This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abecedare. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Slatersteven While I don't condone Sitush's initial response to you or the accusation of stalking, it is also amply clear from your mass revert, seconding of a troll's complaint/gross personal attack instead of redacting it (you of course were welcome to complain directly on your own behalf after examining the content issues) etc that you are not familiar with the content and source issues in this topic-area or the editing-environment surrounding it. Please take some time to look into the background and do not needlessly escalate the issue by issuing templated warnings or filing pre-mature 3RR reports. Abecedare (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Which is why I asked for it to be explained. As I cannot read whatever language those insults weer in I had no idea what was being said (I thought that was clear from my comment about English). How can I understand what the issues are if the response to be asked what they are if to be told that No I will not explain? But your right, I should have just reverted again and let the user fly past 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way they undid at least four separate edits (as they removed material at least 4 times) over 1 24 hour period (in fact within the same day). It is only technically a 3RR violation (as some of the material might be very old).Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Lets keep the 3RR discussion on the board. The discussion being split over four pages (as it is, at present) is not easy to keep track of for the participants and others. Abecedare (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't looked into the history between the two of you (and don't plan to, at least at present) but can you clarify how you came across the Kayastha article? I ask, because your editing shows that you are not familiar with this whole topic-area, and thus could raise genuine concerns about WP:HOUNDING. Abecedare (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, though I will what about wp:agf? Its called ....I am going to have to be very careful as frankly right now I am in sarky mode... WP:NPOVN. Also its an odd kind of hounding as I do not recall interacting with them this year.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The user would have been pointed to it if instead of escalating form the off they had civilly asked. But then that is the issue, you are saying we should deescalate, I did not escalate until a refusal to even engage. Yet it is me that has had to justify and defend themselves from unsound ad hominem in breach of civility (and AGF).Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
{re|Slatersteven}} use Google translate. It's Urdu, not Hindu, and some of it has been explained on the talk page. I've had to waste time rev/deleting edit summaries, text, even usernames all attacking Sitush today. You replied to a post signed " Shitooz" attacking Sitush, wasn't that a clue? I've deleted the NPOVN post by the way, we don't allow socks to edit. Doug Wellertalk15:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes some of it was explained, after I had already posted, in response to me. And no Shitooz was not much of a clue, as A. I very rarely take much notice of user names as I try to argue against points, not people and B. Shitooz could well just be a rude username and C. I could not tell who the damn thing was signed by as it was inconstant and all over the place (and as far as I can tell unsigned).Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven I believe this to be a series of unfortunate events caused by editors not knowing where the other was coming from. Sitush apparently not knowing about the NPOVN post that brought you in; and you not knowing of the (exemplary) clean-up they have been doing in this area plagued with content and conduct issues and the harassment they have faced from, most recently, abusive sock-accounts blocking whom has kept multiple admins busy. The environment was ripe for what would in general be "misdemeanours" (your mass revert; their rude reaction) to cause the unfortunate blow up.
In any case, I hope that now that you both are better aware of the background facts and have had time to cool down, you (again, both) will be able to move past this kerfuffle. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I was not uncivil to them until they escalated, that will always be the case with me, wp:cir may sometimes be an issue with me (for various reasons), but then I will ask for it to be explained. The next time (if our paths cross again) I will be civil to them, it is up to them how they respond. I will now draw a line under this now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
SPI
This is easier then trying to find whatever socks have been harassing certain users.
Blocked. A CIR issue although I have marked it as DE out of politeness, and left them a note that they can be unblocked if they show an understanding of the policies they are violating. Abecedare (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I will notify you if I see any similar activity coming from any IP's located in Vancouver, Canada and its neighboring cities. Yowashi (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Yup. After a few quite days the article has seen increased action today. Hopefully, this reminder and a short block of the worst offender will encourage everyone to discuss and then edit. Fingers crossed for now. Abecedare (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
On 30 March 2020, administrator Abecedare posted an admin-note at Talk:2020 Delhi riotsimposing a moratorium on making any further unilateral edits to the lede till April 15 2020; until then, any changes to the lede from the current version should first be proposed and discussed on the talkpage and a clear consensus for the change established.
It is now more than a week since the moratorium expired on April 15.
I am therefore bewildered by this section headed Lead moratorium, where admin RegentsPark has zeroed in on my edit of 23 April 2020 at 16:45, to advise Abecedare "to keep a watch on the slow lead changes" at 2020 Delhi riots.
Please, what is going on? There is no Lead moratorium. Editors are free to edit the lead just as they would any other part of the article space. I should not be singled out this way in a conversation between administrators behind my back. NedFausa (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
And now I find that RegentsPark has added his own discretionary sanction that reads: Till April 15, 2020, editors are not permitted to make any edits to the article lede without prior discussion and consensus on the talk page. That is, of course, nonsense. Today is April 24, 2020. NedFausa (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@NedFausa: The earlier moratorium on editing the lede w/o consensus did indeed expire on April 15, and thus your April 23 edit did not contravene that expired sanction. There was, as I said above, evidence of incipient edit-warring on the page involving multiple editors, which prompted me to leave a 1RR reminder on the article talkpage.
In your 30 March 2020 admin-note, you stated that you were imposing a moratorium because continuing arguments and (slow) edit-warring over the lede is (a) creating a battleground atmosphere, and (b) preventing the development of the rest of the article. Your moratorium defused the battleground, but there is no evidence that it led to development of the rest of the article. These moratoria freeze the lead in place and discourage editors from involving themselves in what seems like a rigged game. NedFausa (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Here are changes to the article during the period of the earlier moratorium. Are these 'enough' or would more/fewer changes to the article body have been made in the absence of the moratorium? I don't know but I don't see how preventing editors from edit-warring over the lede would discourage them from contributing to the article overall. And while admins can, to a certain extent, prevent disruptive editing, they cannot force editors (who are all volunteers, after all) to devote their time to constructively edit any particular article or part of an article. They can only enable and encourage, which is what IMO RP's discretionary sanction does. Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Most of the edits shown in your diff are trivial, such as changing curly quotes to straight quotes or making regular spaces into nonbreaking spaces. Overall, this basically proves my point that the article was not significantly improved during your moratorium. NedFausa (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The above user deleted my edits in 6 pages. He stated that it was NOT NEWS OR NO MEDICAL ADVICE. I have had made sure there were legit references to my contributions. Please guide me.
Can you see his edits? If not then here's one of the pages that was changed (View Edit History)
@TheNavedKhan: Your edits are well-intended but are running afoul of some special rules governing medical articles on wikipedia. See WP:MEDRS for the details but the gist of it is that the sourcing for medical claims has to be of particularly high quality and even findings of published studies/clinical trials is looked at with suspicion until review articles and textbooks start accepting them. So it is not surprising that the addition of acouple of pre-print saying that some drugs "are worth considering" for COVID-19 treatment is being reverted.
Now, the application of WP:MEDRS to the Covid-19 situation is complicated since the latter has scrambled the speed and standard publication guidelines of medical journals in the real-world and it is possible that the rules on wikipedia have been (or will be) tweaked to take that reality into account. While I doubt wikipedia guidelines will be changed enough to allow the inclusion of content that you added, you will be able to get better guidance about the applicable rules if you ask at WT:COVID-19. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please semi protect the page hearing loss? I'm sick of the vandalism it gets. Can you please take care of that for me?
Bear420 (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bear420: The article hasn't seen sufficient recent disruption to justify semi-protection. I see though that your recent edits to the article have been reverted by other users. If you are concerned about those reversions, I'd suggest that you open a discussion on Talk:Hearing loss stating what changes you propose to make and citing the sources that support those additions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
This above user page is again and again reverting page article on "Zamindars of Bihar".
