User talk:Abecedare/Archive 17

Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Bollywood

I've been watching the ongoing discussions on the talk page - pertaining to scripts - with initial interest, then amusement, followed by exasperation and now concern (due to the amount of bad blood it has begun generating, with allegations and counter-allegations being thrown around). It has been going on in circles for over a month now without any end or direction in sight and now seems to have reached a point of no return, as there appears to be absolutely no hope of the editors concerned reaching any consensus on the matter. After having consumed much space on the server, and wasting much productive time of the editors involved, I think it is time to invoke some community action - perhaps an RfC or even mediation - that will hopefully bring the existing discussion (more like an ugly war of words now) to a speedy close, resolve the issue for now and more importantly, restore focus to the core areas of the article requiring improvement (an attempt was recently made but seems to have gotten lost in the midst of all the mudslinging). What say? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it'll work but perhaps someone should step in and conduct a straw poll to see what support there is for "English only", "English/Devanagari", and "English/Devanagari/Nastaliq". There has been a lot of talk and I'm not sure if an RfC will clarify things or just make them murkier. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The situation seems to be getting worse now - a vicious series of personal attacks have broken out on the talk page. Does mediation have to be initiated by the parties themselves or can third parties (i.e. the community) step in? Also, I'm willing to conduct a straw poll, as RP suggested - would either of you be willing to moderate if things turn ugly or are attempted to be hijacked by any of the involved parties? Please let me know, and I'll go ahead (or not) accordingly. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that something needs to be done otherwise we're in danger of losing a couple of valuable editors. However, it seems that Abecedare already has the matter in hand (see below). --RegentsPark (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I somehow missed this whole thread on my talk page the last few days. Anyways:
I am skeptical of RFCs or straw polls working at this stage, since we'll still be left with the problem of closing either and determining consensus and I'm afraid they'll just generate much more circular arguments and heat. I am more hopeful of the mediation process, since the mediator can guide the discussion and hopefully help prevent it from getting circular, or uncivil. Since the parties seem willing, perhaps one of us can set the ball rolling (unless of course, everyone simply moves on - which would frankly be my preferred solution). Volunteers ? Abecedare (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

regarding 8800 verse claim in "jaya"

thanks for giving that source,i think now rudra may give a neutral veiw

  • Here,The question is not to take any reference from any secondry sources,but it is to take a reference from reliable and authentic source,the source here mentioned by rudra is very old and not so much appresiable.you can easly see that author used a old critical version of mahabharata in 1967,because at that time not so much research had been done on mahabharata.if you see new version published after doing a lot of research by bhandarkar institute poona on behalf of which old version Gupta and Ramachandran gave that statement.bhandarker institute removed that verse because it was not present in the most of manuscripts they found.i think you are well aware of bhandarkar institute poona,because most of world scholar use this version as a mahabharata reference.
  • it will be preferable to use new research or article to show that claim,because no reknowned scholars like michael witzel have given such type of statement.so i will prefer you to use a secondry source from authentic and reknowned scholars,However i You want to keep this claim further in mahabharata article,then mention it seperately,because it contradicts with the statement that is given in 2nd paragraph of wikipeda mahabharat article,where it is claimed as 24000 verse as a intial version

--115.240.109.56 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

i think if you want to keep this claim behalf of some secondry article,then you should represent it as "At least three redactions of the text are recognized by some scholars",instead of "At least three redactions of the text are recognized".so that everybody may understand it is a scholar opinion,not a true fact in mahabharata itself.it will resolve the whole discussion.because it is represented with the facts that are saying about claims present in mahabharata--115.240.69.242 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that, and weasel words like "some" are not an answer anyway (see WP:WEASEL). As I wrote on the Talk:Mahabharata page, there are three issues that need to be untangled. Right now it looks like that the 8800 number is in (serious) doubt. This is distinct from whether there was a "Jaya" version at all (of unknown size), and from how many redactions have been detected in the text by scholars. rudra (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Replied on article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't sweat this right now (since the discussion has been constructive) but I do think our IP friend has had at least one account recently ;-) rudra (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
My curiosity is piqued (surely not Mkbdce (talk · contribs) ?!) but I agree that the discussion, though a bit wordy, is constructive (unlike at Manusmriti) and so there is not much point worrying about account identities. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Abecedare! i finally got source which contradicts 8800 verse claim,see Jhon Brockington contradicts it in his article,in this whole topic is disscused that how some scholars misinterpeted 8800 verse as a sepereate 8800 verse version as "jaya".I think it is enough for now,because this source cleary shows 8800 verses as a misinterpetation by some poor indian scholars.I hope now it will not a problem to delete this misinterpeted information.Thank you--Mayurasia 11:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and others that you added at Talk:Mahabharata. I think, by now, we all agree that the idea of three redactions - Jaya (with 8,800 verses), Bharata (with 24,00 verses) and finally the Mahabharata - while quite popular and widely cited, is not universally held. We need to decide how best to convey this academic dispute(s) succinctly and fairly in the article. I'll read through the references, think it over, and add my comments at the article talk page in the coming days (am a bit busy at the moment).
I appreciate your following up on my suggestion and getting an account, and for your patience with the discussion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

hi!Abecedare,i have done some changes in mahabharata aricle due to some unreferenced material,like ms spitzer dating,absence of virat parva in it from proper source,i gave Brockington reference for 8800 verse original veiw.If u think it is not suitable than edit it or revert.I will be grateful to you for guiding me.thank u--Mayur (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tweaked the text a bit to attribute the views and since discussion of secret verses meant to slow Ganesha seemed to be a distraction from the main point. I haven't taken a look at the Epic Undertakings book. Can you add the relevant quotes from it to the article talk page for future reference ?
A tip: it helps if the references are formatted to provide as much information as possible, and not left as naked links. You can look at the various citation templates such as {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} etc, or enable the gadget refTools in your account preferences (see under Gadgets -> Editing tools) to activate a form-based interface to enter the reference data. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging and guiding me,i want to inform you that this verse(refering 8800) has been removed by bhandarkar oriented institute poona,because it was found in very few manuscripts,this matter has also been discussed by Brockington,however this verse is present in gita press version,now suggest me either to add Brockington statement at talk page or gita press verse reference,i have also done some correction in your statement in mahabharata article,THank you--Mayur (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as you probably know Fitzgerald (pg. 155; footnote 11) discusses the prevalence of the Ganesha verse among the various manuscripts compiled by BORI. That however is not too relevant to our precis description in the Mahabharata article, since one could argue that only certain traditions chose to elliptically refer to the existence of the "original" 8,800 verse Jaya by adding a verse to MB itself (note: I am not actually arguing that; only demonstrating why undertaking our own analysis is risky business.) Since Mahabharata is a summary article that has to cover a lot of material, I think it suffices to just outline the various views about the early redactions without documenting the evidence and arguments for each view. The current article attempts that, but it can be tweaked based on other sources we discover: that's why I asked for the relevant quotation from the Epic Undertakings book. I don't think we need citations for the Ganesha verse itself (Crit. Ed. or GP version), since we are are primarily interested in it only so far as recognized scholars in the field interpret it to support their views on the issue. Let me know if this does not address the question you had in mind! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I just realized that Epic Undertakings is a compilation of papers presented at the 12th World Sanskrit Conference. In this case we need to cite the exact article along with it's authors and not ascribe the views to the editors. Can you specify the article title, authors and relevant quote at Talk:Mahabharata ? Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
In this listing of the papers, I don't see any title that suggests discussion of or focus on the redaction issue (the closest seems to be Fitzgerald's paper). Material is thus likely to be offhand and sound-bite-ish. rudra (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Muneo Tokunaga is also refering Brockington book,but he is the editor of final version of mahabharata by BORI,and he had removed this verse from new edition of BORI,see this Link--Mayur (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mayur, it is very difficult to discuss the issue unless we all can see what Prof. Tokunaga says exactly. Can you please provide the citation information and quotes, or we can remove the reference from the article, till it has been verified ? Incidentally, AFAIK, Prof Tokunaga is not an editor of the BORI crit. edition and didn't play a role in deciding what verses to include or remove from the core version; rather he was instrumental in creating an electronic copy of the BORI version. Those are very different tasks. Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my misinterpetation,thanks for giving me right information, the Exact article name is"Papers of the Twelfth World Sanskrit Conference, Vol. II. Epic Undertakings" edited by Edited by Robert P. Goldman and Muneo Tokunaga.see Reference1 or Reference2 for confirming author and book name. if this information is not sufficient,then remove the reference regarding Tokunaga.More exactly title of particular paper was "Bhisma's Discourse as a sokapanodana" and author was Muneo Tokunaga I am again extremly sorry for my mistake,thank u for giving me nice instruction.--Mayur (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide the actual quote from the paper as requested above and at Talk:Mahabharata ?
I'll be honest with you: to me it's becoming increasingly obvious that you haven't actually read this work you are referencing. This is an absolution no-no, and disappointing since it wastes a lot of all our time in trying to trace the source.
Aside: On wikipedia most of us edit pseudonymously, and don't have our real-world credentials to support our knowledge or credibility. All we have is the reputation our online identities build over time by the quality of our contributions, sources we cite, and our conduct. That, to a large extent, determines whether an individual's statements are taken at face value, scrutinized and verified independently, or distrusted barring evidence that says otherwise (yes, ideally each statement should be treated independent of the editor who makes it, but that is patently not the case, and is inefficient use of our resources). The upshot being, one needs to take care in ones edits, and more importantly be scrupulously honest in presenting material accurately and fairly (even if, especially if it contradicts ones position). You seem to be a knowledgeable editor with good instincts and much to contribute here, so I'd urge you to think this over. It will make not only make your contributions more valuable, but also your experience on wikipedia more pleasurable. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I've been on Wikipedia for over three years. And I've tried so much to make the quality of the project better or at least just good enough. While others spent their time adding scripts to satisfy their agenda, I was trying to make the best of what I could. Instead of edit warring, I better enjoyed my time yesterday creating Hindi film articles such as Judaai or Jahan Ara. This is according to me the spirit of Wikipedia and reflects the best of what I am doing here.

Today, someone violated a policy in a terribly extremist way and even admins are taking long time to conclude the clear verdict. It is terrible that a bureaucrat is assuming such bad faith on my part (Taxman), speaking of non-existent consensus (which I proved on the Bollywood talk page) and saying that I was edit warring, while it is actually the other user who did it. He ignored the fact that this user violated WP:CANVASS. I'm starting to think whether my time is well spent on Wikipedia.

Don't mind me. I just feel it is unbelievable that I'm fighting to prove something that is plain as day. I'm all for discussing the use of Urdu in Hindi films, its history, decline and varied presence in Hindi films. But could someone say that it is the language of Bollywood and as present as Hindi? Have you seen my analysis of the previous "consensuses" Anupam keeps mentioning? No, clearly no one wanted to hear. It is okay for them to cite random film posters and then ignore official film certificates (I spent hours checking film certificates). It is okay for them to cite some books and then ignore all those books and quotes I provided, ignore Google statistics, other editors' opinions.

