way we will get a second opinion from an independent reviewing admin. Abecedare (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This was a straight out violation of U5 and G11 and I've been seeing a lot of these this past week. But of course nothing to beat this article version, just read the references, that's where the juice is stored!—SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Took me a couple of minutes to simple parse the lead sentence. And the (hatted) section titles on the talkpage are gems too. How did you find this? Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Withdraw above comment. The sentences I mentioned are a trivial issue compared to the refs (as Spaceman had said, and I had read past)! This needs to be preserved somewhere:

CPIO, University of Allahabad RTI reference. no. RTI-140(1)/2014-15, dated 09—06-2014 responded through letter reference no. सा. प्र./अधि. शि./1487, dated 27-06-2014; RTI reference no. RTI-246(2)/2014-15, dated 01-08-2014 responded through letter reference no. सा. प्र./अधि. शि./2014/2001, dated 29-08-2014; RTI reference no. RTI-0138(1)/2014-15, dated 07-06-2014 responded through letter reference no. सा. प्र./अधि. शि./2014/1484, dated 27-06-2014, and also response of RTI reference no. RTI-015(1)/2014-15(online RTI no. 24168 dated 11-06-214) which was responded in the 4 July 2014 through letter reference no. सा. प्र./अधि. शि./2014/1483, dated 27-06-2014 gives information that the KBCAOS stated as K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies in the then ordinance of University of Allahabad is the only Unit of Atmospheric and Ocean Science exist in University of Allahabad and Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Science have no existence. Faculty members list stated that 5 faculty members selected through a proper selection committee in Atmospheric and Ocean Science are faculty members of K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies (KBCAOS), University of Allahabad

Abecedare (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That was my question too -- see here. But you missed the better part of the talk page as I removed a lot of it prior to hatting, see the linked convo for actual details! —SpacemanSpiff 18:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I cannot help laughing but, setting all wiki-issues aside, it is also really unfortunate that so much of the faculty time is wasted in real life on such silly bureaucratic issues rather than any productive academic teaching/research activities. Hard to say, without knowing the details, whether it is systemic issues or personality clashes in this case, but claims like ... K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies... is the only Unit of Atmospheric and Ocean Science exist in University of Allahabad and Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Science have no existence. are tragicomic. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Tragicomix will get the medicine for this.

On a more important point, can you guys take a look at Nashik and Kumbh Mela every now and then, I found copyvios in them and am now working with this MIT Kumbathon group who are spending their holidays contributing to the Kumbh Mela related pages on here. They are just starting out and I've given them some basic pointers, and once they've done some basic content I can direct them to other stuff and getting articles ready for DYK, I believe they could work on some of the fort articles. There's a long section on my TP titled MIT Kumbathon. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Nice work guiding the group Spaceman!

A few months back there was another live editathon at MIT focused on Dalit related content that was so poorly organized that it had User:Sitush and me tearing our hair out; most of edits made during the event had to reverted; and, I don't believe any of the participants became active editors. That group was so poorly advised (one of the organizers had recommended - paraphrasing - "If you want to write about subject X, Google for the term and see the what turns up", without any indication of being aware of WP:RS; and this to an audience who have access to academic libraries and databases!) that it is nice to see the proper approach, which hopefully will yield better results. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Different MIT, but the principle holds. This group is enthusiastic, and I think they have an emphasis on quantity, so it's easier to let them focus on one article now and then get them working on some of the others. A lot of the others are in bad shape, so any help would be welcome. —SpacemanSpiff 18:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Added some suggestions for the group on your talkpage. Hope I didn't jump the queue or plan of action you had in mind; also, really hard to avoid wiki-jargon like undue and userspace. Took the lazy way out for the moment. :) Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Any help is welcome. If you have a list of articles that they could create, it'd be incredibly helpful. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the editors' inexperience I think 2015 Kumbha Mela would be ambitious enough for now. Can put it up for DYK and even try to get it up on mainpage for one of the important festival dates (will be a push). Btw, it is tempting to jump in Nashik with MOS/Due-related corrections, but resisting it under the "give a man a fish..."/WP:BITE principles. Abecedare (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just looking to address copyvios, blp vios etc if any on that page. Again, I gave them two refs as examples and now there's over use of those two. But this is at least not as bad as most of the other areas I'm dealing with. —SpacemanSpiff 06:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to advise that the "Talk Page Etiquette" arbitration case, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined by the committee on account of the fact that it appears to have been withdrawn. Further information is available at the above link. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