Please put this above user in Block List or put an extended-confirmation protect right on the article page User.
You can also check the "View History".
The statement being made by me on the talkpage is as follows: "The
Bhumihar and Rajputs hold approximately 73 percent of the total land
area in Bihar with little other enterprise, land ownership in State shows
the dominance and power structure of these two caste."
I am also giving proof the aforesaid statement being made by me on it's talkpage.ItWiki97 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)ItWiki97
[1]
@Abecedare Hey, can I ask you one question....? Do You Belong from Brahmin Caste ? As it seems that Sitush and Kautilya3 belong from Brahmin Community. So it may happen that because of Jealousy towards others may make them to do something unusual like deleting some evidence by any means, (or) putting words or doing something unusual which may show Bhumihar Brahmin and RajputsZamindars of Bihar in low or bad light. So Please, let me choose myself any third party or another administrators. And also don't be unbiased towards other Communities like Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs. ItWiki97 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)ItWiki97
@ItWiki97: I pinged Sitush and Kautilya3 because they are well-acquainted with wikipedia policies, knowledgeable about caste issues and sources, and have a demonstrated ability to edit neutrally in this area. Of course, you are welcome to get further input on the content-issue at WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN etc, or throught the dispute resolution processes but avoid on- or off-wiki-canvassing. And feel free to ask any other admin to review my actions, if it helps assure you that you or your POV are not being railroaded here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Abecedare: Please tell me if you are from a Brahmin Caste ? I think Sitush and Kautilya3 will not be helpfull as they will or may disregard this fact that majority of Zamindars of Bihar belonged from Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs Castes and not from any Brahmin castes.
Sorry, but I don't discuss anything related to my real-life identity on wikipedia. Also, be aware that speculating and commenting on editors' ethnic, religious or caste-background, instead of evuluating their edits and sources, invariably gets one into trouble. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I cannot assess or delete pages on Russian-language wikipedia. You'll need to follow the prescribed practice on that site. Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Requesting Your Views on an AFD
Dear Abecedare,
Would request you to take a look at an [AFD Discussion] going on. There is an internet slandering going on about a respected individual. As a part of the slander reputed news paper articles in Indian media, Government of India circulars and press releases are being called baseless. Would request you to please take a look at the discussion and express your views.
I have redacted a BLP violation from the discussion and left the editor a note. Will try to take a look at the substance of the discussion in a day or two.
PS: The above note about the AFD is ok since I assume you picked me at random and you haven't mass-posted such requests but, in general, you should be aware of wikipedia's policies about canvassing. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Abecedare: yes I had made a random pick. Thanks for the redact. As you can see every action is being closely monitored with the content posted below. Would request a NPOV on it from your end, if you could please spare the time for the same. I did not mean canvassing. Sorry for the late reply, have been caught up with work over the weekend. Anu231 (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Anu231: you can indeed believe that every action is monitored considering you or associates of yours are posting through the following six accounts:
In which Mr. Deepak Rao himself or his associates use 4 different accounts to try to protest the deletion. You will see something interesting if you go over those four profiles - namely, even the ones that have been around since 2013 have above 90% of their posts related to Mr. Deepak Rao. Additionally, if you read the articles and examine the sources, there is nothing left of substance once you remove non-credible sources or self-created sources.
You can read the below thread on Mr. Deepak Rao's claims, as well as reasons for how they can not be true. He alleges such claims as:
being a doctor from Harvard with an M.D. and PhD
Having a law degree from Yale
Having another law degree from the UK
Having a PhD in crisis prevention from Indiana
Having a BJJ black belt (takes 10-12 years on average) from a nonexistent black belt at a nonexistent school in France, proven false with a quick fact check with the IBJJF senior referees as well as with the 2 associations he also claimed to have a black belt certificate from
Having every force from the FBI to the CIA to the Special Forces all use his training manuals (not true, I had never even heard of his system before, and I have trained many soldiers)
being able to duck live bullets at will
And many other claims. I was not calling him a Charlatan as an insult, but as a statement of fact. He unquestionable is "a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill". Dangerously so, in fact, as he is training people to have confidence in completely made up skills, and is actually performing medicine on people who believe him to have advanced medical credentials, when the Indian Medical Board website shows him to just have a 3 year medical degree. A far cry from a dual M.D. and PhD from Harvard.
I would like to request your unbaiased review of the matter, and would invite you to leave your thoughts and comments on the delete page. Given the facts of the matter, I would also like to request that you revert the description of the deletion reason.
@BasicsOnly: I am already aware of some of the related AFD discussions and will comment at the current AFD once I have looked into the subject's notability on my own. In the meantime, could you point me to where he has claimed to be for eg, "doctor from Harvard with an M.D. and PhD", or have a law degree from Yale or UK? Abecedare (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I'm happy to hear that you will look into this. To be clear, I'm not asking you to do what I say or agree with me, I just think this topic deserves a close look because simply looking with a neutral predisposition clearly shows that he is making everything up anyways. I'm happy to provide sources, please look at the sources below for information on his claims. One challenge with finding said claims is that you will need to use something like wayback machine as he has gone into full damage control mode at this point and is closing everything up. For example, this is his current web page for his BJJ website (he has MANY websites for different claims and hats he adopts), whereas THIS has many of his martial arts claims (judo rank claim, BJJ claim, claims to teach "Kickboxing, Karate, Taekwondo, Hapkido, Judo, Boxing, Wrestling, Isreali Krav Maga, BJJ, Wing Chun, Shaolin Kung Fu, Ninja, Brazilian Jiu Jutsu / Jitsu, Jiu Jutsu, jeet Kune Do JKD, Filipino Philipino Martial arts, Kali, Arnis, Escrima, Silat, Capoeira, Self Defense Defence for Women & Ladies").
Likewise when we go to another of his websites here we don't see the same claims such as the law degree and harvard M.D that we see here where he alleges the following
Quote
Indian Army Brand Ambassador. 1 of 5 Indians to get Presidents Rank Award Since 1947. Pioneer Modern CQB Training for Elite Commando Units. Helped Train Anti Terror Squads of 12 States. Hon Major TABN, Parachute Regiment.
Scientist. Researched & Authored 10 Books on Political Science, Pragmatic Philosophy & Non Interventional Medicine. Invented Rao Reflex Shooting System. World Peace Awardee. Motivational Keynote Speaker on use of Military / Battle protocol for Management.
Harvard Qualified Doctor. No Intervention Physician. Doctorates In Law, Alt Med & Philosophy. Follower Of Zen Buddhism. Sensei /Master Of Mumbai Zen Dojo/Group.
8th Deg Blackbelt in Military UAC. President of UCCA, Academy of Professional Black Belt Instructors. II Generation Bruce Lee Descendant. First Indian Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Blackbelt under Gracie. MMA BJJ National Coach for Russia, Germany & Arizona. Director & Film Maker
He is Harvard Medical School qualified Doctor. He is an expert on Zen with study of Religion, again from Harvard University. He is a published author of 10 books. His books have gone to FBI, INTERPOL & Buckingham Palace. He is a Motivational Keynote Speaker & perhaps the topmost in the field of Military Talks.