I also do not think one discussion can reflect one decision for such a huge list of movies. This is far too inclusive. There's a great difference between Umrao Jaan and Omkara, so having one discussion concluding the fate of both is not the right way to go according to me. Shahid • Talk2me 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Replying to each of your paragraphs above:
  1. Completely agree. That is the reason I posted the note on your page!
  2. Sorry, but I think the rhetoric ("extremist", "terrible" ...) is overblown. I think the fact that the discussion has gone on for so long, and often in circles, has put tempers on the edge and resulted in a loss of perspective. (You are not the only one guilty of this IMO. Talk about "ethnic cleansing" etc is similarly disproportionate and undeserved.)
  3. This is a genuine content dispute, in which both sides have argued in good faith, and the result is not really clear-as-day on either sides. What's disappointing are the recent ill-feelings that have been expressed for both the other side's arguments, and the editors themselves; and the attempts to "win" the dispute on technicalities (eg, did a prior consensus exits or not ? what say a bureaucrat has in determining consensus ? did some someone break 3RR ? etc).
  4. That is a good point that should be considered. Since it is very unlikely at this stage that Anupam, Zora, you etc will be able to discuss the issue fruitfully among yourselves, a more structure discussion under the guidance of an uninvolved mediator is more likely to help reach an appropriate and mutually acceptable result.
As I have said before, I really don't care what consensus is reached on this issue, since I think hardly any reader will care whether the Nastaliq script is displayed or not (except for ones who are looking to detect bias in either direction). Therefore, IMO, the effect this discussion is likely to have on involved editors is much more harmful than any harm the presence/absence of the script can possibly cause. Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you very much. I agree with you. I would want to ask you what you think we should do in regard to my last point. I also don't quite understand how WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM work. Should a new discussion get started? What about the previous discussions? Shahid • Talk2me 09:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't think a new discussion should be started. I think Abecedare's decision and comments make perfect sense and is what I've been saying all along.... If it must continue to the point that either ANupam or Shahid "wins or loses" then take it to MEDCOM if you must but please lets NOT waste any more time on this issue.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Request

Dear Abecedare, thank you for your comment on my talk page and for your contributions to the current discussion at the Bollywood talk page. I agree with your statement and am willing to seek mediation on the issue. As I mentioned in the discussion, I have not touched a single new Bollywood related film article to add a new Urdu script, since this is the topic of the current discussion. I kindly asked Shahid to do the same, and so did the Wikipedia Administration/Bureaucracy. In his case, he should have not started to remove Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles until the current discussion was resolved. I only reverted Shahid's recent edits because they went against this mutual understanding and moreover was encouraged by two Wikipedia Administrators to do so. In other words, my reverts only put the articles in their original position, before the new discussion began. At the close of the administrative report, I fully agree that mediation should be sought in order to help peacefully resolve the current discussion. Thanks again for your concern. Best wishes, AnupamTalk 23:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Any advice?

... on what to do about what LuxNevada is doing at the Gautama Buddha article: [1]? Mitsube (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you start a discussion on the article talk page, so that LuxNevada has an opportunity to show that Lopez's views are idiosyncratic (in which case the views should be excluded as undue, or at least attributed to him inline), or you to argue that he/they represent the mainstream. If Lux refuses to discuss the issue or to follow the talk page consensus, and continues to revert, he can be blocked; but hopefully, other editors will chime in and a consensus reached and followed. I'll watchlist the article, though I don't expect that I'll be contributing to the content per se. Abecedare (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ganesha

Ganesha article is very visible (FA status, many links to it, popular deity, 1.5+ K hits) and always been attacked by anons. Can it be protected? --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am involved with the article and so cannot protect the page myself. You can ask User:RegentsPark, User:SpacemanSpiff to take a look or post at WP:RFPP. Since the vandalism on the page has been persistent but relatively slow-paced (2-3 incident/week), it will come down to the responding admin's judgment call. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Belated congratulations

I am often slow to get the news. Very best wishes on becoming an admin! Had I been active during your nomination I would have strongly supported it, but in reading the record it seems you were elected in a landslide. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (I guess :-) ), and as usual a pleasure to hear from you!
Just last week, I was reverting vandalism on some article (don't remember which one exactly) - when I stopped to read it and thought that it was unexpectedly well written.The additional gloss in the reference section soon made it obvious who deserved the credit. I, of course, hope you'll stick around and resume from where you stopped - but either ways, it's good to see quality work persist on wikipedia. Hope you are doing well in real life. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you bring me up to date on what are the current standards within the Hinduism project on use of transliteration within articles? For example, would changing Ushas to Uṣas in the title cause a storm of controversy? I was trying to see what articles are on the project list of unloved children and found it listed there. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No standards have yet been adopted per se. There have been several brief discussions on the topic, but all have petered out without any conclusions. I have on occasion mentioned that IASTusage guidelines you and I discussed would be a good starting point for updating and expanding the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) guidelines, but have not pushed the issue.
That said, there seems to be considerable opposition to IAST use in articles names unless it's unavoidable (I think Shreevatsa is a notable dissenter). See this move discussion for example. So it's unlikely that Ushas -> Uṣas move will find consensus, but it's quite possible that no one will notice/care enough to actually object. Personally, I have come to the view that discussions about article names are best avoided unless there are POV or accuracy concerns.
Let me know if you are looking for more articles to improve and I promise to keep you busy for the next decade. :-) Abecedare (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
PMFJI, but my understanding of the complaint was somewhat different. I thought the objection stemmed from having to use the name with diacritics in the body of the article, in order to be consistent with the title. But, so the argument went, typing all those #$%^&* diacritics is such a hassle... rudra (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Using IAST consistently in Hinduism/Sanskrit related articles does does make them match better with academic writings, but the main drawback is accessibility to lay readers (rather than the (minor) difficulty it may pose to editors). Mahābhārata is an easy case, since most readers unfamiliar with IAST or similar diacritical systems (>90% of our audience, I suspect) would tend to simply ignore the macron, and still be able to get a reasonable idea of the pronunciation. The tough cases are words like kṛṣṇa in which ignoring the diacritics makes pronouncing the word well nigh impossible. FWIW, my own thoughts on the issue are described/derived in the discussion in this (almost exactly!) 3 year old discussion. Abecedare (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of standards and while I have the two most knowledgeable editors on the topic here: Is there some standard (in the sense of commonly accepted, not "officially" adopted) for abbreviating the name of various Hindu texts (Vedas, incl. the various samhitas, aranyaka etc, upanishads, puranas etc) ? Abecedare (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations for the Vedic texts have more or less converged to a stable set, I think. There are a few rough edges having to do with recension information, but offhand I think these are all scrutable:
Vedas: RV, (YVŚ:) VSM, VSK, (YVK:) TS, KS, MS, SV, AV (of late, AVŚ and AVP)
Brahmanas: AB, KB, TB, SBM, SBK, PB, JB, GB
Aranyaka/Upanishad: AA, ŚA, TA, JUB, BAU, ChU
The initialisms for later texts tend to have more letters for the necessary disambiguation, and naturally, that's where more variations will be found. Upanishads and Puranas typically use U and P respectively at the end; how many letters precede these is up for grabs. For the Puranas, I see mostly the entire name if its two syllables (VayuP, SkandaP, etc) but usually a single syllable for the longer names.
All of this off the top of my head. I think this is worth researching and summarizing on a page somewhere. rudra (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Rudra, nice to know that you are still around. Perhaps I should just stay on the talk pages for a while to get the current feel of the place. Regarding transliteration, of course it is very important to consider the needs of the audience. Surely you are right that only a few people will notice the value of accurate transliteration. As you say this is an old discussion. I was just wondering if style guides had improved here, and it sounds like the matter is still unresolved.
Regarding abbreviations for various texts, any good abbreviation list would use a formal transliteration system, of course, so dumbing them down for Wikipedia would present problems. As you know, any modern academic text would include a table of abbreviations specific to that work. A modern general reference text like Sures Chandra Banerji's "A Companion To Sanskrit Literature" can be helpful. You would expect to find a comprehensive table in Maurice Winternitz (History of Indian Literature, English translation, 1927) but the English edition requires you to hunt in the footnotes. If it was a particular specialized text you would probably want to examine reference texts for that class of literature.
Personally in choosing an abbreviation I first check the Abbreviation lists given in MW and in Apte's dictionary (1929, pp. xi-xii). The reason I look there first is because these basic texts are old and have been used by many people for citations. MW's list of works cited is online at
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ebooks/mw/0000/mw__0030.html and http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ebooks/mw/0000/mw__0031.html.
MW and Apte use typographic conventions rather than modern transliteration, but they are easily updated to use correct IAST. However they do not always agree. Most annoying. E.g.,
Ṛg Veda = Rv. (Apte), RV (MW)
Śiva Purāṅa = Śiva P. (Apte, with space), ŚivaP (MW, no space).
I like Rudra's suggestion of creating a style guide somewhere.
Buddhipriya (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
(after ec) Thanks. As long as the abbreviations are more or less stable (which I was not sure of), it would be useful to create a list article for them, which can then be linked when such abbreviations are used, especially when the expansion is not obvious from context. Compiling the list itself should not be much of a problem, for example this table alone should cover most of the Vedic, and many of the most often cited Upanashadic texts (of course, as BP suggests, there may be better/more comprehensive lists available). Unless there are follow-up comments from you or Buddhipriya that doom the feasibility of such an attempt, I can seed such a list later this week. I think such a list would be useful for wikipedia readers too, so we can create it in article space, rather than keeping it as a style guide alone (that will also allow us to provide common variants). Abecedare (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


The Blackwell table looks great. I did not think to look there. Thanks again for your guidance. Buddhipriya (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. You beat me to the Blackwell Companion, too. That table looks eminently plagiarizable :-) rudra (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bharat Ratna

Can you semi-pp? Too much vandalism and regionalistic POV. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Done for a month. Abecedare (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I've semi'd Paramahamsa Nithyananda for a couple of weeks, but the BLP issues seem too strong, think it deserves full-pp? Autoconfirmed users seem to be adding controversial stuff too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The general problem with full protecting such BLPs is that it prevents good editors (like Ringess, C21K etc) from improving it or removing subtler vandalism/BLP issues. So I think it should be full protected only if one has ensured that the protected version is free of such issues (by removing all unsourced content and ideally verifying all sources; see this). Instead I personally prefer, simply blocking autoconfirmed users/SPAs/socks if they readd disputed and/or libelous content that has been removed before (perhaps an edit-notice can be added to make this clear). At this point I think wikipedia is serious enough about BLP issues, that wiki-lawyering about "didn't receive 4 warnings", "CU wasn't used to confirm socking" etc, will be dismissed out of hand.
Incidentally, I was in your position w.r.t. Jagdish Tytler earlier today, where the article alternatively accused Tytler and his adversaries of lying, murder etc, and this stayed in the article for >5 months! Abecedare (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I've given an only warning to both autoconfirmed users. Will block if there's another edit from either. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

blocked my account

hi!Abecedare,i m Mayurasia[2] my account has been blocked for sockpepptry,yellowmonkey blocked my account for having a sock account of mkbdtu,he has shownn many edits done by me in contributions,but i did this by informing you,you can check all of my other edits,i have nothing done critical to wikipedia policy.however if wikipedia wants to block my account,i have no objection,but donot blame me as a sock acount because it affect my tag name Mayurasia,i made my account on your suggetion and tried some edits after informing u.but it seems a surprise for me. congratulations for being administrator,i am very happy that very true wikipedians like u have been given this opportunity,finally i take bye from it was a very good experience talking to u in discussion.All the best--115.240.72.58 (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but we have expended enough time and good faith on you, and you have responded by socking, trolling and presenting false citations. It's time for you to move on. Abecedare (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

it is very sad that u r also blaming me for socking,have u checked all of my edits,all were one after telling u,some other can also be checked,i was not expexting this behaviour from u,mistakes can be happened by any one,if i have given any bad or wrong citation ,it does not mean that i m socking,it can be simply changed,i my memory i have given very less error citation,its very sad,i think u were encouraging me,but i was wrong,i didnot expect this bad ending from wikipedia,i donot know who is this mad man mkbdtu,because of him many innocent users have been blocked because they share same network of internet,i think me too is paying for his bad works,ok bye,all d best--mayurasia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.87.201 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding moving the page Oriya language to Odia Language

Dear Abecedare, I feel sorry that I moved the page without mentioning any reason. Actually, the name of the state Orissa, India has been changed to Odisha and thus the language from Oriya to Odia according to the local speaking language. It has done by the Parliament of India. Whatever pages I have moved are for the incorrect spellings of different places of my own state that I know better than any other.

