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.
Whether it is intentional or not, your huge warning about edit warring can be interpreted by a reasonable person as being aggressive and edit warring. You could have noticed that I've stepped back from the article and used the talk pages and did not repetitively put back material. Furthermore, you put your big warning not even the same day as the editing in the article and I did no editing to the India article today so I could observe it.
Some with less restrain or bigger tempers could interpret your big red warning as hostile or even disruption on your part by creating a hostile Wikipedia environment.
I am telling you this so that you may reconsider when you do it to someone else. Courtesy goes a long way but aggressiveness is the cause to many administrator type disputes, as some of the noticeboards prove. Let's work together to improve Wikipedia and treat everyone with kindness and respect, Mr. Dare! This will help everyone and Wikipedia! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
1821 25 Sept India article, sentence about Goa (a disputed territory) placed after text about disputed territories
1838 25 Sept, removed
1909 25 Sept, 1821 edit put back but added references (thought that was the problem as the 1838 edit had no talk page explanation)
1919 25 Sept, talk page discussion started by me regarding 1909 edit by me
1912 25 Sept, 1909 edit remobed by Abecedare citing in the edit summary "revert undue, pov, and poor sourced"
1952 25 Sept, talk page Abecedare but objects to linking Goa with China/Pakistan and the use of a Lonely Planet reference
2327 25 Sept, as a result of talk page discussion, the reverted Goa text is NOT put back but Goa is added as a now reduced to a phrase, not even a sentence, with link for more info and reference to prove it happened, and with no link the China/Pakistan but rather placed in a new area about de-colonialisation. This satisfies the objection the Abecedare mentioned in the talk page. Abecedare might not have liked it, but I cannot read his mind, only his talk page comments (which it complies with). Summary: new location in the article, not linked with China/Pakistan, better reference used, very short/only a phrase, not even a sentence.
0256 26 Sept, Abecedare: revert, later states in talk page that Abecedare doesn't think Goa is important enough, a claim refuted by Gaunkers of Goa.
Analysis:
1. didn't put the text back with China/Pakistan anymore as per Abecedare wanted.
2. found a better reference as Abecedare wanted.
3. Always kept on coming up with suggestions for improvement and compromise while Abecedare is firm on having his way, no exceptions.This is dangerous as an administrator because it can quickly turn into bullying.
4. Abecedare, himself, is involved and threatening block when he should also be threatening himself, too, as he is an involved party.
I am happy to discuss the content issue on the article talk page, and also consider your warning-template suggestions below to be useful. However, it is not going to be productive to rediscuss the sequence of past events at India/Talk:India, and the 3RR warning that you got. If you still believe that the warning was not appropriate (as opposed to objections to the language of the warning template), may I suggest that you consult any experienced editor or admin whom you trust and ask them to review the situation ? Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Warning template discussion
Like it or not, the warning template is harsh except for unmistakenable edit/revert/edit/revert situations.
Using a template warning is no excuse. You must always be responsible for what you sign your name to.
Instead of this:
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on India. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
Consider the following, which I may make into an alternate warning template:
We currently appear to be engaged in an edit/revert cycle in the article, India. Note that there is a three-revert rule that prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator blocking an editor from editing.
...or if one objects to "we", then...
I would like to inform you of an important Wikipedia rule about edit/revert cycles, which seem to be happening in the article, India. Note that there is a three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator blocking an editor from editing.
Both of these avoid the "you are committing a crime, you are disruption, you will be blocked" when there could very well be an explanation or even a talk page discussion started.
Does anything that I'm writing about the warning template make sense? Don't you think this might be a useful addition to Wikipedia? I hope we can have some friendly and productive discussion about this section. This would be very nice and show that we are both reasonable people, not hardheads! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I actually like your second suggest ("I would like to inform you of an important Wikipedia..."), which has a less confrontational tone that the current choice. It may need to be made a bit more concise, and we may need to be explicit that the person receiving this message is on the verge of (or has broken) the WP:3RR rule - but it is a good starting point for discussion.