ALSO - if you click download biodata, you get the following claims:
"Major Deepak Rao is a Medical doctor who has studied Pharmacology or Drug Therapy from Harvard Medical School as well as Naturotherapy from Alternative Medicine. He has a PhD in Military Science, a PhD in Law from UK, a PhD in Zen Buddhism. He has also studied Religious Literacy from Harvard. He is a published author of 10 books on military, political science, medicine and philosophy. He is a multidimensional personality being a Commando Trainer, Doctor, Author, SCUBA Instructor, Combat Driver, MMA Coach, Worlds highest Instructor in Bruce Lee's art JKD who learnt under Bruce Lee’s 75 year old student Grand Master Richard Bustillo. He has a 8th degree Blackbelt in Unarmed Combat making him the senior most in the country.
He is a popular motivational speaker known for Battle philosophy for corporate management, Sun Tzu Art of war for business & Zen philosophy for peaceful life. Major Deepak Rao got World Peace Award in 2008. He has over 1000 commendations till date from President, Prime Ministers, Army Chiefs, Naval Chief, Paramilitary heads, DGP. Internationally he has received appreciation from Robert Muller then FBI Chief, Ronald Noble then INTERPOL Secretary general and Her Majesty, the Queen of England!"
This is just from two of his sites. On others such as Drdeepakrao.com, etc. you see other claims such as a Yale law degree. It's all entirely inconsistent. He doesn't even keep his claims in line with each other. you can read much more about that in this thread.
I invite you to look at them at your leisure. It's a very interesting read.
@BasicOnly: Thanks for the answer. I guess Rao is following the wikipedia discussion and has now blocked the archiving of his website. In anycase, we can always assess the available sources we'll need to build any article upon. Will do so and comment at the AFD by tomorrow. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry
for pinging you so much. I copied the conversation we had regarding the AfD, and didn't think about the fact that it probably pinged you a bunch of times in the process.
No problem. As I just wrote on your talkpage, best to keep discussion in one place instead of trying to repeat the arguments at each venue. Even save you some effort. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: No real hurry since the account are (mostly) already blocked, article pages protected, and talkpages watched by many editors/admins. The sleeper check request is only to shorten the 'sock account creation' -> 'block' cycle, and given the history with the topic-area, may in any case need to be run periodically. So even a few days delay won't be much of an issue IMO. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Firstly thank you for responding to my earlier query which was related to Covid-19.
I have a question to ask. I want to create new articles on Wikipedia for persons and companies. How do I stop a new article from getting deleted? I have found ADVERTISING to be the main reason, but how do I make sure it's not promotional? What things make a page promotional?
I have tons of topics to be created.
I would really appreciate your humble response. If it's possible then when I create a new page, could you please review it?
@TheNavedKhan: Glad to see you eager to venture deeper into content creation. Since this will be your first article, and promotional-ism is a concern, here are some best-practices to follow:
Familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines most relevant to your subject (likely to be some sub-part of WP:NBIO or WP:NORG) and make sure that the subject passes that bar with ease. Don't pick any borderline case for your first article!
Search for reliable sources on the subject; again don't drift close to the border of what would/could be (merely) an acceptable source. To avoid promotional-ism, double-check that the sources are independent of the subject.
Then just summarize what the sources say in neutral terms!
I'd recommend using the AFC process for your first article, since that gives you more time, leeway, and access to tips than an article created in mainspace. Once you have a draft ready, feel free to ping me for feedback. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer!
Tell me how does one even know if someone is related to you or not?
Can we not create Wiki for small companies or their founders?
I think I understand the rest, I will use the APC and send you an article to review.
I have created my first article which is based on the video-game Counter-Strike. Please let me know if everything is correct. I am hoping to soon create articles of non-fictional things. Here's the link to ::my first article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:De_inferno please check it out.
@TheNavedKhan: Unfortunately that draft will need to be deleted because it is essentially a copy of the Fandom wiki page on the game and thus raises copyright issues. In addition, the draft didn't establish the game's notability (which is evaluated per WP:GNG); didn't cite any reliable-sources (user-generated content is not acceptable as a source); and didn't summarize in your own words what the sources said. So you should slow down, re-read the tips and the policies linked in my previous comment, and consider making more incremental edits till you get your feet set. Cheers.
PS: Technically, in this instance, the copyright issues can be handled by proper attribution since the original text is released under the CC-BY-SA license but given the other issues, deletion and restarting from scratch makes more sense. Naved, you can safely ignore this post-script it it reads like gibberish.Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I will rewrite them in my own words but how will I get references then?
I didn't understand the game's notability section. Can you help me out?
@TheNavedKhan: To search for sources considered reliable for video gaming, start here. You can also ask at video gaming noticeboard for knowledgeable editors' quick assessment of whether the Inferno map is likely to be notable enough for a wikipedia article of its own. Abecedare (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I have asked that group. I want to know what makes a company or a person noticeable on Wikipedia? I have gone through you attached Wiki help but it's not clear.
On De inferno: I see that in response to your question, Izno considers it unlikely that this subject would qualify under the general notability guidelines. I would therefore recommend dropping this topic, at least for your first article, and picking a subject whose notability is not in doubt (or, making incremental changes to existing articles).
Finally, take a look at WP:THREAD on how to indent talkpage posts properly; not as important as the policies linked previously in this section but, on the other hand, pretty easy to learn and follow. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello again! I have created a different page this time.
Please check if everything is okay! It is certainly notable because of the main character being famous. It's a new game, released in February. I am sure within a few months there will be enough references to support it.
@TheNavedKhan: This draft shows improvements over the previous one with no apparent copyright violation issues. The lede is also written neutrally and in the expected style. However the other two sections veer into a how to/gameguide and non-neutral ("Updates are on its way to improve the Gameplay.") territory. These are relatively easy issues to fix. However, the main concern is that the article does not cite any independent reliable source! Among the four sources cited is the website of the game developer and three platforms that aggregate user reviews, which don't help help establish notability.
I don't know enough about video-gaming to be able to tell if the game is likely to be notable enough for a wikipedia article but the place to start would be to search for detailed reviews or write-ups (not just trivial mentions or reprint of press-announcements about the game's release etc) in sources listed here. If you find a few such articles, then the draft would be worth retaining and developing further. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I am improving. I took Subway Surfers into reference, and followed its guide. The only problem arose is that it's a new game and that's why not many references to back it up. I am sure in a few weeks, I will get proper validation for it.
@TheNavedKhan: Glad to see you well. Unfortunately, the Uday Bulletin draft doesn't say anything beyond what is contained in the first two sentences on the website's About us page. Having looked for sources, the bulletin has received no independent coverage at all and is not notable at present. By the way, how do know that the website was founded by Ajeet Bhatnagar? Abecedare (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! So, it can be saved in the draft for now, right? When I get more stuff on it, then you can have a look and let me know if it will work or not?
If you go to the official RNI website, you will get the press's info by accessing the records. (Name of the company)
TheNavedKhan (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation about the website's ownership. No harm in keeping the [Draft:Uday_Bulletin]] in draft-space for now. We can see if independent sources become available in a few months. Abecedare (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
This time I chose someone with awards! It's a brief page with lots of content, and references. Although, I am having trouble sorting out the references. Please let me know how can I make this page successful?
Hello, Abecedare. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 06:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'm Nahshon Anderson an artist, writer and African American Transgender. In March, my Wikipedia article was nominated for deletion. In April, it was deleted. Since then, I have received two grants from national arts organizations. Though the grants have not been mentioned in the press (as of yet), I can provide you proof via email. Will you please consider reviewing them to restore my Wikipedia article or are you the wrong person to ask?
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hi Abecedare, to give you a brief update about the JSB article situation:
The process, predictably imo, has stalled, and has remained on hold since early June, as both I along with the other users supporting the rewrite, and the one user opposing the process, await your guidance (You haven't missed much meaningful discussion since that time, it has mostly been wheel-spinning).