And, I assure you that I will not move my user page in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishupriyaparam (talk • contribs) 07:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • If the parliament has indeed passed the bill to rename Orissa to Odisha (plans to introduce such a bill had been announced last October), that would certainly be worth adding to the state article. Note though that wikipedia uses the common name for the subject in English for naming its article, so we'll need to wait for the change to be adopted by media and academic sources before we rename the article. This may take a few months to a couple of years after the change is formalized. At present even the Orissa government's own official portal doesn't use the proposed spelling.
  • While the Union govt. has the right to rename states, it has no authority to decide the name of languages (imagine if UK passed a law renaming the English language. Would anyone outside the govt. be obligated to follow ?). So unless English language sources start using Odiya in preference to Oriya the language and related article should not be renamed. At best, this should be judged in 5-10 years and not immediately.
Abecedare (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Narada

The page is moved is moved to "Narada Buddha", which is improper. The user seems to be confused with one of the 24 Buddhas [3], which is NOT what the article is about. Please move it back. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, and fixed a few redirects. Abecedare (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. On an another issue about Kanhopatra, I remembered. Can you check for the Tulpule book in your local library (it was out till Jan) ? Reference: User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_12#Wikipedia:Peer_review.2FKanhopatra.2Farchive1 --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Just checked. Unfortunately it's been renewed and is out till mid-May. Abecedare (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hot in demand. Anyway Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Content removal not constructive?

Can you please let me know what was non-constructive in what I deleted? Do you know anything about Hindu mythology? I am a Hindu and I don't like mis-interpretations of my mythology by Western scholars. Did you really see what I removed? HE was being disgraced and I removed that. HE is superior to everything and everyone in this whole universe. HE inhabits all the 10 dimensions, which is there in Hindu texts from ancient times. Recently, string theory also suggests that this universe is made up of 10 dimensions. All this science is leading up to HIM only. Since westerners do not believe in Hindu mythology, they believe in science more, so you will reach HIM through science. You have chosen this way and HE will lead you through this way only towards HIMSELF.

Please reinstate my removals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your two recent edits at Vishnu were reverted because they replaced sourced encyclopedic content with personal unsourced unencyclopedic commentary. You are welcome to your beliefs regarding Vishnu and Hinduism in general, but this is not the venue for proselytizing . If you wish to contribute to wikipedia, you will need to follow its policies on sourcing and neutral point of view, else your edits will keep getting reverted and your account mey be eventually blocked. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Who made those contents? Some western scholars who don't know anything about Hindu mythology. Did they take permission from some important person in the Hindu religious community before writing that? How can they misinterpret something that's being believed by so many Hindus? Ask any Hindu and he will say that Lord Vishnu is not inferior to Indra. So, how can you write something wrong? We Hindus are very broad minded with respect to our religion but we will not accept any western crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see our policy on relliable sourcing for information on how we determine what sources are appropriate for wikipedia articles. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone might write some book with all the nonsense and then can he write that on wikipedia and claim that it comes from a verifiable source? I would actually want to raise objection about the content that I removed unless that is confirmed by some important person in Hindu religious community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and you'll see that we don't simply accept just about any book and have crietrion for judging their relative usefulness.
As for the section you are editing at Vishnu : it does need to be better written and organized, but your edits are taking it in exactly the opposite direction of what it needs. If you are interested in learning about the role of Vishnu in the Vedas, read the book by J. Gonda linked in the section or try to get hold of RN Dandekar's article Vishnu in the Vedas. Those should give you a good idea of what Hindu texts actually say about the subject. PS: You don't need to start a new setion for each new comment; see the talk page guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the role of Lord Vishnu very clearly. I have been reading Hindu Texts since I was a child. Anyways, I was just trying to spread what my Guru told me, He is an expert in all Hindu Vedas and Upanishads and Geeta. I will definitely write these on other websites but since Wikipedia is an important source of information these days, I wanted to write here too. I can organize it and write it better, but I want to know if you will allow me to. I can write it in a separate section too. So, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. We don't care what any editor believes or even knows; as long as their edits are compatible with wikipedia content policies (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV WP:Due etc) their edits are welcome and are unlikely to be reverted. This applies to you too, but since till date you haven't demonstrated an understanding of wikipedia policies, I'd recommend that you craft the new section in your userspace and discuss it at Talk:Vishnu before making changes to the article itself. That way you are less likely to get into an edit-war and get blocked for 3 revert violation. Abecedare (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can block me from Wikipedia. Getting blocked from wikepedia is not a big deal to me. You should read this: http://oedb.org/library/features/top-7-alternatives-to-wikipedia . And, I think wikipedia should do something on the lines of Citizendium, so that edits will be there with a disclaimer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you'll be blocked soon. Obviously wikipedia is not a good fit for you. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

I guess the Hindi-Urdu discussions are yet to come soon, but we'll later see how we are going to sort it. What just happened here now (the sockpuppetry thing) was actually nice to see, and I'll tell you why. I did most of my edits on the Preity Zinta article. I was inactive when it got to the main page, which was kind of ironic. It was very sad, but when I came back I was amazed to see this nice gesture from Rahul (for which I thanked him profoundly). To this day I'm still kind of sad that I was not here. Never mind, after some time I found this. It was so great to see it! Best, Shahid • Talk2me 22:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have reason to be justly proud of that article. Perhaps instead of having another Hindi-Urdu debate an FA drive is the way to go!
Glad to see the SPI complaint resolved too w/o any drama or hard feelings. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pranava Veda

I understand your concerns WRT pranava veda [4], I've added more citations, now the details can be easily found. Refs added at Talk:Vedas#Pranava_Veda. Please respond. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Nithyananda

I'm now involved as I've commented on content and reverted. Can you take a look please? BLP edit warring going on right now on article and talk page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Tharikrish (talk · contribs) seems to be the only one edit-warring to make POV edits that clearly violates BLP (at the article and article talk page) and he has been amply warned, I'll block him if he makes any more such edits anywhere on wikipedia. Will try to keep an eye at the page, but in case I miss something just ping me here for quicker response. Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"I'll block him if he makes any more such edits anywhere on wikipedia." Do it. I am not making any POV edits. I am trying to improve this BLP in the best way possible, rather that it being a self advert. Don't be too arrogant. Tharikrish  21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

FYI - Alison ❤ 10:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And if any of that racist vandalism needs revdel, if it's particularly bad, just mail me the diffs and I'll see they're redacted ;) - Alison ❤ 10:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The edit on my userpage was random name calling, and the revert should suffice. Abecedare (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Another map

This one's not straightforward like the Mughal ones? Quite honestly, I think the removed map was a bit dubious, but would you be able to check in that book of yours? And can you take a look at Arundhati Roy? Repeated addition of same nonsense (read through the known fors especially!). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just eyeballing from Schwartzber Atlas's [map of South India during the period (look at the lower right inset), the Chola territories in the wikipedia map seem reasonable, though a bit exaggerated at the Western end (could represent scholarly disputes/uncertainty). The Schwartzberg map also points to some Chola expeditions around South east Asia, Maldives etc but doesn't give the exact extent of the territories subordinated.
As a general principle, I think any historical map that doesn't specify the source from which the information is derived is unverifiable and can be justified removed. In this specific case, the map doesn't look over-the-top crazy, but may be puffing up the empire around the edges. We will need to refer to a Chola specific reference work to wheedle out all those details. User:Fowler&fowler or User:Dineshkannambadi would be most likely to have a scannable source for the relevant maps, but both are inactive/retired at the moment. Perhaps a request at WT:INB would help ? Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, ok. I had a funny feeling on the extent of the east, not the west. Apparently we discussed the map a while back :). I'll post it on INB today, probably Sodabottle would get to it, he already had a timeline of May for the Pandyans. Another thing is that all these Tamil kingdoms are being raided by casteists, pretty much every caste in Tamil Nadu claims lineage from one of the four - Chera, Chola, Pandya and Pallava; that bit is getting tiresome now. BTW, any opinion on Roy? I'm not the only one against that gibberish, Drmies and I discussed it a while back, but it appears that I'm the only one reverting it. He's been warned by me and RP. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, had forgotten about that discussion! Aravind would be another editor who may be able to locate a map.
To me, the extent in the East of the directly controlled territories looks okay on rough visual inspection. I have no idea about the subordinated regions since my knowledge is, as of now, limited to what the Schwartzber Atlas shows. Unfortunately that map is not free, and I haven't been able to locate a reliable (online) map for the article.
About Arundhati Roy: seems to be a single editor User:Unknownbroadway involved in POV pushing and slow edit-warring. I see that RP had advised him about the process back in Jan. I'll leave a reminder for now, and see where it goes from there. Abecedare (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism

Wonder if you follow this a bit as well as Hinduism. Stuff like New Kadampa Tradition, Dorje Shugden and Kelsang Gyatso, breakaways from the Dalai Lama, have been for about two years been taken over by two SPAs who are adherents and who engage in hagiography from non-indept sources all the time. One of them is actually a NKT website admin, apparently YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, have no knowledge on Tibetan Buddhism, or even what sources are trustworthy for the subject. Have passed on the buck though ... Abecedare (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Well you don't need expertise to identify a self-source or an unreliable SPS ... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Sylvain1972 is the Tibetan Buddhism expert. I think that the SPA's have been under control on the main articles. The minor articles that I don't have on my watchlist are likely pretty bad. I will direct Sylvain's attention here. Mitsube (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Is Kelsang Gyatso the active dispute? Yellowhouse, its not clear what you find objectionable about EmptyMountains' edits. Waterhouse is a reliable source - an academic, published by Routledge.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yet, Mistube just removed both a Waterhouse and a Spanswick quote: [5]. Neither of them is involved with the subject, so they have no reason to be "gushing." Emptymountains (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we have this discussion on the article talk page.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger

Abecedare, I lost my cool. sorry. Raj2004 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, I agree. But for some reason, that editor is recalcitrant and refuses to budge, despite being provided with good references such as by Rudra. Raj2004 (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Nah, it isn't vandalized often enough. Thanks, though. Woogee (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks, will do. Woogee (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Partition of India and Pakistan

Mandot (talk · contribs) has been around for a longer time than Abecedeare. However, seem to show a distaste to an eBook, in spite of Wikipedia itself; Wikipedia relies only on e resources while referencing. You seem to be quite shut to any new insight about the Indian Subcontinent. Quite apparent from your interests in Wikipedia. This is exactly the author expressed about the genetic makeup of the East Asians. However, before considering the use of word 'spam', you should have deliberated and not followed just superficial Wiki guidelines to defend yourself. You have no right to malign another Wiki editor or an author, whether self-published or not. Even Tagore was self published. Quite impressed with your 'cleaning up' zeal on Wikipedia, apply it on India too, if possible.