However, I have not been involved in crafting the standard user warning templates, so my talk page may not be the best forum to discuss the suggestions. I would highly recommend that you copy your message to the WT:UW page or even the talk page of WP:3RR, where editors more involved with the issue will be able to provide feedback and hopefully proceed to actual implementation. Who knows: our minor kerfuffle may lead to a change that will benefit all future users. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, the first time I saw your signature at some talk page a few months back, I had to do a double take to make sure that it was not me! :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
After seeing some of your edits, I would like to inform you of an important Wikipedia rule about edit/revert cycles. In particular, this seems to be happening in the article, India. Note that there is a three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator blocking an editor from editing.
How about this? It is a reminder, but a bit stronger than a general informational message. However, there is a subtle disclaimer ("seems") to cover something that the offending editor may have written in the talk pages but we might have missed. If you concur with the language, I'll suggest it as an alternate, sort of a warning 3b, not a replacement of warning 3. If you don't concur, let me know what changes you think are useful. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are the changes I would make to the current {{Uw-3rr}} template:
Change "engaged" to "involved" in the first sentence. I think it is useful to come directly to the point, since otherwise the central point may be lost. However by using "involved" the user doesn't feel that it is necessarily they alone who is being blamed. (The word "appear" in the sentence, serves the purpose of being a disclaimer like "seem" that you suggest.)
Rewrite the last sentence, "Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing" since it states as a fact that the user is being disruptive, while that is not always the case. Also the second person pronouns unnecessarily personalize the block threat (although I can see arguments that this is by design!). My preferred wording would be something like, "Please reconsider your actions on the page, as editing that is considered disruptive can lead to users being blocked.", which requests the editor to re-think their behavior rather than simply threatening them with a block.
That said, discussing this among ourselves is not very useful (except as a mental exercise), since any changes to these well-established templates requires much wider consideration and consensus - especially from members of the community who have given such matters much thought. Therefore, it would be best to take your proposal to WT:UW or WT:3RR, where discussion can lead to actual change. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy Deepavali தீபாவளி வாழ்த்துக்கள்
I don't have your talk page watchlisted but I do check talk pages where I've left messages for a few days after the discussion is finished. I've left you a message on your RFA as #70. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Great to see a WPINDIA article at FAC after so long. I expect to be busy during the week, but will read the article and provide feedback over the weekend. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I would have blocked him for a lot longer than 3 hours, given that every one of his edits is vandalism or junk, and that he appears to be a sock. Unless he's IP-hopping, in which case it probably doesn't matter. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It is an IPsock of banned user Light current (talk·contribs), who you seem to have angered somehow. :-) Given his long history of socking I am sure he is IP hopping, especially since he created another sock to vandalize my userpages after that. Best to just WP:RBI such trolls. Abecedare (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks interesting at first glance and should be fun reading, especially since I have heard of only a few mythological characters mentioned in the article. However, it may be a few days till I can get to it, since I have two other reviews pending! Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Gandhi
Hi, could you take a look at this and following if you're interested? Of course Gandhi did and said many weird things as part of his "experiments", but it's not necessary to include them all in excruciating detail. (The section also has some POV issues; "became public knowledge" sounds as if it had been kept secret, etc.) I expect that the article talk page history has some discussion owing to which this was removed in the first place, but I'm getting weary of editing popular articles because of all the tug-of-war required. :) Shreevatsa (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the issue should be covered in the article but the current length is undue, and separate section is unjustified. I have added my comments to the article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I think too, and tried to do, but it was immediately undone. Oh well. [BTW, wrt the lead of Jallianwala Bagh massacre: did it involve a "peaceful gathering" or a "nationalist protest"? I don't know, and haven't enough time to get to the bottom of it. :-)] Shreevatsa (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we have broad agreement on the MKG page; now it is more of a matter of implementation and fine tuning. As for Jallianwala Bagh, it could have been a "peaceful nationalist protest". :-) I have to be away from the computer soon, but will take a look at the two articles in the next day or so. User:Fowler&fowler is also be a good resource to consult about the latter article, and Indian history in general. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Also I was unaware of the not being able to strike that out; I assumed it was unimportant as the dispute was already being solved. Thanks for the info. Marx01Tell me about it01:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll look over the discussion, and give the organization some more thought. Another tentative idea: It may be useful to move/split the Relations with other religions and the British Government section too, and merge the information about the Muslim and Parsi followers in the Followers section; but then I am not sure where the Reginald Heber related information will go. Let me simmer over the issue for the next day or two, and then get back to you on the PR or article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the primary editors of Swaminarayan AroundTheGlobe is a little busy, thus all issues can not addressed now. Suggestions about reorganization are most welcome, possibly on Talk:Swaminarayan: like suggestions about "You may need an earlier section devoted to the topic of avatar. The corresponding criticism should be included in that section too, instead of being spun off into a stand-alone "Criticism" section that is deprecated by many FA reviewers (me too)" and your above comments. Thanks --RedtigerxyzTalk05:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Malware
Did you see the AIV report?[1] A user you blocked is not just a vandal, but is linking to a page that has malware. I'm particularly interested in ensuring the site is blocked from being added to pages. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
They are unattributed copies of mainspace articles. Can it be a speedy or should it go to MfD? If neither, then I'll just remove the categories from the pages. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If not being attributed to wikipedia is the only problem with these articles (as it seems), that can be easily remedied by either adding an attribution on the corresponding talk-subpage, or even by making a dummy edit with edit-summary "The content of this article were copied from India etc". As you say, the categories do need to be excluded, and any free-use images also should be commented out.