I have posted a version of the Politics section edit in my Sandbox, for over two months now, where it can be reviewed by all. GSS requested the use of the sandbox, then ignored multiple requests to engage in discussion of it; in any case, other users have voiced support for the displayed edit and no one has voiced any concerns with it. You may be the only one he may listen to, and I think that if we set a precedent with this section, other sections may not require as much interminable mediation.
It is meant to replace sections 3 and 3.1.
I've added a few more sources in the Bibliography (Deol, Grewal, Kumar, Dhillon) in preparation for the edits in the meantime; hopefully they are compliant with policy.
Your input so far has been invaluable, and imo the process will only ever advance with your mediation. This is just an update as it has been a while, and while I think we would all like to see the process over with, I don't mean to imply any added urgency; any help at your convenience would be greatly appreciated. Sapedder (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. In my opinion, the status of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh article is incorrect. If the state does not recognize it, the country to which it belongs must also be written in its status. For example, unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria are not like Arsakh in the article. Arsakh's status was written by three non-UN member states. Sorry, is this important? Does it matter? However, they are unrecognized separatist organizations. Even four countries have recognized the independence of those separatist organizations. But Arsakh was not recognized by any state. Excuse me, why isn't the Republic of Artsakh article the same as the 3 unrecognized states article? Don't you think this is a double standard? Sword313 (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Recognizing your ability to resolve contentious disputes on Indian articles, I am asking for your help in resolving content dispute on Breast tax where most of the editors appear to have agreed that the article is better off as a redirect to Nangeli due to lack of WP:HISTRS verifying the subject at least per extended discussion at Talk:Breast tax#Redirect.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
I'm a new Wikipidians, and so May be i did mistakes But I will correct in every aspect , you're a Administrators , you have so much experienced and I know that Administrators can block me, if I can edit any Wikipedia Page's without a proper sources or with personal agenda. But here I Didn't edit with personnel thinking, this is the true fact with article with true souces like Indian Express, times of India, and hindustan times. Sir you have so much experienced as a Wikipidians then how can you force your narrative in a new Wikipedia users?
And, What is the reasoning behind to Make the Rules of Content regulations should be highlighted with fully Sources with a section. Sandymark11 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to thank you for your help in resolving the situation yesterday. There has been another development, Usernamekiran has now started stalking me. Please check [4] which he reached followed the link of my userpage and then reverted my edit. I have raised it on the article talk as well as user talk [5]. What do you suggest I should do. This is pointy behavior. Venkat TL (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my notice. Some notes:
In general, there is nothing wrong with following such links (which is second nature to us inveterate browsers) but given the recent kerfuffle between the two of you, it would have been been better not to have done so.
That said, the edits Usernamekiran made to those pages were justifiable (and explained in the edit-summary) and especially the edit to the Pegasus page was (afaict) unrelated to any content you previously added to the page.
So I wouldn't label the behavior WP:STALKINGyet but would advice both of your give each other a wide berth; avoiding pages frequented by the other and staying off each others talk page (as seen in the discussion at Talk:Anupama and Username's talkpage, currently any discussion between you two is likely to escalate rather than settle matters). I am hopeful that we can thus avoid the need for measures like WP:IBANs, which are both unpleasant and can easily lead the way to blocks etc. Remember that wikipedia editing is a hobby and a way to make positive contributions while having a pleasant time. Letting minor tiffs fester or worsen defeats that aim. Abecedare (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I will put it here, that I have not followed any of his edits, nor do I intend to. So I am already following everything you suggested. As far as I was concerned the matter of Talk:Anupamaa ended with your intervention. Today I saw that he appeared on my watchlist with 2 more edits, and both are potential disputes, that I intend to take to logical conclusion following WP:DR. Due to their timings, to me it appears as though those 2 edits are attempts to drag this Talk:Anupamaa matter on other pages. I hope UsernameKiran also follows your advice. Venkat TL (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the fyi. I was about to comment there when I edit-conflicted with RoySmith. A good thing because the gist of my comment was 'suspicious but need a CU to be sure'. :) Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for intervening on that talk page; the discussions there have been remarkably unproductive. Reminds me of WP:ARBIRP discussions, where people are three levels deep in policy, and refusing to discuss specific issues of substance...Vanamonde (Talk)15:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
But seriously... delving into novel areas, and developing some related expertise, is part of the fun of editing wikipedia (at one point RP reminded me that I had written significant parts of Maryam Jameelah, while I would have sworn that I had never heard of her). And for wikipedia it is beneficial to have outside, truly disinterested, editors and especially admins. All for the good unless one becomes Randy in Boise and starts mistaking ones ersatz expertise for the real thing. And that's when one's wiki-friends are supposed to boink you over the head. :) Abecedare (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
In this edit editor says they were classified as cultuvating caste not Brahmins but when we open the source than the source is not matching the edit. They say British Raaj sources are not valid but they are sourcing of 1932 British Raj though book of A.H Bingley written in 19th centuary clearly says that they are Brahmins. In one way they are not accepting British sources but adding Raaj sources.Please check the all the previous edits of this page this vandalization was started by other editors not by me.
Its a request check my all sources I added Non British Sources i.e Brahmanutpatti Darpan printed in 2005 by the signature of Shankracharya of Sringeri Math but without checking the printing date they writing this is British Raaj source.I am waiting for your revert. Avinash Vats (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
As I said above, I will reply in a few hours. Please do note that your topic-ban is applicable in the meantime and you should not discuss the topic on wikipedia except to appeal the topic-ban, as you have already done. Abecedare (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear Sir
Please check the below page :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Gaur
I edited this page with exact mentioned sources
in the book but this guy @Marvel200 continously vandalize my edits by checking my history due to certain ideology in that same source clearly mentioned Tyagis are sub caste of Gaurs.
I want to ban this guy in future he/she may vandalize more pages by removing exact information according his/her ideology. Here he/she also started a eidt war i dont want edit war. Avinash Vats (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Avinash Vats: Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy carefully. You cannot discuss Indian social groups anywhere on Wikipedia, that includes this talk page and your talk page. Your post above, and the posts on your talk page are violations of your topic ban. Any more such posts, and you will end up getting blocked. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I would have page-blocked for continuing to treat the talkpage as a forum if I had seen this post in time but, in any case, Y2edit has been page-blocked by Bishonen for a week. Lets see if the block and the feedback they are receiving enables them to edit more productively, or if a wider topic-ban or block becomes necessary. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Jumping through hoops
Hi, Abe, here's a little bureaucracy for you. You tbanned and now indeffed Avinash Vats per General Sanctions. But blocks per GS, as per DS, aren't supposed to be longer than a year. ("Possible sanctions include, but aren't limited to, blocks of up to one year, etc etc".) So possibly your indef block shouldn't be logged at WP:GSCASTE. Or alternatively, you may want to add "as a regular admin action" there. In DS areas I've also seen admins place blocks of 'one year per DS followed by indef as a regular admin action'. So the rule, besides being stupid, is easy to get round. Why do we have it, you may ask. I suppose because ArbComs past and present like to see admins jumping through hoops. Bishonen | tålk07:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen! Will update the GSCASTE log. If memory serves me right, we also have option of logging the first year of the block 'per GSCASTE', and the rest 'per admin action' but I don't think we need that here. Abecedare (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Can you possibly block an IPv6 range, please?