What have we here, an SPA, possibly with a WP:COI, spamming a monograph by the same marginal personage? rudra (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Essentially, except we should be careful not to disparage the person. His self published ebook though qualifies as fringe - fortunately it's non-notable fringe, so we don't have to deal with it on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Abecedeare, I removed your deletion in order to revert to a previous version. In your zeal to clean up sources, you failed to notice that the article had been majorly vandalized in the previous edit. Whole sections had been removed. I reverted to the previous good version. I am the self-appointed custodian of the Radcliffe article having taken it from a mishmash of uncited statements to its current state. I don't make many improvements these days as I am not an expert on the subject, but I do watch the vandalism and protect the improved quality of the article. How is it that you noticed this allegedly fringe source but did not notice that the article had had whole sections removed? I am geniunely curious about this. I don't really understand how people find the details they chose to edit. Now, on the subject of whether this self-published source should be removed. I do not know Mandot and have not read his book, so I cannot comment on the relevance of the source. You are saying that grounds for removal is self-promotion, but the book is not promoting himself, it is about the topic. Is their some rule against authors adding their own works to relevant bibliographies? I think the real objection is about the quality. It is self-published, unreviewed, and comes with no recommendations from anyone who has contributed the subject or the article. Is that grounds for removal? Perhaps it just belongs in another list of self-published unreviewed sources? In any case, if you decide to remove it again, please cite what it violates so that I have some grounds to evaluate. Thank you. Ajobin (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Ajobin, I came across the Radcliffe Line article following the contribution history of user Mandbot, who I noticed (through my watchlist) was spamming multiple pages on wikipedia with an unreliable reference. You are right that in removing the spam reference from that article, I didn't spot the unrelated vandalism by an IP, and I am glad you caught and corrected it.
As for the reference World Guide to the Partition of India: it is a self-published e-book which propounds a non-notable fringe theory. As such it does not qualify as an acceptable reliable source or external link on wikipedia, and we do a disservice to our readers by guiding them to such sub-standard and non-notable sources (wikipedia articles shouldn't have a list of self-published unreviewed sources at all!). The conflict of interest and spamming concerns are secondary, and I wouldn't remove a solid reference work even if it was added to the article by the author. Unless you have any objections, or arguments for retaining that reference, I think we should remove it again. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Abecedare, Thank You for the generous explanation. I get it now. In the the guidelines on self-published sources it says "For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Please cite that guideline page WP:RS if you remove it again so it is clear to others. Thank you. Ajobin (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Great. I have removed the reference, pointing to this discussion for details. Also made some cosmetic changes to bring the article in line with WP:LAYOUT. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article, which I imagine could be a target of Indo/Pak/British POV pushers. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey! The discussion is of great interest; it exactly reflects how an 'East Asian' mind works nowadays in subjugation to the 'European-Semitic' stranglehold. The wisdom of the editors is confident and nervous,quite a paradox. Why doesn't Ajobin browse through the book in question? The dismissiveness of Abecedere reflects the glum confidence that Mrs. Gandhi had before her assassination by her Sikh bodyguards. Surely, we East Asians cannot think better than this, in the pincer grip of the 'European-Semitic' 'word codes'! I congratulate you on your wisdom and confidence; it will go down in history as the first public reactions to a revolutionary book. Mandot 06:20, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

India image rotation

This is in reference to your this edit. I mentioned very clearly in the edit summary that the previous Bengal tiger image was not shot in India and therefore, the image does not belong to the India article. If you can find a "high quality" image of the tiger which is shot in India, feel free to add it to the template. However, I'm strictly against putting up that image which was shot in a U.S. zoo. Thanks --Nosedown (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if we can find a comparably high quality image that shows a tiger in its natural environment in India, that would be preferable. But at present the question is which image depicts the subject being displayed better, and I think few will dispute that File:Panthera tigris tigris edit2.jpg is a far superior image of a Bengal tiger than File:A tiger in Pilibhit Tiger Reserve.jpg. Same goes for Image:Shiva Bangalore .jpg vs File:Sivakempfort.jpg (you can see the opposition to the latter image discussed here).
That said, it is fine if you and I differ in our assessment of these images, however if there is difference and you wish to add/changes images in the India article, you should discuss it at Talk:India to assess where consensus lies. Abecedare (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. You are right, it would be better to seek opinion of others and reach consensus on Talk:India. Till then, its back to your version. :) --Nosedown (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Another advantage of having more eyes would be that we may get hold of better images than the choices we currently have. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Namaste

Hi my name is Dewan.You have offered me the standard offer, so I wish to let you know that I accept your offer. This mean I will be unblocked by July. I am very grateful for your help. I will not edit until then. Thank you

Dewan357 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.151.97 (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dewan, I am glad you have decided to follow-up on the offer I made last month. Note though that I cannot simply unblock you unilaterally; however I can recommend to the blocking admin (or, at WP:ANI) that you be unblocked if you have followed the tenets of the standard offer. Since you have used a sock account to evade your block (at least) as recently as March 8th, the earliest such a recommendation can be made would be September.
I hope you'll be patient and not use any socks in the intervening period, and thus demonstrate that you can follow the wikipedia policies. In the meantime, you are free to contribute to sister projects such as commons or simple English, and this may even strengthen your case for an unblock. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I will not be involved in any editing of wiki until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.151.97 (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation formats

Can you please tell me what the current best standard is for citing books? Has one or another of the citation templates met with general agreement within the Hinduism group? Buddhipriya (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia-wide or project wide consensus of which formatting system should be used, and the only recommendation is that usage be consistent within an article. For books, I typically use {{cite book}}, or {{harvnb}} if the same work is being cited multiple times with significantly different page numbers. Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Buddhipriya (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Two useful resources:
  • Enable Reftools under Special:Preferences -> gadgets -> Editing gadgets. This will add a form for adding citation information in the edit windown.
  • This website quickens the process of fillin in all the refernce information for (many) books that have an ISBN.
Finicky point: the above two tools don't produce exactly the same format (because for example, {{cite book}} provides options to add an "author" or "first" and "last name", and the visible output may depend upon how one fills these fields), and if you wish to be strict you may need to hand edit the filled-in template a bit, but I still find them useful. Also note that {t1|cite book}} has sister templates: {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite news}}. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Side note: in case you don't know this already: Ganesh J. Acharya (talk · contribs) = our old friend BalanceRestored (talk · contribs). Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know it. Remarkable how little has changed during my break. I am experimenting with the book template on Talk:Durga. Is it used correctly there? Buddhipriya (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Abecedare (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance, as always. Buddhipriya (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you please check my use of the book and ref tags in the edits I just made to Yama (Hinduism)? I think I prefer the use of individual ref tags because they may be less vulnerable to random future edits, but I am not sure if the current way I have it set up is a good model. I am out of practice. Buddhipriya (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. I added in the {{harvnb}} reference for demonstration purposes; it has the advantage that if one clicks on the short reference (Rao, 1914) in the Notes section it takes the reader to the the corresponding full entry in the References section (for some reason it does not seem to be working at the moment though!)
As for using "named" references: it may be a concern in an article with lengthy list of references, or one reference used a large number of times, but for the Yama (Hinduism) article at this point, either formats should be fine. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I should have mentioned that my comment only covers the reference you added. The "Effectualisation" reference is misformatted, and is probably not even reliable, and since Garuda Purana and Meid are not cited in the article, they should be moved to a Further reading section. I didn't touch those since you are already in the process of overhauling the article, which may make such cosmetic changes superfluous soon. Abecedare (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I will study the improved format you used there and will try to copy it. I actually only came to that article because of a Reference Desk question about it, and haven't a plan to do much of an overhaul. If you would like to fix the items you mention please do go ahead. It is much more fun to collaborate than to work alone. Buddhipriya (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll perhaps clean up some obvious MOS issues in the article, although I don't plan to contribute actual content to it yet (too many articles, too little time!). By the way, Rudra and I have been discussing the question of early (traditional and/or historical) redactions of Mahabharata here - the discussion is lengthy and somewhat circular in the beginning, but it could benefit from your input (admittedly, I am not sure how much of it can truly be covered in the article). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I am not particularly informed on the details of redactions of the Mahabharata. The technical problems of redaction of that work are very challenging. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

On Yama (see this diff: [6]) I want to use Template:Harvard citation text but simply can't figure out where the documentation is for it. I want to make a complex citation that says something like: Note: Jones (2003, p. 345) claims that Wikipedia is the greatest source of human knowledge, but this is refuted decisively by Vyasa (2010, pp. 23-49, cf. 88) who proves it is filled with errors. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The documentation for all Harvard citation templates is at {{Harvard citation}}
For the example you give, the formatting can be (see in edit mode):

Jones (2003, p. 345) claims that Wikipedia is the greatest source of human knowledge, but this is refuted decisively by Vyasa (2010, pp. 23–49, cf. 88) who proves it is filled with errors.

Incidentally, Vyasa 2010 is just a reprint of much older work, and is considered outdated nowadays. Abecedare (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
How about a work with two authors: Jones and Abecedare (2003, p. 14) claim to have discovered a novel method of editing Wikipedia articles through direct thought-transference, but Vyasa and Bachmann (2010) have proven it unfeasible. My problem is to work in the text by Arya & Joshi, for a real example, with that of Wilson. I thought Vyasa was at University of Chicago, by the way. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Jones & Abecedare (2003, p. 14) and Vyasa & Bachmann (2010) works.
Vyasa was at U of C, but had to move to Gainesville to prevent a public scandal over him taking credit for work actually done by his assistants. It was all hushed up, of course. Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How do we get the volume number to come before the page number in this citation to Arya & Joshi?

The characterization of Agni as "priest" in RV 10.52 is from Macdonell (1898, p. 171). Arya & Joshi (2001, p. 319, vol. 4) note Wilson's version "(the servant) of Yama" referring to Agni as the burner of the dead.