Besides that, there may be no harm in just leaving these articles in the userspace since the user is inactive but in good standing, and there is no sign of ill-intention or use here (is there ?). I don't think it is even an issue of saving wikimedia "hard-disk space" since even deleted articles are not really deleted from the database! Let me know, if there is some issue here, which I have overlooked. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No major issues, I just find it odd that large copies of articles are on user space for no reason, which is why I wanted to check before I tagged etc. I'll just remove the cats. I'm guessing you meant, non-free use images? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff21:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr administrator. It appears that you have ended up doing some big injustice without checking the facts. Peryou blocked anon User: 32.177.111.155 simply because he was trying to protect wikipedia??? Please correct this error otherwise your injustice/blocking comments are going to harm both innocent editors in their future as well. It can basically kill those innocent editors’ zeal to work on Wikipedia.
It was actually the reporting user User:Neutralhomer who ruthlessly suppressed others voice and kept on removing the referenced text by blatantly refusing to accept the wp:rs reliability of various internationally known newspapers and a very notable google book which is already part of wikipedia, i.e. Reduced to Ashes (book). User:Neutralhomer refused to accept following references only because he did not like them:
And please look at his edit summaries/lies in this matter.
Edit 1 – edit summary “Google Books isn't a very reliable source. Find a better source than that..”
edit 2 – edit summary “Reverted 1 edit by 32.177.111.155 identified as vandalism to last revision by Neutralhomer”
Edit 3 – edit summary “Reverted 1 edit by 32.177.111.155 identified as vandalism to last revision by Neutralhomer”
If editor 32.177.111.155 participated in the edit war then User:Neutralhomer also did the same, and both reverted each other’s versions exactly same number of time (3 times). {A humble question, why only one ditor was blocked and why not the reporting editor who actually lied in his edit summaries and violated WP:POV by pushing his own version and did destruction of the article by killing world famous references}. It appears 32.177.111.155 actually stopped editing Labh Singh after three reverts to avoid violating wp:3rr. If he owned 2nd IP 209.183.55.115 as well, then he could have done the same through his 2nd IP while staying within wikipedia policies. It means he was not related to the 2nd IP at all.
Reporting user, himself mentioned that User: 209.183.55.115 is licensed to Concord, CA and User: 32.177.111.155 is licensed to Los Angeles. How can they be sockpuppets when both of these cities are 6-7 hours of drive from each other? And it usually takes 1.5 hours of flight time if you want to fly from one city to another.
Also how can they be sockpuppets when User: 209.183.55.115 never participated in the edit war but instead he simply warned and warned reporting editor against violation of Wikipedia policies. Is simple warning constitute sockpuppetry?
It appears that actual vandal Neutralhomer was able to miss-use communication gap between Wikipedia administrators to violate Wikipedia policies and get some honest editors blocked.
First he ruthlessly deleted the text + world famous references which he didn’t like – *Proof 1, *Proof 2, *Proof 3.
Then once he received warnings – Proof 1 and Proof 2, he tried to suppress the opponents by contacting an administrator Proof 1, Proof 2, Proof 3 and every time he failed Proof 1, Proof 2 so while hiding this fact that he has already contacted an administrator but ‘could not get success, he went to administrator’s noticeboard to point towards AIV so that he could get desired results from some other administrator. He even lied that city of Concord and city of Los Angeles are next to each other to achieve his goals (ASAP) from some non-US administrators before some US based administrator could read his lies by the morning in the US. And finally he achieved what he desired.