Hi, Abe. I'd love to block a certain IPv6 range for harassment, preferably for a good long time, but unfortunately it's bigger than a /64, so I'm a bit out of my element. See these IP's here:
2402:8100:218c:9275:9da5:c508:df29:4b6b
2402:8100:2188:d0bb:c5a7:3cd8:6c:e9a3
2402:8100:218a:9c22:5dc4:7bc9:b585:fa81
2402:8100:218b:cece:8cbe:8023:71dd:9911
The 218 with a/b/c/8 in the third group flummoxes me. It shouldn't be necessary to block the whole 2402:8100:218X, right? Or am I dreaming? Bishonen | tålk07:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Can block a slightly smaller 2402:8100:2188::/45 set, which would cover all the IP's you listed (IP range calculator tool to determine that). Lots of caste related edits from that range, which could be from the same user although, fwiw, the range also geolocates to Haryana, a center of Jat population. Let me know if you would like me to apply (a 6 month?) block to the range or if you'd like to do the honors. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hah, now I see that the problematic edits/editor are possibly unrelated to the caste-edits/editors on that range. The activity on that range is still sparse enough that a shorter-term range block could be applied if needed. Alternatively, TrangaBellam let us know if you would like your user-talkpage semi-protected or placed under pending-changes protection. I'd be happy to do either. Have also added it to my watchlist; surprisingly, it wasn't on it till now! Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Arghh.. complicated. Are you telling me the caste editing is not disruptive? Unusual, that. (Why do we have caste pages, again? No no, don't tell me, I know why. It's depressing, that's all.) But I'd appreciate it if you'd place a block on the range and make it as long as your conscience permits. Bishonen | tålk09:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Blocked range for 6 months. The only substantial recent contributions from that range are the harassing messages at TB's talkpage and edits to Battle of Khanwa (the caste-related edits date back to Aug 2021 and earlier, so I didn't bother to evaluate their quality; not before coffee). Pretty sure that those two sets of recent edits are by the same logged-off user and suspect that the trolling was motivated by edit-disputes in the Mughal-Rajput topic-area, for example as seen at Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan where TB had participated in the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, great, thank you very much. Blocking Hindutva harassers is a service to humanity. Let's just hope the [profanity removed] doesn't have access to more IPs. I understand (in the vaguest sense of the word) that Indian IP ranges tend to be difficult for us to manage. Bishonen | tålk14:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC).
AITUC was chaired by Subhash Chandra Bose
I think you are biased and afraid to reveal the truth. Even though I mentioned a very old archive as a source, you made the mistake of calling that claim baseless, it is not a claim, it is information, it is true. Abcd amureet (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Abcd amureet:Here is the link of my cleanup, in which I removed the claim that Subhas Chandra Bose was the President of AITUC from 1 December 1929 - 7 July 1931. I removed it because I could not verify that it was supported by the sources you cited. The archive writeup only said, Stalwarts of Indian freedom struggle like Jawahar Lal Nehru (1889-1964), Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose (1897-1945), V.V. Giri (1894-1980) also chaired sessions of the AITUC, which is different from being the President, or even Chairperson, of the organization; there was no mention of the dates or predecessor etc, as far as I could tell. The second source, an opinion column, had no relevant information either. I also had concerns about the source quality and due weight of the claim, as I explained in my edit-summary. If you wish to discuss this further, please start a section at the article talkpage so that other editors interested in the article may also participate. Abecedare (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikidata element
Hi. Could you link the Wikipedia redirect "Kiev" to the Wikidata item Q111190407? I do not have the ability to do it myself as it is limited to only administrators on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. Ordnerud (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ordnerud: I see 'Kiev' (and many other alternate spellings) already listed under the wikidata:Q1899 entry. Isn't that sufficient? I must admit though that I am not really familiar with the wikidata setup. If anything more is required, can you post the request at another admin's talkpage? Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
SPAs in Assam ethnic space
Hi Abecedare, I have reached here on the advice of Fylindfotberserk. In general we have seen articles that are related to ethnic groups from Assam coming under attack from SPAs. Occasionally warrings break out and as a result we had a long series of socks—two of which I know are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sairg/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qwertywander/Archive. These two started around 2017/2019. The socks were generally kept in check by admins such as JzG and Berean Hunter. Now that since they are no longer active I think some of these socks are back and seem to be rather active. I have been trying to get a few uninvolved editors to intervene, but since the number of issues I see now are so high that this mechanism is unlikely to work. I have employed the 3O route, but that too is long drawn out and in unable to keep pace with the POV pushing.
Given this situation, what would you suggest? Ideally, we could have a greater community support, but the subject seems too niche.
@Chaipau: As I learned during my previous experience with Bhaskarbhagawati, the Assam-history/ethnicity pages are indeed a site of frequent POV-pushing, which can be very difficult for outside editors/admins to adjudicate since most (including me) are not very knowledgeable about the subject or editors involved. So it is indeed a pity when editors/admins who have developed some familiarity with the area become inactive (similar issues are faced in caste-related articles).
Let me take a look at the links you provided to get a lay of the land; may take me a day or so. I'll also ping @Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark: since they have experience of cutting through such Gordian knots. Abecedare (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Quick question: can you link some of the articles most-affected? Would it help if the articles were ECP-protected? The protection would be possible under applicable general- and/or discretionary-sanctions if the problem is severe enough, and in the caste-area, that is often preferable to playing whack-a-mole with socks. Abecedare (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Here is a quick/small list which has seen most POV pushing; I shall reply on ECP, etc. later as soon as I can get out of RL.
Update: I skipped the SPI reports for now since there seem to multiple sockmasters involved and trying to match a sockpuppet to the correct master based on behavioral evidence alone is a time-sink, at least for someone who is starting "tabula rasa". I did review the linked articles and see that all involved editors are extended-confirmed; so ECP protection alone won't help with any of the current problems. The most current dispute appears to be at Koch dynasty and following up on that led me to block the involved editor for a month. I have watchlisted the other articles but feel free to drop me a message if there is a flare up where admin intervention would be of help. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Abecedare. This has been most helpful. I also admire your attention to the details of the case and the quick homing in to the violation. I greatly appreciate your putting these on your watchlist. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Procedural violation
(subst:AN-notice) template was never left on my talk page to inform me I was subject of discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard per Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump misrepresented himself as an administrator and started new heading about my conduct without properly notifying me. If I knew I was just engaging with some rando who was backseat moderating I wouldn't have wasted my time. Instead of fighting City Hall I was fighting some dude with anger issues. TheNewMinistry (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@TheNewMinistry: The topic-ban was placed based on your edits and conduct. Complaining about what AndyTheGrump did, or did not do, is besides the point as far as the topic-ban is concerned. If you believe that their conduct violated any wikipedia guidelines you can report it separately to WP:ANI, although I would highly encourage you to not do so since IMO it will boomerang onto you. Instead spend the time, reading WP:BLP and WP:AC/DS and give some thought to if and when you wish to appeal the topic-ban. Abecedare (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Andy's still trying to egg me on in the administrator's noticeboard - you might want to close the thread. Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it. TheNewMinistry (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@TheNewMinistry: Yes, both you and AndyTheGrump should perhaps walk away from that discussion for now. I don't want to close the AN section yet though because I wish other admins to have an opportunity to see the topic-ban announcement I placed there and voice any objections they may have. On a more personal note: I realize that this must be unpleasant and stressful for you. Take a break from wikipedia for at least a few hours; it helps to put all the kerfuffles here (including "sanctions") into perspective. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the links you added to your RfA RfC comment, I'm saving them for reading them before going to bed tonight and am greatly looking forward to it. They seem terribly interesting :D I hope you enjoy the rest of your week. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ixtal: Glad you took them in the spirit they were intended. This article, which provides a capsule history of the topic, may also be of interest to you. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Good points raised in that discussion but sadly it seemed to go nowehere with IMO some talking past each other. Perhaps, as Fylindfotberserk suggested, we need a centralized discussion at WP:INB on use of caste photographs from such 19th century "ethnographic studies". Hopefully, we will be able reach a rough consensus along the lines of what we have for Raj-era sources, or need for self-identification for inclusion on caste-lists. Anyone interested in seeding it? Abecedare (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Ideally, we should be discussing all caste pictures. Should we really be sticking pictures of random people on a web page with a "look, a member of xx caste?" It's one thing to show a ritual, or someone in a cultural setting, or even a well known, clearly identified person of a social group, but to show arbitrary people as if it is useful information seems a tad regressive. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
...and the implicit message behind "look, a member of xx caste?" is "this is what a typical member of the group" looks like. This is of course made explicit in the 19th c. works. Quoting again from Metcalf:
In its initial request for photographs, for instance, the Foreign Department asked the provincial governments to supply likenesses of 'characteristic specimens' of each tribe within their jurisdiction, and to include for each not only the 'peculiar characteristics of costume' but 'the exact tint of their complexion and eyes'.