Your unsubstantiated personal attack on Vyasa is a violation of WP:BLP (Biographies of Legendary Persons) and must stop. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Spiffy! Works perfectly now in the actual article. Buddhipriya (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wise man, I ask a question

Wise administrator, I ask a question. Someone, in bad faith, accused me of being a sockpuppet. Their accusations were wrong and very accusatory. This has left a bad taste in my mouth for Wikipedia. (I almost feel like the checkuser tore off my clothes, exposing my genitalia to the world to see) Is there any logic with my feelings? In some ways, I want to edit Wikipedia but in some ways, I don't. I have declared a wikibreak of 7 days for me to decide. Your advice is welcomed. Thank you. Perhaps an e-mailed response is better since these are personal matters? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

While I don't know the circumstances leading to the CU request, I can empathize that being the subject of such suspicion and accusations couldn't have been a pleasant experience. However it is important to keep some perspective here:
  • Wikipedia is essentially a group blog written by a bazillion anonymous editors. It has developed some practices and norms (which we, perhaps self-importantly, label "policies", "guidelines", "5 pillars" etc) to coordinate all these activities and keep the process running. This is all justifiable and for a good cause, and while we are given the privilege of contributing here we should endeavor to follow those rules. But to let the petty tiffs, bureaucratic proceedings etc in this online world effect one in real life is plain crazy.
  • Checkuser is not some intrusive scan to be compared to a strip-search. The data seen by the checkuser is the same data seen by the webmaster of every site you visit, and some of it is potentially visible to every entity you email (you can see the data that is visible for you here). Now for some persons (example dissidents from repressive governments, or editors being stalked by criminal/insane persons in real life) it is important for the IP information to be non-public, but for the rest of us it is simply a convenient social construct that was adopted by wikipedia in its early days, and which is now treated as sacrosanct. Imagine if the system had evolved to display random assigned pseudo-IDs for IP (i.e., unregistered) editors - we all would have been aghast if someone proposed publicly revealing the IP behind such a pseudo-ID, while in the current system we find the public display of the actual IPs for unregistered editors perfectly innocuous.
In short, don't get so absorbed in this virtual world to an extent that you start treating its practices as LAW, the privilege to edit as a HUMAN RIGHT, or its foibles as CRIMES or PERSECUTION. If you find yourself being physically or emotionally troubled by the happenings here, take some time off wikipedia and get reacquainted at the pleasure and trouble real life offers. Abecedare (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your wise advice and putting things in perspective. I am fairly good at writing and enjoy writing a (hopefully) well written article. It can be annoying to be unfairly picked on. I think starting now, I'll take a wikibreak until 1 April, though I might cut it short to as little as a week. After that, I'll resume editing. There's an article that I brought from stub to GA that I want to work on more! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Wendy Doniger

I am trying to clarify if the book Invading the Sacred may be considered a reliable source for purposes of documenting Indian criticism of Wendy Doniger. I put a list summarizing prior talk about this and put you down as "undecided", possibly misrepresenting your position. Could you please take a look and be sure that I have not misunderstood your position? Buddhipriya (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Commented at the article talk page. Have seen the book referenced numerous times on wikipedia talk pages, but haven't had occasion to get my hands on it yet. Also, doesn't seem to easily fall into definitely reliable or clearly non-reliable categories. So my opinion is necessarily nebulous. Abecedare (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I've read the book. It's a mixed bag, and very poorly edited -- actually, so badly it's nigh disastrous. But Aditi Banerjee may be worth watching out for. She has written a couple of follow up pieces in Outlook magazine and elsewhere. She's a lawyer, so she knows how to write a brief. rudra (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
TheMandarin (talk · contribs) has saved me the trouble of tracking down those articles  :-) rudra (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
A copy of the book has arrived here and I just skimmed the whole thing. I agree it is badly edited. I think that it can serve as a primarily journalistic account of the development of the conflict movement, since no actual academic work on that is out yet (as far as I know). Some of the pieces are pretty well done, and I am going to do a more close read on some of them now. Since it is a collection, some of the pieces can be cited individually. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The only academic account so far that I'm aware of is by the sociologist Prema Kurien of Syracuse University, A place at the multicultural table: the development of an American Hinduism (the link should take you to p.202 which is in the middle of the relevant history). She has written several articles covering much of the same ground. rudra (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: just found another reference (p.262). The article is Earle H. Waugh, "Dispatches from memory: Genealogies of tradition", p.245-268. rudra (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding individual citations, that's one of my gripes with the editing of the book. Who wrote what is not always clear. (E.g. Did Rampersad write all of section 1?) rudra (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Sanskrit issue, note that pp. 66-72 cover challenges to her Sanskrit, with reprise of the Witzel material and other things. Most notable citation for academic use (other than Witzel) seems to be on p. 71 where Hans Bakker says Doniger's books are "(f)ast-food-like publications designed to attract attention, readership and sales, but are devoid of meticulous scholarship or authenticity" with a note 134 on p. 483 citing "Bakker, Hans T. et al., The Skanda Purana, Volume 1". Looks like Hans Bakker is Editor in Chief of Indo-Iranian Journal [7]. Has this citation come up before? Buddhipriya (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not that I know of. I recall seeing the reference when I read the book, and giving up after a cursory search. The book does indeed exist, according to the NYPL. The quote will need verification, of course, even if only to pick up a page number. rudra (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
This quote will definitely need verification. The ITS passage traces back to Rajiv Malhotra's blog on Sulekha, where it appears without quotes, so it isn't clear what Bakker et al exactly said. (Note also that Purana Perennis is book edited by Doniger: not all of the book is "hers".) rudra (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
And Malhotra in turn traces back to a post by Vishal Agarwal to the Hindunet forums. Sigh. rudra (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, our friend has already battened the hatches and bunkered down against Witzel (thrice! the Indology Posts, Garzilli, Inside/Outside) and Bodewitz. Bakker et al will only infuriate him further and fortify his fidelity to The Cause. Note that Doniger herself once wrote this:

So I was trained not as a historian of religion but as a Sanskritist. But I was not a real Sanskritist; real Sanskritists (Ingalls was not at all typical) are 'anal-retentive' pedants interested only in verbs and nouns, and I was a hot-blooded ex-ballet dancer still interested primarily in stories. Real Sanskritists, on two continents, have been known to turn and leave a room when I entered it. I looked elsewhere for my intellectual nourishment.

rudra (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. She obviously has not read her wiki-bio, or she would know better. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The autobiographical essay seems to be a good source to add some meat to the Wendy Doniger article, so that it doesn't read like a paraphrased CV. Abecedare (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I already added a couple of items (see the Biography section). Her father was quite an interesting person, maybe we should have an article on him (quite a gas actually, all those Christian pastors across Middle America regurgitating canned sermons written by a Jew). One minor mystery, though: the mother's name. rudra (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Just read that part a minute ago. Long live Google Books! Abecedare (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Digression

To satisfy my curiosity, can you both take a minute to read just the lede of this version of the Ayn Rand article and drop a note when you have done so ? Abecedare (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're looking for? There are some rough edges (the last sentence: can't really have words like "scathing"); the claimed influence of classical liberalism has an OR-ish feel to it; and, of course, it's missing her Russian name. But overall I think it's better than the lede right now (flows better, gives a better overview). rudra (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No, no. No need to review it. I have another point. Will wait for Buddhipriya to reply. In the meantime don't go poking about the Ayn Rand article or its talk page. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
What do we win if we spot whatever it is you are looking for, by the way? The sentence "Her philosophical work, however, has had little recognition among established philosophers, some of whom have been scathing about her lack of rigour and her apparently limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter[7]." seems to be putting criticism in the spotlight of the lede (is it really spelled lede?) and since this section of your talk page is about WD, is that relevant? Buddhipriya (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the lede spelling is popular in the world of print journalism, but I haven't really checked explicitly. Abecedare (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, now without looking back at the article or the quotes above, can you recall if the lede refers to her as a (1) American, (2) Conservative, (3) Philosopher and indicate how certain you are of your answer ? Abecedare (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I think it said she was Russian-American, an author and playwright. I don't recall "conservative" or "philosopher", although I think Objectivism was described as a philosophy or philosophical system. Please, Sir, /* raises hand */ how did I do in the test? rudra (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Quite unrelated to your question, couldn't help notice the Rand reference and therefore butting in, but isn't it odd to actually say that she was influenced by classical liberalism? While I'm at it, I'll also try answering the question: only American, being a philosopher is alluded to, but not stated, while I can't think of it saying anything about being conservative.—SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The only thing I was sure of was American, which I now see is wrong (she is called Russian-American). Philosopher was a trick question because she was never actually called that, as Spiff points out. How do we score this game? I refuse to answer any more questions until you tell me how to put volume in front of page number in my final question in the Citation Formats section above, by the way. Buddhipriya (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, the point of my experiment (which probably failed miserably since you are more astute than 99% of our readers!): : if you look through the talk pages of the Ayn Rand article you'll find reams of discussion on whether she is or isn't a philosopher. To me Ayn Rand's qualification as a philosopher seems very analogous to WD's position as a Sanksritist, in that both are accorded those respective labels by "reliable" sources (esp. geared for the general audience), but their expertise is usually pooh-poohed by the most qualified scholars in the area.
However my hypothesis is that the presence/absence of dog-whistle labels are noticed only by editors intimately involved with the article or partisans on either sides, but are not even noticed by most of our audience, who are unlikely to differentiate between someone being a Sanskritist and having translated (or, even commented upon) Sanskrit texts. Thus I suggest that instead of worrying too much about whether we use that term or not, we should more plainly state what critical appraisal (positive or negative) her work has received. (I am pretty sure that no reader of the lede of the Ayn Rand will easily forget the content of the last few sentences). Sorry for making my point in such a round about way. ;-)
PS: I can understand one objection to my proposal could be that calling WD a Sanskritist is simply wrong and inaccurate, but I think a medium like wikipedia with articles written by committee often has to sacrifice exactitude, for convenience. Abecedare (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Aside: The question about American and conservative were of course just red-herrings (or controls, if you wish) :-) Abecedare (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the point here. None of the respondents "recalled" something that was not there. If this is evidence of any kind, I'd argue it's for descriptive terms tending to "stick" (that's what they're for: to have persuasive effect). So, in a sense, it probably does matter whether the actual word "philosopher" is/was used to describe Rand. (And it also explains the tenacity of a certain editor. He is being stubborn for POV reasons only. Note how it matters whether the word "Sanskritist" is inside or outside quotes. How's that for awareness of subliminal suggestion?) rudra (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My experience (not really the result of the above expt.) is that a reader seeing "philosophical system", "philosophical novel" etc will later on, if asked, imagine (i.e., falsely remember), that Rand was called a philosopher, irrespective of whether that label is used explicitly or not. On the other hand, I guess any reader of the last paragraph of the lede would remember for a long time that the quality of Rand's philosophy is questioned, and this would be the case even if the first sentence had indeed included the philosopher label. If that is indeed true, then it is not really worthwhile, as far as the casual audience in concerned, to spend too much time in deciding whether to keep the label in or out. What is more memorable, is when the issue of Rand's status as a philosopher is explicit spelled out, instead of simply being alluded to obliquely. (Of course, this is not true in the world of advertising, or politics, where labeled are very powerful since they can be made to stick by power of repetition. And even on wikipedia, it doesn't apply to labels that invoke an emotional response, say, rapist, genius etc.) Abecedare (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I found it an interesting if roundabout way of making a point, and fun. Actually I have no problem with calling her a Sanskritist and have never called for removal of that term from her bio. The only point I made on the talk page was that we should add a statement to the effect that Witzel has criticized the quality of her Sanskrit translations, citing Witzel's thread in the Indology forum (and now the additional paper that Rudra found by Witzel mentioning her). The term "Sanskritist" is not very clearly defined anyway. Perhaps you have been influenced by the misdirection of another editor there who has deflected calls to add the Witzel remarks by incorrectly labling that criticism as denial that she is a Sanskritist, which is illogical. If you claim to be a painter, and I say that your paintings are not very good, you are still a painter. The main thing that I would like to see get in is the "Wendy's Children" theme and additional coverage of the popular uprising by the natives (waving pitchforks and torches). The avoidance of popular news sources makes little sense to me on that aspect of the impact of her work. I find it amusing that I may be lumped in as a Hindutva troll on this matter. You may recall that I stood up for inclusion of Courtright as a source on the Ganesha article a few years ago because I felt that on balance the book had some good material despite the bizarre sexual points. I was blasted for that at the time, so I guess this just balances things out. Buddhipriya (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with your points, and all the conversation above is intended more for general thought about wikipedia editing, with WD just being a convenient example. To take another scenario: often editors on wikipedia are interested in adding their favorite element to a pre-existing list of exemplifier (say, adding Makar Sankranti to "Festivals celebrated include Diwali, Holi, Pongal, etc; see India#Culture for actual cases); I have often wondered if the inclusion is actually noticed by a reader who is not specifically looking to see if that element has been included. My guess is that it is not, although, of course, this is a broad (and unproven) generalization. An actual example: see Talk:Bollywood for a very lengthy (and heated) discussion on whether Bollywood spelled in Nastaliq should be included in the first sentence of the article - my guess again is that the inclusion/exclusion would be noticed only by involved editors and person's specifically looking for the inclusion or exclusion (often with the view of interpreting the result as a sign of bias), and average readers are better served by spelling out the importance of Urdu in Bollywood instead. Abecedare (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger again