It appears that Admin User:Abecedare has ended up doing some big injustice without checking the facts. Per he has blocked anon User: 32.177.111.155 simply because he was trying to protect Wikipedia. Please correct this error otherwise this injustice and blocking comments are going to harm both innocent editors ( User: 32.177.111.155 and User: 209.183.55.115 ) and their zeal to work on wikipedia and their future contributions/history as well.
It was mentioned that User: 209.183.55.115 is licensed to Concord, CA and User: 32.177.111.155 is licensed to Los Angeles. Both of these cities are 6-7 hours of drive from each other? And it usually takes 1.5 hours of flight time if you want to fly from one city to another.
User: 209.183.55.115 never participated in the edit war but instead he simply warned and warned reporting editor Neutralhomer against violation of Wikipedia policies. Is simple warning constitute sockpuppetry?
If 32.177.111.155 had owned 2nd IP 209.183.55.115 as well, then he could have participated in the edit war through 2nd IP while staying within WP:3RR. It means he was not related to the 2nd IP at all.
Why Neutralhomer’s edits constitute violation of Wikipedia policies
User:Neutralhomer ruthlessly suppressed others voice and kept on removing the referenced text by blatantly refusing to accept the wp:rs reliability of various internationally known newspapers and a very notable google book which is already part of wikipedia, i.e. Reduced to Ashes (book). User:Neutralhomer refused to accept following references only because he could not like them:
Editor Neutralhomer cunningly mis-used miss-communication between Wikipedia admins
Once Neutralhomer received warnings – Proof 1 and Proof 2, he tried to suppress the opponents by contacting an administrator Proof 1, Proof 2, Proof 3 and every time he failed Proof 1, Proof 2 so while hiding this fact that he has already contacted an administrator but ‘could not get anons declared socks’, he went to administrator’s noticeboard to point towards AIV so that he could get desired results from some other administrator. He even lied that city of Concord and city of Los Angeles are next to each other to achieve his goals (ASAP) from some non-US administrators before some US based administrator could read his lies by the morning in the US. And finally he achieved what he desired.
Why Administrators should reconsider User: 32.177.111.155’s block and blocking history
Facts - If editor 32.177.111.155 participated in the edit war then User:Neutralhomer also did the same, and both reverted each other’s versions exactly same number of time (3 times). {A humble question, why only one ditor was blocked (who tried to restore WP:NPOV references and why not the reporting editor who actually lied in his edit summaries and violated WP:POV by pushing his own version and did destruction of the article by killing world famous references}.
Zeal – It will harm innocent wp:npov editors’s zeal to work on Wikipedia. It will demoralize him and User: 209.183.55.115 .
Future lessons – It will give future lesson to cunning editors from playing with wiki policies and administrators.
--I have never contributed to wikipedia prior to this day but I love reading wikipedia articles/stories especially about sikhism/India. After reading above mentioned proofs, I have felt somewhat compelled to say that you were wrong. You did not do right by blocking several innocent users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.187.168.78 (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Your decision was NOT fare. It was a hasty/wrong decision and you have almost spoiled wiki career of several editors. If you had accepted your mistake in time then you could have atleast saved another innocent editor from getting blocked. You are unsure about vandalism fact and those editors can not be called socks, then what was the point to do all this. Please remember! others might like wikipedia as you do...then why did you do this sir? ... you can still fix all this if you care to...--32.177.97.110 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say controversial! If he's a US citizen, that's his right and it doesn't bother me one way or another. Personally, I saw U.S. citizen on the Nobel site this lunchtime (Spanish time), which is why I added it to his page. Later, that comment was removed from the Nobel site, and only his UK residence appears. That makes me think that the US citizenship was a simple mistake by the Nobel Foundation (these things happen, as we all know). Given that the passport(s) that he holds is irrelevent to his great achievements, I'd say we just shut up about it until we know a little bit better, no?! Physchim62(talk)15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, congratulations on becoming an admin! May you use your tools, either well or badly but always neutrally, for the benefit of the encyclopedia! Physchim62(talk)15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; but it yet remains to be seen if the creation of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize article will earn more hoorahs or brickbats (I am sure Obama is wondering the same with respect to the award itself :-) ) Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that ANI had to be semi-protected to keep a socking IP out. Will remove the protection soon, unless theer are renewed flare ups. Abecedare (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You recent block was inadequate, considering that this is a completely unacceptable real world threat. He should be blocked indefinitely, not with an expiration. Perhaps he might apologise in an unblock request, otherwise, he is not welcome to continue here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