some talking past each other - You are being mild.
Someone went about the agenda of poco historians without presenting any source while someone, since blocked by AC, did not bother to engage since he was certain about my attempt at censorship "go[ing] down like a shot dog". TrangaBellam (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I was exposed to this caste photo issue handling edit requests on Talk:Ahir, and after initially closing them as "get consensus," I've removed the image after a bit of discussion at Bish's talk page. I think it's probably worth starting a discussion somewhere to get a concrete consensus on these. While I understand there is likely a place for them in an article, as a historic artifact, having them as the only image in a stubby article is pretty bad, and I can certainly see how it would be hurtful to members of the caste viewing the article. It seems to me like using File:Wilson,_Branded_Slave_from_New_Orleans_-_MET_DP272324.jpg or File:Renty_an_African_slave.jpg as the lead image in African Americans. Sure, it's technically apt, but should it be there? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree on both points: the particular images are inappropriate and that we need to discuss and see if there if there is a consensus for our opinion. Perhaps we can have that discussion the next time Sitush is active but if anyone knowledgeable in the area volunteers to initiate it (at say, WT:INB) before then, that would be fine too. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Closure of ANI thread
Hey. Notwithstanding any reflection done by myself or the other parties in the thread that you just closed or another admin reverting the closure, I have a procedural question. As I'm understandably not satisfied with the situation as a whole, what other recourse do I have? Is an ARBCOM request, post closure of the RfA, really the only avenue left to seek any sort of follow-up per WP:ADMINCOND? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: ArbCom is the body empowered to rule on WP:ADMINCOND and take any action beyond issuing a "stern word". But I would sincerely urge you to drop this, or at least, (1) sit on it for a week to see if the issue looms as large at that point, (2) consult with any experienced wikipedian whose opinion you trust and ask them if ANI/ARBCOM is the way to go, and (3) consult with the candidate (preferably, in private) to see if they would like to be pulled down this path. Not all problems on wikipedia are solveable or best addressed through its bureaucratic procedures. Cheers.
PS: Fwiw, I don't doubt your intention or sincerity, and didn't intend the plea-for-introspection part of my closing to be directed at you. Abecedare (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. And yeah that's good advice. Mostly I'm just trying to figure out what the next steps available are, and not committing to one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Dahlaquist is not a RS
Abecedare - please explain why do you consider Dahlaquist is not a RS , I am sure you are right, I am trying to know better , thats all
Do you think this to be a correct assertion of best practices in Wikipedia? Is there any need to source uncontroversial (and absolutely bland) reading of an inscription to three sources?
If one cites multiple works, one is expected to highlight the necessity unless the sources support piecemeal phrases. Footnotes like "For a queer reading of this event, consult XYZ. For a critique of such approach, consult ABC. For a Marxist perspective see PQR. [And so on...]" are quite common in literature but footnotes like "XYZ, ABC, PQR" are quite uncommon in academic literature. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Replied on the article talkpage. You were possibly looking for general input on best practices but since I started looking at the sources themselves, I ended up commenting on somespecific problems I found with the particular article you gave as an example. Ah well. Abecedare (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Info needed
Dear Senior Editor @Abecedare:, I respect you a lot as a very impartial editor here after having some recent conversations with you. I want to bring an odd case to your notice, so that you can have a look at it. Before that this isn't direct accusations so not naming anyone here, I am just asking if all this is allowed on wiki or not especially with accounts which aren't very old. Two editors are unfortunately cooperating like possible suspected meat puppets or tag team. Some possible proof for the same: One editor pinged other editor on his/her talk page twice once on 7th March and next on 13th April [here] the other editor just restored the edit to the desired version of First editor skipping all relevant edits in the duration, and the other editor added his content just 2 hrs late [here], this was on 7th March - 8th March. This was all wrt to a fake image depicting a social group, they tried their level best without countering my points. They repeated same steps three weeks back, it was an attempt not to try to discuss but to insert fake image by any means. In next similar incident, the editor mass deleted the whole content by giving misleading edit summary here-[here]. Isn't this WP:OWN ? Later again on another similar page, the particular editor restored the preferred version of his/her or to the version of his desired friendly editor. It looks like on many pages similar habit is being repeated by the same editor. ( possible WP:Tag team ). And this was done to insert a fake user image. The two editors have already shared the mail IDs when their accounts were very new just a month old, this is not justified as they were and even now are not very old editors. I went through some of diffs and found this just see here - [[6]], they are surely in contact with each other outside of Wikipedia and are here involved to build their similar opinions on many talk pages to have some form of WP:SQS, WP: STONEWALL. They have reverted edits to each other versions etc on lots of instances as their edit history suggests. This is not simple case. I am asking this because I respect you as an impartial and experienced editor, can I take all this up for meat puppetry/ continuous tag teaming ? Because they have shared their mail ID from the first month itself and one is openly saying that he will share private msgs for cooperation. All this was fine, had they were not involved into building opinions to each other views on talk page discussions to others and reverting edits continuously to each other versions. My one question can I take this up for meat/tag teaming. I can share more diffs here- it seems lots of cooperation. RS6784 (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
RS6784, this is absurd and defamatory. You start by saying this is not an accusation and then continue to make unfounded accusations. At the very least, please have the courtesy to ping the people you are talking about - @Heba Aisha: and me so we can defend ourselves rather than attacking them behind their back. FYI, I have not shared my email address with Heba nor had any private exchange with her, nor do we agree on all points. In fact, I do not even have an email address attached to my wikipedia account as of today. Don't you think I would at least have added an email address in the last two years so I could privately send messages to Heba? This is common sense. Your accusations are false because I HAVE objected to the Bihari Rajput pic by Heba at times. Check the history on the talk page of Rajput. I also objected to the current pic that Heba has added in the origin section on Rajput and made it clear to you. I suggested another pic. I also disagreed with her edits on Bhumihar and we have different interests.