I added a book review critique. Please take a look. Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Goethan's removals

Goethan has removed this entire paragraph I wrote:

"However, her book, The Hindus: an alternative history is not without critics. Piali Roy, writing in the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, although stating that The Hindus is "quite a compilation, diverse and self-referential," and does a good job of tracking the influence of Buddhism and Jainism on the Vedic era, also states that Doniger admits herself that she is "not a historian." [18] For example, she slanted in her view towards northern India and emphasizes the South only with the bhakti movement, or new schools of thought in the 10th century. [19] Also her choice of historical figures is idiosyncratic; she highlights saints such as Kabir and Mirabai but ignores Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism who is just as pivotal. [20] Although Doniger should be commended for including Dalit voices and showing the variety of Hindu experiences, her attempts at inclusiveness is marred by a sloppy misreading of secondary sources and some overstretches of analysis. [21] For example, her suggestion that “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition,” near the end of the book, is such an exaggeration." This appears to be well-referenced What do you think? Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is overly detailed for the WD bio, and also ends up plagiarizing the review by copying several extracts from it verbatim, without proper quote marks and stating Roy's views in the encyclopedia's voice. In short, while I think the source is fine, its contents need to be presented more concisely and fairly. This is best discussed on the article talk page, where involved editors can work at crafting the exact language. Abecedare (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I agree. Maybe this edit is also too long to focus on one book. Raj2004 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the best place for this may be the article talk page, but consider taking one point at a time and trying to get some support on the talk page. Introducing multiple points at once, or mulitple sources, makes it easier to throw the whole thing out. If you can get a majority supporting you on one point on the talk page, I think that majority view will eventually prevail on the article page. It takes longer to do it that way but it is more likely to have lasting effect. Buddhipriya (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New SPA?

Vedvyasa (talk · contribs). Also seems to agree with an IP that Doniger taught at Yale, for which no evidence seems to exist. rudra (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the first few edits, it's almost certainly a sock of some experienced user. But unless we can determine/guess the identity of the sockpuppeteer, there is not much that can be done (FWIW, I don't think its Goethean). Would be best not to get distracted by the talk page arguments and sniping, and simply concentrate on formulating a balanced reception section. The Yale bit can be tagged or removed, unless a citation is forthcoming. Abecedare (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You can't make this stuff up. rudra (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You were right. Goethean's harasser on the other hand is based in US (Illinois, I think). Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
One of my harassers. — goethean ॐ 21:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Abecedare. How are you? I would like to know if information pulled from Delhi Govt website falls under copyright issue or it should be regarded as a open source. website like this Yamuna Biodiversity Parkhas no mention of copyright information. --Swaminworld (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Goverment of India (unlike the US) publications are not automatically in public-domain. So unless the website explicitly states that its contents are released into the public domain, or under a free license, we have to assume that the content is copyrighted. (FWIW, I have not seen any GoI website that releases the copyright its content). That said, we are free to paraphrase the write-up on the page in our own words, and the main problem would be the images, which we won't be able to reuse. Abecedare (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for informing. Secondly what about the publications released by Indian Universities. Should they be considered as free or again we have to "rewrite" as you suggested. --Swaminworld (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
No, they too are not free unless they explicitly say so, or are >60 years old (the copyright term under Indian law). Note that a document, website, painting ... does not need to have a copyright (©) symbol in order to be copyrighted. As above, we are free to paraphrase; remember to cite the source though, and also read through WP:PLAGIARISM for further guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I see. thanks for informing regarding this. CHEERS !!! --Swaminworld (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mumbai

As per your suggestion on the talk, I have replaced the disputed image in Toponymy, with Mumba devi's img. An anon reverted it, which I reverted. Do you support the new image? Please comment on the talk. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Abecedare,

Today I was browsing Jat states in Rajasthan when I came upon Sihag article n it says that it was deleted by you... can you please restore it or tell me the procedure to do so ? I think I can improve this article by removing unsourced stuff and adding citations...

regards-- Last Emperor (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this was the article that told the rousing tale of that magnificent Jat, Odin Singh, invading Scandinavia in 500 BCE. rudra (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one. The version deleted above wasn't the one at AfD, it was 80% of the AfDed article. —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Royal Jat Warrior, I have undeleted the article Asiagh that was deleted following an AFD and moved it to Article incubator. You can access it at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Asiagh. Please make sure that you have addressed the concerns raised at the AFD, and have edited it to be compliant with the sourcing and neutral POV requirements before requesting for it to be moved to mainspace, else the article is liable to be deleted again. Once you have the draft in shape, I'd recommend that you post at WP:INB so that an independent editor can review it. Abecedare (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare,I will inform you when its edition will be completed in compliant with sourcing and neutral POV requirements ...I will try my best to make it clear and remove the mess..regards-- Last Emperor (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, I totally recreated Sihag article in compliant with sourcing and neutral POV. I added as much inline citations as possible. Before putting it for evaluation, I personally request you to review it...and then you plz put it to eval. on WP:INB as I dont know how to do so....Thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RJW, Thanks for your work on the page. I have posted a message at the India project noticeboard asking for someone with knowledge in the area to take a quick look. Then we can decide, if we should move it to mainspace already, or if it needs some more changes. Abecedare (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette question

What are the guidelines, if any, on publicizing email? I'm talking about this, which was apropos of the edit summary here. I imagine he thinks WP:NPA applies, but he has revealed my email address. rudra (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just email oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org with the diff, and note that the post contains your email, including the non-public email address. It should be gone in minutes. Abecedare (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. There are further developments on dab's talk page. It may be a bit more complicated. rudra (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Oversight is still fine.
As for the rest: I would anyway recommend against getting into a war of words, especially one not directly related to content, since that is just a distraction, and (as I wrote on Raj's talk page) simply ensures the persistence of status quo. I am pretty sure I am not telling anything you don't know already, but it is easy to get baited and get lost in the weeds (howzatt for mixed metaphors ? :-) ) Abecedare (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


Buddhipriya (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pundir

Hi, I updated this article by citing references but this user User talk:RanaRajputana is removing referenced content and using foul language Here .thanksChhora (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if this is still a problem. Unfortunately the article does not contain any inline citations, and the listed references seem to be outdated 19th c books, so it's hard to say if anything in the article is really trustworthy. Abecedare (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

HAF and Doniger's reply

Aseem Shukla, board member of Hindu American Foundation, published a critique on Doniger in the Washington Post and Doniger replied; see, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2010/03/whose_history_is_it_anyways.html

Raj2004 (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I also posted this in the Talk section of Wendy Doniger so everyone can freely view and comment.

Raj2004 (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Iravan

Hi. I am planning a FAC for this article about a regional Hindu village god - shortly. As such, I request you to please give constructive criticism on article. To point any issues (actually I request all issues you see) on article talk in consideration of FA criteria. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

plz check WP:ALT in particular. I will add two images in the next week as Flickr users have agreed to give me some low resolution images for Aravan. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Will do later this week or this weekend. Look forward to reading it, especially since I don't know much about the subject. Abecedare (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking forward to it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Still eagerly waiting your review. Added 1 new img. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Answered your comments. Plz check ALT text though, even though it is currently removed from FA?. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Will take another look at the article later today and add the alt text. Abecedare (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Have added alt text, but brevity is an issue. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

India malnutrition

Hey! Read the World Bank report again --

Similarly, in economic performance, while parts of India compete for business in software engineering and biomedical research, parts of rural India have poverty rates comparable to borderline "failed states", such as Haiti and Nigeria, and have child malnutrition rates higher than any other country in the world.

The report says that certain rural areas of India have child malnutrition rates higher than that of any other country. Nowhere the report says that overall child malnutrition rates in India are higher than that of any other country. There is an obvious difference between the two.

Thanks. --Nosedown (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks for the correction. Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin's Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
This "Admin's Barnstar" is given to "Abecedare" for helping new editors and being a good admin.-- Last Emperor (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare for all your help,

SpecemanSpiff cleared Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Sihag article.Again thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Last Emperor. Abecedare (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Dear wiki admin,You blocked me for doing a crime of sockpuupetry,I read your reveiws on Contributions.I was already doing my work under some Admin dab,so that if I do some mistake or violate Wikipedia policy,he may revert it and instruct me.Dbachmann as a good Admin did so,he gave me useful instructions which was helpfull to me,But I see now that my Account has been blocked for keeping sock Account.I donot know what it is,But i Request wiki not to block any user on only ip basis,one ip is used by thousand of people daily.Like in my case 115.236-244.--.--,there exists 30 lacs user on it.I donot want you to unblock my account bcoz i have not so much time to do repeated request.Thank you--115.242.21.64 (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times do you think we'll fall for the same ruse, insincere apologies, and unkept promises to stop trolling ? < rhetorical question; you don't need to create another sock to answer! > Abecedare (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

CU

Running? Socks on India are like Taliban etc in Pakistan/Iraq/Afghanistan YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that we can really use more CUs working in the area (esp., with Nishkid inactive), but unfortunately I have too many off-wiki commitments at the moment to take up the mantle. So I'll continue to bug you with CU requests instead (sorry). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Our friend the date change vandal is still doing his numerical scrambling -- most recently at 117.204.126.21 and 117.204.114.97.