Hi Abecedare,

An extreme level of vandalism going on in the Bengalis article. Please semi-protect this article as soon as possible. An ip-sock puppet is constantly removing information without any discussion whatsoever. It would be better if you put "Wikipedia pending changes tag" where every change can monitored. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kkm010: Looks like it is just one IP, 103.11.50.115 (talk · contribs), who has been deleting the content. I have left them a message asking them to discuss the issue they have the content. Will block/protect if they continue, but hopefully they will use the talkpage instead. Will keep an eye on the article, but drop me a message if I miss some disruption. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure Abecedare, I will keep an eye this ip, if such disruption goes on like this, then we have to take some action straightaway. Anyway you also keep an eye on this article. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for writing to me. There is already a separate article “Bangladeshi People”. Why do cannot Indian Bengalis have a page of their own? I hope you realize that the article as it now stands at Wikipedia shows bias for an extreme political view held in Bangladesh. You will notice that it has been a perennial issue and highlighted numerous times in the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.11.50.115 (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have started a talk-page discussion on the subject, which is great! However you should avoid unnecessary bold-text (which comes across as shouting), and also not make wild charges ("motivated gangs of Islamist Bangladeshis", "hijacked by politically motivated individuals") about other editors. That is neither acceptable on wikipedia, nor a productive method of discussion on- or off-wiki. Please see wikipedia policies on assuming good faith, and being civil.

I encourage you to read up on wikipedia's core policies and also get an account, which will make communication easier. You are welcome to continue editing with or without registering, as long as you don't resume edit-warring and are more mindful of proper communication etiquette in future comments. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Abecedare! Might you want to take a look at the articles Bharadwaj Puram and Allahpur? There is a situation there that needs to be handled by someone who knows India. The two articles seem to be about the same place. The article Bharadwaj Puram had been nominated for A10 speedy deletion as a duplicate of Allahpur. I declined speedy deletion, because they are not duplicates, and because although Allahpur is the better and older article, Bharadwaj Puram seems to be a better title for the article. In fact I couldn't figure out where the name "Allahpur" came from, it isn't mentioned in the text. I don't know the area so I can't tell if Allahpur is another name for Bharadwaj Puram, and I could not find Allahpur in a search.

My hunch is that we should delete the article "Bharadwaj Puram" and move the "Allahpur" article to that title. It's also possible that some of the unique information in the Bharadwaj Puram article should be copied into the other article before moving. Or maybe we should keep both articles. Or maybe keep Allahpur and merge/redirect Bharadwaj Puram. I just don't know enough about the situation to do it myself. Do you want to give it a try? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The Allahpur article was started with Allahapur as the subject; slowly the lead sentence morphed into claiming that it was also known Bharadwaj puram; and, recently an editor simply deleted any reference Allahpur. If I may speculate, there appears to be local rivalry between the Bharadwaj community and Muslim residents over naming rights.

In my search, Allahapur appears to be more common in news articles and in addresses listed in Google books; see

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

and there is some indication that Bharadwaj Puram is a sub-locality of Allahpur (eg, see address listed here or here). Keep in mind though that none of these sources are really talking about Allahpur or Bharadwaj Puram in any detail, and are not really citable in the article itself. In any case, I'd recommend redirecting Bharadwaj Puram to Allahpur and restoring the latter to (say) this version (perhaps with some additional details added from the current Bharadwaj Puram article). If that sounds ok to you, can propose this at Talk:Allahpur and see if any of the interested editors have any objections, or sources to contribute. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for all the research. Sounds complicated - not to say a potential ethnic minefield. Would you change the lead to say something like "Allahpur (Hindi:अल्लाहपुर), also known as Bharadwaj Puram, is a locality/township of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. " ? We can't very well redirect from Bharadwaj Puram if the target doesn't mention it. Or what would you think about simply restoring the Allahabad article as you suggest, and then leaving the two articles alone - since the relationship between the two names/areas is not clear? --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not comfortable with the "also known as Bharadwaj Puram" bit since I am not certain whether Bharadwaj Puram is an alternate name of, or just a part of, Allahpur. Leaving the Bharadwaj Puram article alone also makes sense (personally I am not a fan of completely unsourced articles, but the wikipedia convention of accepting unsourced geographical articles as long as the location's existence is verifiable is well-established, and don't mean to argue with that here). Will implement this and drop a note at the article talkpage about the above discussion, for future reference. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

With the lack of any verified information, this is probably the best we can do at this point. Thanks, I appreciate your help - I was in over my head on this one! --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

My answer Here User_talk:Ranjithsiji#Question_about_Shiva_sculpture--Ranjithsiji (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC).