Heba and I have faced a number of attacks in 2020 from Rajput and Kayastha because sourced content like Shudra etc. was added on Rajput and Kayastha pages. There was some Kayastha(Srivastava) who was constantly attacking Heba and even editing her talk page and redirecting it. BTW, I have reverted to versions by other trusted editors too - like JonathanSammy etc, does not mean we have contact outside wikipedia or are privately collaborating. It means we are fighting caste warriors who delete sources or add fake quotes. The case of 106.* who disrupted the Rajput page is proof. Let me make it clear. I edit independently using high quality academic(generally) sources and have no need nor any interest to collaborate with anyone else outside wikipedia. I do not need support either since the sources are high quality. All my discussion is on talk pages to see. I have no email account as of today-associated with WP. If I ever add an email address to my account, it will only be to access academic publications or communicate with admins. The only external collaboration I have seen is by some Rajputs on a facebook page called "Rajputs against Propoganda"(https://www.facebook.com/WetheKshatriyas/) which mentions wikipedia and names of editors . Are you part of that group or any other similar group? Just asking - not accusing as 30 people have liked that group and I wonder how many such private groups are there. Unlike you who seems to be focused on Rajputs, my interest is "caste/varna mobility" not Rajputs. I do not have obsession with one community. From what I have seen, Heba edits politics specific pages. She seems to have interest in Indian politics and I do not have much interest in either Indian or American politics. Here, Talk:Rajput/Archive_30 I made some edits as per your request. Does that mean you and I are collaborating? BTW, another editor advised me to ignore you in 2021. I guess I should have listened. See Hi @LukeEmily Pls just look at Ahir wiki page and compare it with Rajput page. For Ahir wiki page, newspaper sources have been and no correction has been done, even incorrect states have been mentioned. Why is Norman Zeingler source no mentioned there where older kshatriya had perished by 300 BC. Similar unwanted claims are made on Jat, Gujjar etc pages. RS6784 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC) not* RS6784 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC) LukeEmily, don't waste your efforts until the user actually provides a scholarly source that is criticising Tanuja Kothiyal's work. What they are doing now is known as WP:SYNTHESIS. In fact, I have wasted my time yesterday with their carelessly posted personal views at Talk:Bhati and Talk:Tomar clan. At first, I thought their query was genuine because there was no source in front of them that mentioned Rajputisation of Ahirs, but when I provided an academic source for that purpose,[1] they again posted a long, unsourced rant about Ahirs, Bhars, etc. – see here – along with misrepresenting the quoted text from the source. I will post a relevant note on their talk page. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC). If you want to promote the Rajput community, that is fine with me but please do it by adding reliable historic sources.LukeEmily (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@LukeEmily:, did I named anyone? I didn't named anyone here. I asked an Admin, that can I take the case as it is a case WP:SPS, and stonewalling by an editor and his/her friendly have shared their email addresses since the start of their editing phase and tried to insert a fake user image to demean a social group and when I called it out then the same group kept on reverting to their version of edits. Rather than questioning me, it looks like the concerned editors are here to highjack a particular page to their pov. I am not here to promote any community, Even my edits on that particular page is very limited. I have added reliable references where I have taken the step. Anyways, I 'didn't named anyone here. I asked a suggestion from Admin that can I take this case further as the two editors are not as old and from the start they are in contact with each other through their mail ID and now continuously supporting each other pov, including cooperation in reverts. I don't understand, how did you thought that this an accusations at you. I didn't named anyone. Surprising, that on an example where I was just seeking suggestions, you jumped over here following me. RS6784 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@LukeEmily:I didn't knew the past edits of the editor. I hope you know it is me who requested you to insert Brahmin word in Rajput page wrt reference on Satish Chandra. So, stop making fake accusations and I didn't accuse you here. And, I am entitled to have my views. But if one editor from start is in contact with other editor through email ID and regularly help each other in discussion and debates, including reverts to their version, then I am within rights to ask impartial editor for their suggestions and I had a very odd experience wrt stonewalling just recently, that was happening by reverting to the friendly editor's edits when I asked for verification, editor and friendly editor had no answers. I didn't named anyone here. RS6784 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear @LukeEmily:, I have already shared the diff above where a new editor is asking for mail ID saying cooperation. All that would not be a problem, had the two editors not being involved in reinstating fake image by any means recently, which I had removed after taking it to talk page and the kind of cooperation I had seen in that phase was very odd. This made me to search a bit. RS6784 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
By pointing to our specific edits, is it not the same as naming us? Please can you read my response completely before replying? I repeat, I have NOT shared my email address WITH ANYONE including Heba and do not even have an email address associated with my wikipedia account. She has not shared her email address either publicly(to the best of my knowledge), so how could I even contact her even if I wanted to? Why would I post on her talk page publicly if I had her email? We do NOT continuously support each other as I explained and it is irrelevant on how much we agree or disagree. We agree on certain points and disagree on others like most other editors. I have 100% agreement with Sitush's edits and often quote him. Does that mean Sitush and I are a tag team?.LukeEmily (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
not really, how did you inferred it ? I was asking for suggestions, there are diffs that I found recently through editor's contribution, where mail ID might have been exchanged. FYI anyone can later remove or change mail ID , so don't try to fool this out here. If that diffs is there and is backed by lots of cooperation just recently including a very WP: BADFAITH like that Stonewalling through reverts, it becomes important for me to seek suggestions. I didnt named anyone here, so looks like a case of stalking, fine. RS6784 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Note: I have glanced at the above but will take upto 12 hours to respond. Can everyone please hold on to their horses till then. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I just want to say one thing. Rajput caste related pages are consistently facing the problem of caste glorification and many users are here from time to time with new accounts in order to glorify that particular caste. Going through the history, we can see that when veteran editors like Sitush were there, these problems were present and it was carried away later too. Regarding collaboration or "Tag Team", a sockpuppet investigation was carried out earlier and it was proved that no such cooperation exists. I specifically edit Bihar related pages and i converge here with other editors because this page is under consistent disruption by caste promoters, who decide everything on the basis of what suits this particular community and what don't suits them. As for example they always challenge the cultivator Rajput image on the ground that it's a raj era image, but they never say the same regarding warrior image in the infobox and any such image. Many admins are also aware of this and you may confirm with Bishonen and RegentsPark . Rest, i leave it to you. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I am getting more confused now. I can understand one editor commenting here after stalking my contribution page in detail like " going into further" and even there I didn't named anyone. But this one is surprising, another editor who hasn't got any notice for the same but they also commented. How all this is possible this is the first edit of the 2nd editor after 7 hrs. It is getting more murkier now. I will wait for @Abecedare: response as I respect him a lot and after that I will bit by bit respond to your point, the issue I raised is different not only to Raj-Era image.RS6784 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I will not add more details to every point as we all respect Abecedare and he has asked us to wait, but RS6784, just FYI, you said But this one is surprising, another editor who hasn't got any notice for the same but they also commented.. How all this is possible this is the first edit of the 2nd editor after 7 hrs. It is getting more murkier now - RS6784, you wrote this although you can clearly see that I pinged Heba in the first response to you. Your personal attacks are absolutely unacceptable and outrageous , especially when there is evidence that they are false. This is my last post on this page and will wait for Abecedare. Thanks Abecedare for your patience.LukeEmily (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I looked through the editing history of LukeEmily and Heba Aisha and what it shows is two editors with distinct but overlapping interests. Each has asked the other (on-wiki) to weigh in on matters of dispute on occasion but the response they receive is a considered opinion, which sometimes agrees with and sometimes doesn't with the requester's POV. All this is normal collaborative editing and I didn't find any indication of illegitimate tag-teaming or meat-puppetry.
Speaking specifically of Rajput and Rajputisation: I see that both Emily and Aisha have reverted your (and some other editors') edits to these pages but that is likely because, for reasons they have outlined on the articles' talkpages, they both disagree with the changes being made rather than a sign of blind tag-teaming or of using "numerical superiority" to avoid discussion. And while I would like to see fewer revert-cycles form all sides, the recent conduct at these pages doesn't rise to the level of sanctionable edit-warring. The main point of current relevance is that all involved editors are, as of now, discussing the issues on the talkpages. Please continue to do so till consensus is reached, using the relevant dispute resolution processes if needed.