Also, please check your email; I've just sent you a reply.  :) Cheers, AtticusX (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 117.204.112.0/20 for 3 days. If the vandal returns after that, I'll extend the rangeblock further. Thanks for your email - it was very useful and convincing! Abecedare (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unlimited vandalism !

Hi Abecedare,

There is unlimited vandalism going on here and here. This ip user is regularly removing sourced information,spamming and creating pov from last 7 days...I request u to plz protect Haryana and Gurgaon pages or if possible ban this user...this is really too much now..thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if this is still a problem. Also don't forget to inform the IP why their edits are being reverted (you can use some of the standard warning templates, or use your own words), because we need to distinguish between users new users who make errors simply because they are not aware of wikipedia policies and practices, and ones who do so willfully. Abecedare (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,its not a problem now he's not doing any vandalism now,he's now adding refs to his additions...but the only problem is Sihag article...even after providing refs and valid sources which are currently in use in other articles too no one is trying to review it but sadly articles like Chandela,Bhaduria and many others are still prevailing without any refs and sources....thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Abecedare

He is back (that vandal ip) with even more pov pushing refs removing and even image removing propaganda + making thousands of edits for small-small things....idk how he'll stop,I cant even give him warnings because last digits of his ip keeps on changing! I request you to protect Haryana article coz banning him will not stop him,he'll come with another ip...thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that YellowMonkey has protected the Haryana page. I also noticed that SpacemanSpiff commented on the Sihag article draft; I'll ask him if he has concerns about the updated version and then. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh...sorry to interfere but I think you forgot to move Sihag article to mainspace...thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. By the way, is Chautala a branch of Sihag's , or an alternate name (not clear from the infobox) ? Abecedare (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

hi, thanks...actually chautala is a name of a village of Sihag Jats in haryana...after Devi Lal some of them prefer to bore name chautala..same is with bolan..its a village of sihag's...rest are alternative names with changes due to language like Sihag-Sehag-Sehwag...and one last query, Sehwag page is redirected to Virender Sehwag and is fully protected...so it can't be edited by normal editors...I think it'll be right to create a disambiguation page for it linking to both Sihag and Virender Sehwag...regards-- Last Emperor (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  • It would be useful if you could add the above information about Chautalas and Bolans to the Sihag article (with sources, of course), since I guess other readers would have the question I asked.
  • Since there are only two articles to disambiguate, we don't need a separate disambiguation page; simple hat notes will suffice. The vast majority of readers searching for "Sehwag" are likely to be looking for the cricketer, rather than the clan (cf. Tendulkar, Bachchan and other popular icons), so I think Sehwag should continue to redirect to Virender Sehwag. However I have added a {{redirect}} note to that page to guide interested readers to the clan article. Does that sound ok to you ? Abecedare (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya its fine, I'll post about chautala and bolan in near time...cheers-- Last Emperor (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

ah, I did'nt wanted to interfere now but plz have a look at this funny super vandal who himself dont know what he want to prove and is not stopping even after one ban on him.....have close look at the edits which he is making from last 7 days...thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the user seems to be interested in only vandalizing wikipedia rather than contributing anything worthwhile. This is an inevitable side-effect of the open editing environment on wikipedia and the best way to deal with such users is to revert-block-ignore and note let them goad or agitate us. Abecedare (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

I think the article on Doniger is as much NPOV as it should be. What do you think? See talk section.

Raj2004 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The article may be better in terms of presenting the supporters' and critics' POV, but is still pretty uninformative for a reader interested in learning what her work actually involves (imagine a biography for, say, Churchill that quotes praise for his efforts in WWII and criticism for his attitude towards British colonies, without outlining what actual actions he took in those spheres). So, yes, the article may present the information it contains more neutrally, but it is still a pretty poor biography. There are some sources listed here that should enable us to write a more comprehensive and balanced article (for example, discussing her work in comparative mythology, which seems to be her primary area) - but unfortunately I have to put working on the article on the backburner for now due to off-wiki commitments.
On the positive side: at least the edit-warring seems to have simmered down, and even the current draft is no worse that the bulk of wikipedia articles (ah! set the bar low enough, and we will always over-achieve :-) ). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't care much about Doniger. It appears that she is a controversial scholar to some Hindus, and I wanted the article to reflect a more balanced point view of view. There are many neo-Hindu scholars who present their own interpretation of Hinduism and such articles should note that this is one point of view that may not be accepted by all. Raj2004 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Parvati

There is a dispute about an image on the article and there are number of new editors who only edit the article. I suspect sock puppetry. Can you please check. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:All knowledge is free for all (Parvati, Brittanica), User:Kind creation (Parvati), User:Truth only truth (Parvati, Lingam - Brittanica content), User:LordKrishnaMyHero (not sure if a sock). --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
One more User:Infinte loop. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Clearly sock or meatpuppets. Have asked YellowMonkey for confirmation. Some of the accounts may be too stale to check though; can deal with them if they suddenly resurrect. If more SPA's appear, I'll semi-protect the page. Abecedare (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Arjunr240576

Hi i would like to inform you than recently a new user Arjunr240576 is vandalizing Madrassi repetitively despite 3 warnings.

Edits1 and Edit2. He has also uploaded copyrighted images image 1 and image 2.

Please take a look and warn him. --Onef9day (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User has been blocked for at least 24 hours by another admin. I'll monitor his editing behavior for a week. Thanks --Onef9day (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that the block has been further extended for a week due to sockpuppetry. Let me/SpacemanSpiff know if the user reappears. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

History merge move

Could you do this history merge move for me? I can't do complicated things without messing up somehow! --RegentsPark (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. The history merge was straightforward but it took me three attempts to get the talk page to the right location. :-) Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thx. My brain is pretty much dead these days! --RegentsPark (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one?

Luchipuchi (talk · contribs)? He was active as IPs yesterday. Check the reverted history of my talk page for the swinging dialog! —SpacemanSpiff 16:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur on Luchipuchi - I saw that myself, but didn't bother you/YM with it thinking that it perhaps was just be a throwaway account used for a single edit. Will wade through your talk page history once I have some popcorn ready to go with the entertainment ;-) Abecedare (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
So when are you retiring or getting blocked ? And why are you so biased against Indians ? I can't see any other reason for you vigilantly blocking socks of a disruptive user (who didn't create any socks for two whole weeks!) PS: Don't block me for asking these questions. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Katrina

Can you take a look at this IP? Static, same edits, discussed on talk page, IP warned, reverted by many. —SpacemanSpiff 09:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week and left note on article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Melakavijay's edits

Special:Contributions/Melakavijay: The editor is adding Melakadambur link to many articles, where they are WP:UNDUE. The putting of links and promoting the article is at spam-like level. Can you please talk to this new editor and explain wiki-policy about UNDUE and SPAM (if applicable)? I do not want to discourage him, by my words, which may become too formal and insensitive explaining policy. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Left a note on the editor's page. Am reviewing/reverting the remaining edits now. Abecedare (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Cleaned up many of Melakavijay's edit, but some still remain. Seems to be a good faith editor, but edits with the single purpose of adding trivia about Melakadambur across wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

History merge

When you have a lot of time and feel masochistic, could you look at the history of The Recognition of Śakuntalā and of Abhijñānaśākuntalam? Not important. :-) (There is probably another move required after it is figured out what the title should be.) Shreevatsa (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Done (hopefully without screwing something up!).
Note that the article was moved to The Recognition of Śakuntalā following a move request, and then cut-n-paste moved to the current title without discussion. If you consider it appropriate, you can move it back to The Recognition of Śakuntalā, unless there is a still better title. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll move it to something like that after deciding what it should be (the English translations don't seem to have a canonical name). Shreevatsa (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

PLease have a glance, Sir

PLease have a glance, Sir at Talk:Mumbai#Reverting_again_and_again. A user named Mr. Deepak D'Souza is repeatedly reverting my constructive edits. Can U make him understand that these edits are constructive. He doesn't seem to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.6.226 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. I'd encourage you to get an account on wikipedia and help us further improve Mumbai and other articles. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy caught socking to avoid sanctions and twinkle blacklist

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy‎.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Radiopathy. Thank you.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Added my 2c at ANI. Abecedare (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on redirs

Hi, I had a question on redirects : here and here. Do you think this is OK, I thought Swami is a integral part of monastic name(?) If this OK, somebody has to do history merge as well. --TheMandarin (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Did some parallel comparision, even Saint is a sort of honorific, however, we have complete titles as in Saint Peter, Saint Joseph. What are your views? --TheMandarin (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have undone the cut-and-paste move, since besides being disputed, it violated wikipedia's WP:CC-BY-SA licensing terms.
I am not sure if and when Swami is regarded as integral part of monastic name, and this question may be tough to resolve in general since these names/titles are accorded by such a diffuse process (in contrast with say, British or Catholic titles) that there may be no one-size-fits-all solution. We may be have to fall back on WP:COMMONNAME, looking particularly at other "secular" and encyclopedic sources to see how they deal with the issue in case of Swami Vivekananda. I haven't explored the evidence myself yet, but if a move request is initiated, it would be the right venue to look into the question. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Mandarin asked me to express my comments about the issue. Though I am not against Vivekananda per se, I would prefer the title "Swami Vivekananda", as usually the Swami prefix is added before Vivekananda (WP:COMMONNAME). Swami is a sort of honorific comparable to Saint, as both tell about status of the individual. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Temple article Templates

Hi, Thanks for your help. I need help on the topic that I had earlier raised at Help Desk Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_quickly_add_templates_to_articles.3F. Pls do let me know for any such tools.Thaejas (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You can ask permission for WP:AWB (if you have a Windows PC or run windows on mac), install it. Then you can create a list and add the relevant templates to all the articles along with doing basic fixes like typos etc. You'll still have to click to confirm each change, but it's just a mouse click as opposed to typing again and again. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:AWB usage

Hi, I have installed AWB after requesting to use. I would like to know if it is possible to correct redirects using AWB. I have done the following for correcting the redirect pages.

  1. Selected what redirects here in Source
  2. Entered Padmanabhaswamy temple
  3. Clicked on Make list
  4. Selected Start tab and clicked on Start.