In combination with his other edits around the time I read the edit as a generic invective rather than an actual real-world threat, although I can see your interpretation too. In my experience forced apologies are not really useful but if the user does continue in this vein after the current block ends, he won't be editing here for long. Abecedare (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
While there are arguably several grounds on which the user can be blocked indefinitely at present, we should first attempt to lead the user in a more productive direction instead and use the heavy-handed approach only if the goodwill is not reciprocated. It would thus be best to wait to see how the user edits after he returns. If he resumes his prior incivility or harassment, he will be blocked. If on the other hand he chooses to edit collaboratively, he can be asked to change his username and the problem can be handled in a less confrontational manner. Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Congrats from myself, especially for having an unopposed RfA! You're one of the strongest candidate's we've had in a while; I have every confidence that you'll continue to handle decisions and potential conflicts with excellent calm and good judgement. :) JamieS9320:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all! ... but I am a bit confused and disappointed. I haven't received the missives and access codes from the Supreme Cabal yet, and I am still having to wear my pants one leg at a time. At least the bumps on my head are developing nicely, although to be frank, that feels just like an headache. Have to rush off now but will keep you abreast of developments. :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks YM and Bwrs. It was smoother and more congenial than I expected. And it turned out to be unanimous after the single oppose changed his vote - that was icing on the cake, although we shouldn't read much into it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.
Congrats, Abecedare. 111/0/0! Never seen anything like that before. Either you truly have no enemies, the likely scenario of course, or the opposers were snuffed out by RegentsPark's goon squad before they reached the polling booth. :) If it is the latter, please let me know; I might need that muscle on some problem pages myself. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all. F&f, RP keeps all the cabal secrets for himself, so I am as much in the dark as you. Nvineeth, if you foresaw this, couldn't you have at least told me! :-) Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations Abecedare . I knew you will make a good admin... sorry I wasnt much around these days but I just didnt missed your RFA. Best wishes !!!! -- TinuCherian -
So strange that my oppose at your RfA ended up in the Support section. (Just kidding.) Congratulations! The results didn't surprise me. -- Atama頭19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Saw you on AIV. Congrats on adminship. Sorry I wasn't around to voice my support but I am certain that you will do a fantastic job. Best regards -- Samir03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Right now I am in the tool testing stage, and just helping here-and-there. Please do provide feedback if you see me making newbie mistakes or judgment errors. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! Look forward to seeing you around in a position of more authority Bows down in reverence :-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Very belated congratulations on a very well deserved successful RfA! The official tally (111/0/0) and closing date (10/01) were oddly binary for someone who could never be accused of binary (black and white) thinking. But it is strange enough that I'm looking into End Times prophecies, Nostradamus, and the Mayan Calendar to see what all of this might mean. Best of luck with the shiny new buttons. Priyanathtalk16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, question about policy and rules
Topic 1.
In my experience forced apologies are not really useful but if the user does continue in this vein after the current block ends, he won't be editing here for long. Abecedare (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not research the background of the matter but what you wrote is very wise advice. You are a wise administrator.
Topic 2.
Remember our little disagreement which led to agreement and smiles? I'm asking you the following question because of your wisdom. WP:AN would not be the right place to ask.
Topic 2A.
I was looking through the list of unblock requests as I am counseling a blocked user, Gaunkers of Goa (I'm asking him not to make threats and not to repeatedly ask for unblock otherwise his user talk page will be page protected. I want him to alert me of references on Goa for self education and possibly inserting from 0 to 1 sentence (no more, maybe not even adding anything) about Goa.
When I discovered that there was a policy issue about someone else who is blocked, I asked an administrator to clarify the policy for me. I was not asking for unblock of that person. In response, the administrator almost accuses me of being connected with that person since he feels that nobody would be interested in the matter otherwise.