@Abecedare: I am puzzled with @Mohanbhan reverts and assertions on the Carvaka article. He has also changed my text in one of my edits on the talk page here. Your intervention and guidance there would help. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The issues at Talk:Carvaka would be much easier to resolve is editors AGFed a bit more and focused on the sources and content, instead of (often wrongly) questioning others' motives and ideology. I'll drop a note at the Mohanbhan's and Soham's talk-page about this. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on the canvassing allegation i made on Talk:Cārvāka with respect to these two diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abecedare&diff=670310573&oldid=670252668
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan&diff=670303322&oldid=670302373

You are an involved party here with respect to the canvassing allegation and so etiquette demanded that you let some other editor or Admin hat that section if it needed to be hatted. I am pinging Mohanbhan since he has agreed with me that what Sarah was doing constituted canvassing. Soham321 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Since you are already discounting my opinion as an "involved party", it would be best if you asked an experienced editor/admin you actually trust if Sarah's actions were canvassing, or if my hatting was unwarranted. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking User:I hack HanselJolteon. However, shouldn't we also block the user's other sock accounts, I hate HanselJolteon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and HanselJolteon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), too, to put a stop to the vandal's mischief?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked I hate HanselJolteon. I considered but refrained from blocking HanselJolteon for now, just in case the other two accounts are a Joe job. Slim chance, but either the main account edits non-disruptively in which we all are fine; or not, in which case they get blocked. Will drop them a note though. Abecedare (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is according to rules .. e.g. see Air University GreenCricket (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@GreenCricket: Feel free to discuss and establish consensus for it then (say, at WT:INB since so many Indian educational institutions are involved). Undiscussed mass moves of established articles is disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@GreenCricket: I have started discussion but can i ask you why you have moved all pages to their respective positions without following any rule of Wikipedia which says articles city names must be in brackets e.g. Benazir Bhutto University where universities city names are in brackets so why Indian institutes articles have that form, GreenCricket (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what naming "rule" you are talking about, but in any case you can discuss that at the move discussion. Right now I am just following WP:BRD and undoing your undiscussed moves. PS: Look at {{reply}} for how to use the notification template. you don't need to use it on my talk page to notify me, since I'll get a "New message" notification in any case. Abecedare (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Steve Smith (disambiguation) also includes Steve Smith (cricketer, born 1989) who is a notable Australian test cricketer but has his birth year in brackets but you don't want institutes city names in brackets as I'm there to construct Wikipedia GreenCricket (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You really need to read and understand the wikipedia article naming conventions in detail, especially the Disambiguation part, before you do any more moves. In the example you cite the double disambiguation is used in the Steve Smith (cricketer, born 1989) article only because there are other persons named Steve Smith including another cricketer.

In the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (and analogous) case though, that is both its common name, and a natural disambiguation that would have been preferable over Indian Institute of Technology (Delhi) even if it were not (although in the latter situation, a comma would have been used before Delhi). Abecedare (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I'm already known of them but can you explain about Benazir Bhutto University whose some similar named articles cities are in brackets. GreenCricket (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University (Sheringal) could possibly moved to Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University Sheringal or Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal (depending upon how they are conventionally referred). But please don't undertake such a move without discussion. Start a WP:RM discussion on the article talkpage and let those who know more about the subject weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Abecedare - I've bitten off more than I can chew by volunteering to help improve the following article before I looked at it: Sant_Longowal_Institute_of_Engineering_and_Technology. I'm okay with copy editing, but this one needs far more information that is way over my head. Any suggestions? Atsme^📞📧 20:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that additional sources would be helpful and often are hard to find for such educational institutions, which are often mentioned in the press but seldom have anything comprehensive written about them (unless there is a controversy). That said, it would be good to simply clean-up the article to read better and remove whatever is excessively promotional, or unverified/dubious. That way we (and the reader!) have a clearer picture of what is truly known, and even if we are unable to find sources and expand the article ourselves, the next person who comes to edit the article will have a better base to start. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect RamanujaDasa is WP:NOTHERE. Look at this foolishness: "rev not adhering to Wikipedia policies WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Verifiability. WP:NPOV". Reverting properly cited material (flattering material to boot) about his guruji and labeling it as all kinds of BLP rulebreaking. @Soham321: is definitely not breaking those policies. Ogress _smash! 07:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that they have been blocked for a week. I don't think it is an issue of sincerity but ability to edit neutrally in this area. A topic ban is likely to be needed. But lets wait and see if they change or voluntarily desist from the articles on their return. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare I had a question ,is blurb of author is reliable source according to Wikipedia?Honi02 talk 17:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Honi02: Depends exactly on what author, book and blurb you are talking about, but in general, blurbs should be treated as self-published and promotional material, ie, ok for non-controversial facts (author was born... has written two other books... etc; basic plot or thesis points) but any excessively promotional details should be taken with a pinch of salt, and they don't contribute much to establish notability. You can also look at previous RSN discussions on the topic; I haven't browsed them myself, but would be surprised if they say anything too different.