In the status bar of the window, Skipped: 8. But the changes are not reflected. Should I click on Save? Pls help.Thaejas (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't tried AWB myself, and am not familiar with its interface etc. I think SpacemanSpiff has though and may be able to help you, or at least refer you to someone who can. Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Thaejas/Sri Ruthra Kaliamman Temple

Hi, I would like to revert your change for the User:Thaejas/Sri Ruthra Kaliamman Temple. Pls let me know.Thaejas (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Sri Ruthra Kaliamman Temple
Oops. Yes, that was my oversight. Thanks for fixing it. Abecedare (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


Hinduism Template

Thank you for your comments in my talk page. I have put the subject of "merging all templates into one template - Hinduism" on the Noticeboard for discussion. Presently, I wish to know your personal opinion about this subject as an immediate feedback. Kindly leave two lines in my talk page. Regards Naveen Sankar (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for seeding the discussion. I have added my views there, and we can wait for a couple of days to see what other editors think. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus969 edit warring at George Harrison again

Daedalus969 continues to revert to his preferred version, claiming that MoS says that the "first mention" of a country should be spelt out; however, this only applies to the article body, not the infobox, where brevity is preferrable. Radiopathy •talk• 02:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy has long edit warred over whether or not to include the full name of the country in the infobox, he claims the MOS doesn't apply to the infobox, other editors (including myself) disagree. Isn't Radiopathy under a 1RR restriction? These two edits [8] [9] today seem to show he's edit warring on that article, which ironically is what he accuses Daedalus969 of doing above. Dayewalker (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not edit warring when you do it? Radiopathy •talk• 13:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Please don't remove my comments [10]. And what edit warring are you talking about? Dayewalker (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I have left my comments on Radiopathy's [11]. Let me know if you notice a repetition of the reported behavior. Abecedare (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussions here and here. Until a clear precedent or actual policy is set, any alteration to any Britain-related article by Daedalus969, Dayewalker or Koavf should be considered disruptive and should be dealt with appropriately.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiopathy (talk • contribs)
You shouldn't be the one handing out orders when you are clearly involved in the matter.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Radiopathy: I am glad that you are discussing the issue on the talk and project pages. That is the right way to get firm consensus on the style issue; edit-warring instead is simply ineffective. If you have any specific issue with Daedelus et al's edits, feel free to bring it up at ANI or the appropriate forum. If it is simply a matter of a few specific diffs I can provide you with my input, but if it involves a more nebulous or longer term issue, I may not be able to to examine it in detail at present and you'll be better off at the general fora.
Daedalus: To prevent distracting escalation, it would be best if Radiopathy and you don't respond to each other's comments or address the other, except when it is directly related to content. Abecedare (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
So be it. So instead of saying anything to him, I'll just post to you this link, and go on about other things I've been doing.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Koavf

Look at this and feel free to give an opinion. Radiopathy •talk• 04:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you were pointing to. I see that Koavf reverted your latest edit, which is not what I would encourage him to do, but since, unlike you, he is not under a 1RR restriction it doesn't merit a block. When you return to wikipedia at the end of current block ends, you are welcome to request the community at ANI to consider a 1RR or other restrictions on other involved editors (I haven't examined their editing history in sufficient detail to have an opinion on whether any such restriction is needed). In any case, Koavf's and other's editing do not in any way condone your violations and disruptions. Abecedare (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hemant Karkare

Hi. A WP:SPA has been adding conspiracy theories to that article again[12]. Just thought i'd let you know. Thanks for your attention.117.194.199.225 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the edit and letting me know. I too will keep an eye on the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947‎

Does this make sense? --RegentsPark (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Will check sources and get back (may be a few hours; connection keeps timing out). Abecedare (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
A quick opinion: The Azad Kashmir bit at least looks like unjustified POV pushing. Firstly Kashmir, under Hari Singh, had formally acceded to India before the war, and so could not be a distinct participant in the war. Secondly, afaik Azad Kashmir itself came into existence in 1949 after the war ended, the UN dealing was over etc. Thirdly, it can be argued that since Azad Kashmir is not widely recognized as a sovereign entity, it cannot be a independent warring party anyway - but this point is moot as far as the 1947 war is concerned.
Still need to verify the casualty figures... Abecedare (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It didn't sound likely that Azad Kashmir would be an independent belligerent, even had it existed at that time, but always helps to get a (good!) second opinion.--RegentsPark (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Some revisions to my quick comment above:

  • The war started around Oct 21, while Kashmir acceded to India on Oct 26th. So it can be regarded as a independent participant for those few days (whether this is worth mentioning in the infobox is another question).
  • I take back my third point about only sovereign entities being regarded as warring parties, because there are several exceptions. For example, Bangladesh Liberation War lists Mukti Bahini (and it would be quite silly to regard that as a purely Indo-Pak war); Sri Lankan Civil War lists LTTE and IPKF; 1948 Arab–Israeli War lists a few non-state actors etc. So if the "tribal forces" that rose against Hari Singh's/Indian army had a unified and recognized identity, their inclusion in the infobox could be justified. However, most sources I have seen refer to them simply by amorphous descriptors, such as "tribals", "Pathan tribesmen" etc. and Azad Kashmir seems to be post hoc nomenclature. So I'd still argue for keeping Azad Kashmir out of the infobox, but my argument has developed from before.
  • Onwar.com is just a single-person hobbyist website (see Q4 in the FAQ). I could not find any information about the author/editor/publisher Ralph Zuljan that would indicate that he is a recognized expert in military history, let alone a specialist in South Asian wars, and the source should not be regarded as reliable on wikipedia. (It is revealing that User:Who ever I am2 revised the Indian casualty figures from 1104 to 3000 based upon this website, but ignored the higher casualty figures of 5,000 that the site claims for Pakistan. Perhaps regular editors in the Indo-Pak are will recognize the sock-master.). Don't know if and what is the consensus estimate for the Indian and Pakistani casualties, but it is safe to revert the edit for now.

Abecedare (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edits of the editor in question, I suspect a POV warrior of note. I'm no expert on socks, but if you have any idea which drawer to look in ....! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, certainly a sock, but not being very active in the Indo-Pak area I cannot be confident of the master (I know User:Nangparbat for one shares similar POV). User:YellowMonkey, User:Nishkid or User:Elockid have greater experience in sock-hunting in this area, and of course, Spaceman is a walking-talking sock database. Abecedare (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll drop a note on ym and spiff's pages. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

hello question

i was curiosu when it comes to the India article, or an article in general, is there one person who is in charge of that artciile and / or is there one person in charge of an article in general? Suppose an article cant be editited anymore, who decides, and who has the power to edit the article then? If it cant be editited anymore? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No editors are accorded special privileges in deciding an article's content. But that does not mean that we do not discriminate on the basis of content or contributions. And if an editor repeatedly makes the same point, long after it has been explained why it is incorrect or irrelevant, their posts are likely to be eventually ignored or even expunged. That is what is happening with your contributions to Talk:India, given your long history of "ancient Aryan" POV pushing and disruption at the page. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Yudhisthira.jpg

Not sure about this, so seeking your opinion. How do we deal with CC images with creator's name on it like File:Yudhisthira.jpg? I have removed it for now, since it looks encyclopedic; Also another problem with the image is that, it could be anyone, and its advisable to settle with some museum's historic image. Any thoughts on this? Also, off late astrologers have started to make some awesome predictions --TheMandarin (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Though definitely good faithed, I see similar problems originating from the same creator, for ex File:Kasmira.jpg, without a valid RS on which it is based, its hard to establish the authenticity. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that images like File:Yudhisthira.jpg are inappropriate for wikipedia unless the watermark is removed (see, WP:WATERMARK) and the editor can point to some evidence that the depiction is faithful to some historic iconographic style (of course, having actual historic images is preferable). Ditto, for the map: it fails verifiability unless someone points to a map, or least a detailed textual description, of the geography. Wikipedia allows for some commonsensical leeway on what images are acceptable; for example, if I personally take a photograph of Sachin Tendulkar or Lotus temple, I would not be expected to provide a reliable source establishing that the images depicted the claimed person, or object. However, this does not apply to the type of images you cite, since there is no "obvious" method for us to verify their faithfulness, and the burden for doing so lies with the uploader.
I'll add a {{cn}} tag to the inclusion of the map on the Kasmira Kingdom, and it can be removed if no sources are forthcoming. Aside: if the images are not included in any article, it may not be worth bothering to get them deleted from wikipedia, but a source is necessary before they can be shown to wikipedia readers. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, another question regarding File:EpicIndiaCities.jpg. The image clearly says that "100% accuracy is not claimed". Do you this its advisable to have such images in articles or should they be removed? --TheMandarin (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism

Hi! I have known your work on Wikipedia since a very long time. I desperately need your views and involvement in this article. User:Sinneed and User:Profitoftruth have been undoing my edits (ignore the removal of the POV template that was put up in between a revert; I don't dispute that) for no good reason.

Please evaluate my edit and tell me where I have wronged? I have explained my stand on Talk:Sikh extremism. But User:Sinneed is adamant to remove the incident on Ujjal Dosanjh and if you go through the page history he displays signs of WP:OWNership of the article.

Regards, --59.182.35.235 (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My internet connection is flaky today, but I'll try to take a look at the dispute in the next 5-6 hours (unless the internet problem persists; have my fingers crossed!). In the meantime I'd recommend that you and others not edit-war over the edit, since that is a very ineffective strategy to get ones edits to stick. More later. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My 2c: it is legitimate to mention the 1985 attacks and (less persuasively) the 2010 threats against Ujjal Dosanjh, but it should be done concisely. No need to go into the exact injuries and number of stitches he received; all that can be included in the Ujjal Dosanjh page. As it stands, the space devoted to the (relatively minor) Dosanjh incidents is equal to/greater than the Kanishka bombing, which is plain ridiculous. The article on the whole is in horrible shape:

  1. It suffers gravely from recentism. How else can one explain the undue length of the 1990s and 2000s section relative to the short shrift given to the 1980s, which were the heydays of Sikh extremism in service of the Khalistan movement.
  2. No mention of Indira Gandhi assassination (while we are discussing mere Facebook threats against a Candadian MP)!
  3. The article is not only poorly focused, but also it's scope is ill-defined. I would argue that only those violent acts undertaken in the name of protecting/advancing Sikh religion or Sikh people should qualify as Sikh extremism. Merely being a Sikh is not enough (imagine, for example, regarding almost every violent criminal in US/Europe as a Christian extremism - wouldn't fly for a second). Thus IMO Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh etc are not within the scope of the page.

Sorry for going beyond your original query - but it is disappointing to see poorly developed articles on wikipedia, even though its length suggests that considerable effort has been devoted to its writing. (I'll copy part of my comments to the article talkpage; hopefully involved editors will give them some consideration). Abecedare (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Its always nice to have your views! You are right, the article is in bad shape and disorganized. Now I don't feel like touching it!! All I wanted was some expert opinion on its talk page to direct editors - on how to improve it by pointing out the flaws. Regards, --59.182.21.93 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't intend to drive editors away from the article. Look at this way: the poor quality of an article means that there are many obvious ways to improve it, and one need not have an in-depth knowledge of the subject in order to make substantial contributions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No its not because of you. I just dont want to get in the muddle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.96.93 (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)