You don't need to research the specific case. I'm just asking you in general. However, FYI, here are the quotes:
You wrote the following...
Secondly, as you can see from the policy contained in WP:COI, you would not be allowed to edit aricles about your own company. What else would you like to edit in wikipedia? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
So Mr. X, Founder of XYZ Tire Repair Garage, must never edit in the XYZ Tire Repair Garage article? I can see the logic but is that true (must never edit it)? If yes, just say so with no need for a lengthy explanation.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Above question:
___ Yes
___ No
Most recent response:
I remain unclear as to why, if you and user:Annmarieburnett are not connected, the question is relevant to you.
Possible translation:
You and her are socks and, if you don't shut up, you will be blocked and will rot in hell.
Suomi, I am not sure what action you are expecting of me, so I'll add some generic comments:
Editors are not forbidden from editing pages they have conflict of interest with. However they are strongly advised against it since it is typically bad both for the concerned wikipedia article, and also makes the editor and the subject liable to be at the receiving end of bad publicity if their conduct is reported in media.
Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and it cannot work if we assume the worst of others. That is the reason the acronym "AGF" is thrown around so much around here. In the exchange you outline above, Anthony perhaps shouldn't have jumped to suspecting you of being a sock. On the other hand, your interpretation of his remarks ("if you don't shut up, you will be blocked and will rot in hell") is even more overblown and not conducive to a civil and respectful editing environment.
Most importantly, we are all volunterring time here with the goal of building an encyclopedia through collaborative editing. Wikipedia is not a forum for general talk; it's not a place to right real-world wrongs; it's not an experiment in democracy, free-speech or justice; and it's not a place to go searching for inartful comments or actions (which are only too easy to find) and then be piqued by them.
I recommend that you focus on the content side of wikipedia, which is likely to be more satisfying to you, and is certainly better aligned with our primary goal here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your wise response. Content building should be a primary goal of all editors. It seems that some people do not do this. For example, a few administrators have become so active on the WP:ANI board or similar areas that they no longer write content. Vandals are similarly not contributors to good content in Wikipedia. As far as action, the only action requested was that you reply with wisdom, which you did. Happy Deepavali! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My user page
Thank you for your message on my talk page. I appreciate your concern regarding being collegial and civil to fellow editors. However, since the last activity on the Ramakrishna article was me being told by an administrator that I am not allowed to merely place the POV template on an article that absolutely, clearly, indefensibly POV...I guess I don't feel like I am included in the suppossedly collegial atmosphere here. None of the concerned editors mentioned on my user page have voiced a single word of dissent. They appear to be perfectly happy to leave the page dominated by religious dogma, with the academic, scholarly perspective unrepresented. So your concerns seem to be unshared by the editors involved. If you would like to help settle the dispute, please let me know. Thank you. — goetheanॐ18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I resent your aggressive mis-characterization of my concerns for article content as using Wikipedia as "a competition" and "tit-for-tat." I do not see Wikipedia that way. I have grave concerns over the content in Ramakrishna. I am sorry that you do not share my concern. — goetheanॐ21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a look and provide some feedback at the talk page? Based on the previous round, I've changed and expanded the critical reception section. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff23:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Will take a look this weekend. Is it nominated for GA yet ?