PS: The yellow in your signature is very hard to read on white background, which is common on wikipedia talkpages under default settings. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

HeyAbecedare what if blurb contain early life,education and other little personal stuff about author .Can Author autobiography at Wikipedia can be cited with blurb information about his personal life.

I am soory if you find yellowish font unconfertable ,I hope now you must find it much better?Honi02 talk 05:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the conditions listed under WP:ABOUTSELF are satisfied. Of course, more independent sources are preferable. Also note that besides reliability, there may be concerns about due weight, ie if no secondary source has bothered to note a detail, whether wikipedia should mention it. Judging this requires greater context than I have from your question, and if contentious, the issue is best discussed on the article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, there is a funny kind of slow edit war going on at the Sarama page, regarding the literal use of the word "bitch". What can we do about this? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be routine back and forth, which I am sure the editors can settle amongst themselves (ie, if they even decide to debate it any further). As for the content issue itself: as usual, best to see how sources address the issue. Abecedare (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I came across this edit and then on looking at the editor's contributions it appears that they've been spamming pieces by the same author across multiple articles. Not sure about the site, it claims to be a non-profit think tank. But the same author's writings have been spammed as references from Hinduism to Eve Teasing to Forecasting, can you take a look? —SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I got my answer here: TK Rajesh is a R&D engineer based in Bangalore and writes on the ‘convergent triumvirate of Indian nationalism, Indian culture and Indian religion, so quite obviously these have to go.—SpacemanSpiff 02:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The South Asia Analysis Group (guess who started the article), is essentially a glorified group-blog run by some ex mid-level government bureaucrats (on second thought, that well may be definition of a think-tank :)). Some trivial mentions in the media of the form "X of the SAAG, said that...", and some (fringey) media claims that it is a RAW outfit etc, but didn't find any real write up about the group. A few of its papers that have been independently cited may be usable as references on wikipedia, but most of the references are likely to be refspam. Abecedare (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course he did. Coming to think of it, do you think OccultZone could be Kelkar? —SpacemanSpiff 03:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Too far back for me to recall Hkelkar's editing style and make a match. But wouldn't be surprised. Abecedare (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is getting a little weird: this editor adds the refspam, then this one adds a second author. There's obviously something that doesn't meet the eye around this. —SpacemanSpiff 03:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think COI is a given under the circumstances, and seeing the similarity in the (narrow) focus and usernames, I would guess that the Quantres and Datawhiz are sock accounts. Btw here is the author's website, which shows no education or peer-reviewed publications in the fields he is being cited on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Kelkar has been mentioned before in this regard; I dare to be quite sure that OZ/B goes back many years. With all his shortcomings, he was a way too good editor to be a simple beginner. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's high time the article goes to FAR and I plan to do so, albeit four years after Dana and I agreed to list out problems to take it to FAR :) I've posted a high level problem list on the article talk page, and am doing a detailed problem analysis here. Feel free to chime in at the talk page and/or add to the list. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A two minute check confirms the issues you pointed out (see my comment at article talkpage). Are there any active editors in the area who are able/interested in improving the article during FAR? If the process ends up with the same article, only with the star removed, that will be unfortunate. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, this is what got me into the Gyan mess unfortunately. I doubt it, there were tons of image copyvios until a little while ago when I noticed it, and they were in and out until a few days back when I had them deleted. I've also asked dab to comment on it, as he will be quite brutal on all the poppycock that has crept into the ethnicity sections. Unfortunately not, I think. While it can be improved during FAR/FARC (and I hope to do a bit), I don't think it's a sustainable FA in the sense that there's no one to manage it, unlike India, Kolkata, Preity Zinta etc etc. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Flag Boy might be back. It might also be worthwhile looking into this chap who has interests in Islamic flags (amongst other subjects) and shares a similar username pattern.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Calm321's edits are certainly an issue, but he may not be a sock of Mughal Lohar, but just another editor who added the images in good faith. Can try reverting and exaplaining the issue to them (can point to the discussion at Talk:Flag of the Mughal Empire), and see if they choose to acquiesce/discuss/edit-war... Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for looking into the matter.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Main_line.2C_Sections.2C_branch_lines. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't know much about the topic (what are railway junction stations exactly?) Will listen in to the discussion and comment if I have anything to contribute. Abecedare (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Gurdaspur attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IST. 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) 08:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Jim Carter 10:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I feel like today I might be running out of admins who know something of the problems re: India articles. Truth only 1 is quite obviously editing Shakya while logged out and their last edit summary shows they have no intention of stopping. There is discussion about the hatnote issue on the article talk page but this has been going on since 2013 (where the other side of the issue arose at Kachhi).

I know it is painful to read all the bumpf but perhaps you could at least look at the recent Truth only 1 + IP edits of the last hour or so at Shakya? - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Psshhw, 3RR + obvious sock-puppetry + edit-summaries such as this one (the last two sentences; the first one is par for the course) made this an easy one. :)

No opinion on the hatnote itself (I'll need additional coffee to even figure out the nuanced variations being discussed). Am confident that you + Joshua + MahenSingha will be able to resolve it amongst yourself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: What's the prior probability that an editor with "truth" in their name edit-wars to right great wrongs? 0.9? Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and yep! Although I've yet to come across any account in the Indic topic area that has that word in their username and survives here, so you may be erring on the low side even with that figure! - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not a participant in the hatnote discussion at Shakya, so you don't need to convince me either ways. You did have ample opportunity to make your case to other editors interested in the topic, but you have wasted it in edit-warring and sock-puppetry, over a period of several years. Now unfortunately you have run out of chances, and it would be best if you found another hobby. I trust that the editors on the page, who have shown exemplary patience and judgment while dealing with your disruptions, will be able to research the topic for themselves and arrive at a reasonable solution as far as wikipedia is concerned. Please move on. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thats not gonna happen. Will fight until we all know the truth and accept the facts and evidences without making a prior biased opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.228.43.134 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Please see this Shakya related edit at Ogress`s talk page. JimRenge (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had some personal attacks lately on my user page and talk page, mostly redacted by kind editors, but if you wanted to partially edit-protect my page I'd be glad. Ogress _smash! 02:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

...in The Times of India -- [The Vandals of Wiki, albeit playing second fiddle to me! —SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

....clipping - NQ (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Congrats both of you for featuring in the news, its nice that national media is taking notice of your good work. It will definitely inspire whole community. Best luck and thanks. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Can now retire in peace. :) The funny thing though is that before clicking, I wasn't sure which side of the vandal-divide TOI-reporting would have placed me. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I was quite apprehensive at first too. To think I came across this when I was searching for a mirror. Thanks NQ for that, will come in handy to frame. Thanks Human. —SpacemanSpiff 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have left a message on India Talk Page regarding images for Ancient India section, do help me contribute to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.204.211 (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Replied.

Btw, if you look at the article and talk-page archives, you'll see that images is a contentious issue, with everyone having their favorites that *must* be included without necessarily taking due-weight, image quality and overall balance (regional, period, subject) into account. The current selection was decided after a lengthy discussion with wide participation. That is the reason changes are resisted until wide consensus for a change is established. So be patient as the process plays out. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pebble101:. Reagrding this issue: It is probably a side-effect of web caching. Try these tips the next time you face such issues. (Replying here so as not to distract the discussion on Talk:India from article-related matters). Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help regarding issues with web cache, Abecedare. Would it be okay to add Ajanta cave image in Ancient India section? do let me know in Talk:India, Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Ok,I will take care of that,thank you :).I will try to update Pingali Venkayya without copy pasting things :DDD thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Haxxorsid (talk • contribs) 16:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Haxxorsid: OK. Perhaps though you should slow down and read through WP:FIRST to get an idea of how to cite and summarize sources to comply with wikipedia's core content policies of verifiability and neutral point of view. Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but right now you are making some newbie errors, due to which your edits are being repeatedly reverted. Being a bit more circumspect will make it more probable that you edits "stick". Also don't forget to leave edit-summaries for your edits, and sign your posts on talkpages (I realize that this is a lot of jargon and instructions; hence the advice to slow down). Let me know if you have any specific questions. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: OK.Thank you :)Haxxorsid (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The guy who posted on my page that you redacted, who also attacked other users, is apparently sleeping as Binhash (talk · contribs). I know he's an evading sock you've been chasing, but I don't know which ... and since your redacted my page I can't tell! Check his (four) edits, especially the last one. Ogress _smash! 18:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano had revdelled the edit to your userpage and blocked the user who had made it. Without knowing the background I can't say if this user is related, but in any case I have indeffed this account given the clear trollishness of their last three edits. Abecedare (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)