By the way, is the infobox image really pre-1949 ? RKN looks older than 43 years to me, and the claim is suspect. I had seen a lovely RKN portrait by a professional photographer on flickr sometime back. The image was copyrighted, but perhaps the photographer will be willing to release at least a lower resolution copy under CC-BY-SA. Worth asking. Abecedare (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll take it to GAN over the next couple of days, was waiting to tie up a few loose ends. The image is suspect, I didn't pay much attention to it until YM asked about it when I requested for feedback. It's been on the article for four years and every website that has an article on Narayan has that image listed as a public domain image, although that's likely due to the classification in Wikipedia. However, it could have been released to the public domain even if it was taken later - like this one, though I'm not sure. I've been trying to get an email address for Indian Thought Publications run by his granddaughter to ask her for a couple of pictures, but not one of my books has an email id or website, and google isn't helpful on that either. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff06:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I raised the pre-1949 issue only because the image page says that it qualifies under {{PD-India}}, which would apply only if the image was published before then (doubtful IMO). As far as I can see the image is taken from the cover of sahitya Akademi's R. K. Narayan: Makers of Indian Literature, which was first published the same year that the image was uploaded on wikipedia. That book in turn credits the Deccan Herald Archives for the cover photo (see back cover). Haven't been able to trace the provenance any further, but unless we have positive evidence that the image is old enough to be PD or was released as such, we need to delete it from wikipedia. Unfortunate, but we don't really have a choice. Lets ask the uploader though, before taking this path. Abecedare (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently quite a few people had the same question about this image. This, along with many other images uploaded by the same user have been taken to FfD and the user is aware already. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff06:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Not surprising. Back in 2004, people may have been more lax about copyright issues, and once uploaded, the images just "hang around" on wikipedia,r and spread all over the internet. Abecedare (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Most admins active in subcontinental stuff seem to have done it, even in late-2006, early-07. Just guessed the age of photo, assumed it was taken in the said country, and assumed it was published right away. Similar in Aus, assumed teh photo was taken in 1955 in Aus, eg, cricketers, when a lot were actually taken on tour in England where 70 years after death of photographer applies. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 07:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really surprising. It would have been disappointing if our sourcing standards and copyright enforcement had not improved as the project matured. Of course, we are still far from perfect, and the enforcement falls off rapidly once we move off (recent) FAs and GAs. Abecedare (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I've removed that image and added a different one (within the article, not infobox) and made the tweaks that YM suggested. Also, the article is at GAN now. Hopefully I get a reviewer soon :) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for GAN. Please take a look. I need suggestions on overall article, especially WP:ALT policy implementation, not yet fully understood it. --RedtigerxyzTalk03:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The article looks good at first glance. I have updated the alt-text for the 3 images; if you really want to get it checked, the person to contact is user:Eubulides. I'll read through the article and add my comments in a few days (am a bit tied up on and off wiki at present). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A few quick notes on the changes I made (for future refernce):
I removed the "black basalt" since it is not possible to tell that the idol is made of that stone from the picture itself. ideally the alt-text simply describes the image literaly
I added "idol" to the description since simply calling it a man, will make a blind person visualize a photograph of an actual man.
Remember that the alt-text is mainly meant to be machine-read for the blind. I doubt any of the standard software will be able to interpret both the Latin and the Devanagiri script, so adding the Marathi spelling is not of much use - at best the software will read out "Saint Kanhopatra (संत कान्होपात्रा)" as "Saint Kanhopatra, Sant Kaanhopatra in parenthesis".
On another note, "support" does seem to be the right word for the context; I too was concerned about "guidance of a parampara". Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I added the Marathi as the original text is given in inscription in "Accuracy" section in ALT. I have requested Eubulides to take a look. How can we reword the lead parampara sentence? --RedtigerxyzTalk06:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right about the alt text guidelines. The current version of the lede sentence on parampara seems ok to me. I'll read through the rest of the article in a few days and take care of any minor copyediting issues that I may see; if I have any larger questions, I'll post them on the talk page. From my first glance the writing and MOS seems fine overall. Abecedare (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The GA reviewer User:Nemonoman has requested comments on Hindu and India noticeboard for improvements/faults in the article. Can you spare some time for suggesting improvements? Thanks. --RedtigerxyzTalk17:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am going to be mostly tied-up with real-life work till Friday, but will read through the article and add my comments this weekend. Abecedare (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I know whats going on
You wont like the false but most of the admins out here are from another planet As per this where admin Pedro confesses being an alien a wiki admin and controlling our world and Tinu who has more time in a day than an average human being I think these people are using there powers to control our wikilife
Oh wait you are an admin too noooo -NotedGrantTalk18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested here that you be considered as a mentor for user:Mattisse. Although you had said earlier that you were busy, I wonder if you might reconsider. I think someone with your clarity and perspective is needed there. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint Fowler, but I would really prefer to devote the time I have on the content side of wikipedia as much as I can (which, in fact, hasn't been much lately!). Also in general, I think having one, or at most two, mentors would work better than having a larger team that ends up giving mixed messages, or being (inadvertently) played against each other. As a mentoree I couldn't imagine developing the required trust in a team of mentors; nor can I fathom how such a team can lay down a strict line in a sand if and when it is required. In short, I think expanding the monitoring committee would not be a good idea, and I would prefer to stay out anyways. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