Finally on the image issue at the Rajput article: as you all know I have expressed an opinion on a related discussion at Talk:Koeri. It is okay to consider or even cite that opinion at the Rajput discussion but do not do so in terms of "admin decision". I know it gets confusing sometimes but my opinion at Talk:Koeri, expressed in my role as a regular editor, is just that, and unless and until a project/community-wide consensus for appropriate use of the Raj-era images is established, the issue will need to be discussed at the individual talkpages. (Aside: it is also not useful to label these Raj-era images as "fake"; they often satisfy verifiability and the argument against their inclusion is more nuanced than that.)
To be clear: I am not weighing in on the merits of any dispute involving Emily, Aisha and you; just on the conduct aspects. Going forward I would highly encourage everyone involved to avoid accusing each other of glorification, ownership, meat-pupetry etc during article talkpage discussions since such accusations just generate ill-will, obfuscate the underlying content issue and make it harder to reach consensus. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare: please see on one more page, they did the same Bihari Rajput page just see the history. And what about the sharing of mail IDs ? Is it allowed ? When the two accounts are possibly in contact with each other since that time period as per that particular diff which I shared, I don't need to say anything further on it. This part needs to be looked at though.RS6784 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear @Abecedare:, my point was verifiability with respect to a social group. Are Russia Rajpoots part of Rajput Community? This needs to be verified. Lodh community call themselves as Lodh Rajputs nowadays that doesn't make them Rajputs as such. This was my point WP:V, I am not contesting the veracity of image, my point is verifying the community this image is related. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@LukeEmily:, I didn't made a personal attack ( like name calling) you jumped over and did it. I just asked for a suggestion on a particular case. RS6784 (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare:, I just saw that discussion, my another point that has got missed in this debate is trying all attempts to insert fake user generated image to depict social group← on Rajputisation, Bihari Rajput, as per the discussion on Koeri page, it looks like the editor in question used my arguments on talk page discussion with her/him on Bihari Rajput to push their perspective on Koeri page. They talk about good faith, when I checked on wikicommons the user generated random fake image was added by the particular editor. Where is the GOODFAITH in all this here? This is the main part not the Raj-Era image. The reverts that took place was to insert this user generated image at any cost. I will share that part here RS6784 (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare: this was the fake user image [[7]] for which these editors tried to revert my edits without discussing on talk page. When I ultimately asked them to exactly verify, no answers. They reverted 4-5 times for the same. RS6784 (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Quick replies:
You are right that the issue of "Russia Rajpoots", "Lodhi Rajputs" being within the scope of the Rajput article would need to be settled before including the respective images. I don't personally know whether the answer to that is 'obviously', 'of course not', or 'it's complicated' and will leave that to discussion among the subject experts. In the meantime though I have struck out my Aside from the previous comment since it was based on a misunderstanding of your actual objection.
As for email: off-wiki communication does raise potential issues but there are also legitimate reasons for sharing ones email. Since Emily and Aisha say that they haven't communicated with via email and neither have their "Email user" wikipedia feature enabled at present, we should AGF and judge them based on their actual edits here.
There are several ways for the LukeEmily to have chanced upon your post on this talkpage including by having my page on their watchlist or by looking through your contribution history. The latter can be problematic in some circumstances but I don't think this rises to that level yet especially since, in any case, I would have pinged the editors whenever I replied and opined upon their editing to you.
Will take a look at Bihari Rajput but may be a day before I get to it.
Thanks Admin, for the solid take, I will respect each and every instructions of yours as a rulebook. I will ensure that I don't cross the redline in discussions while putting any points. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare Hi, when viewing the Bihari Rajput article, can you please take a look at section that gives information on the Rajputs of Awadh. I’ve placed a tag on that section as Awadh is separate from Bihar however a certain editor keeps reinstating that information without adequately explaining if Awadh is a part of Bihar. Would appreciate your input. Thanks. RuudVanClerk (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Please urgently look into it
Dear Editor, I request quick intervention just see what is happening [[8]], the verifiability lies with one who wants to get things added not with the other who wants to get it removed as per WP:Burden, already as notified you earlier this editor @Heba Aisha: in definitely not a good intentions added a fake user generated image on wikicommons ( as I checked it last week), and she continuously showed reverting to reinstate fake image on Bihari Rajput, Rajputisation page. I don't think concerned has shown WP:DGF on this two article as her/him above record shows. RS6784 (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear RS6784, in this case the user who added that particular image of Mayo college has the WP: Burden to proove that it is a verifiable image of Rajputs only. I can't see anything mentioned in the caption about these people being Rajputs.Opening a discussion on talk page for that too. I don't think it is good to rush here for every matter on that article.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
don't try to divert issue, I didn't talked about Mayo image. I talked about your WP:DGF, don't forget that you added a fake user generated to malign a community twice on different pages and you were reverting to your favourite versions with one editor. There is WP: BADFAITH involved here @Abecedare: as the editor was already involved into fake user generated image controversy. RS6784 (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare:, this was the user generated fake image here-[[9]] inserted on multiple pages. I came to know about it last week when I saw it on wikicommons wrt who added it there and the same editor ( with friendly editor) was involved in an edit warring on this fake user generated image. The concerned editor definitely doesn't have good faith wrt two three article. RS6784 (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare: you can check this up on edit history of this page. I request for a thorough investigation in this fake user generated image that was continuously inserted by this particular editor. This is not related to Raj Era image or a particular Russia image. RS6784 (talk)
This is my last comment here. I don't want this personal accusations and also not in favour of disturbing the admin for minor issues, which can be settled at talk page. You are talking about "fake image". I have added numerous images on commons. Which includes not only caste images but also of important landscape. The image you are talking about was not fake and i accepted it's renaming ok commons just because due to paucity of time i can't edit more and i can't go to that village again to get proof(video or something) of those people denoting that they are Rajputs. So, i accepted renaming for the time. I don't know if you are so concerned about WP:V, why don't you see the image of Mayo college is not Verifiable. You are talking about using Raj era images, now most of the images are there from Raj era only. But, you chosed only that particular image. I will not say more but it reflects that you have some WP:COI with this caste. Sorry Mr. Admin, this was my reply to lot of accusations, i have faced untill now. I will not say more as i want to do productive editing here. Pardon. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@RS6784 and Heba Aisha: This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article talkpage. I have protected the Rajput article for a short while to prevent editors trying to prematurely implement changes before the discussion is concluded. The focus really should be on reaching a sustainable consensus rather than on the temporary status quo; see my note on Talk:Rajput. Will look into Bihari Rajput in a few hours. Abecedare (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
User RS6784
I want to talk to you about user RS6784, as the user editing history shows his main intrest is in Ahir / Yadav and Rajput and addition of Rana Beni Madho a Rajput leader in the list of Indian Rebellion. His other edits seems just to distract the administartors. He has completely changed Ahir and yadav pages and he wrote them in way to degrade the same and uplift Rajput related pages. This is in completely violation of WP:NPOV and WP:GSCASTE An immediate ban needed for him plus please restore his disruptive editing to last good version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravibhooria (talk • contribs) 09:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
dear @Abecedare: these are similar accounts, another newly created handle came up with same accusations. You may see my edits on Ahir, Yadav page, I have only removed no WP:HISTRS, WP:RAJ and outright WP:QS reference. Rest whatever added by me is properly referenced. It is me who is continuous WP:Hounding by some newly created accounts on multiple pages. RS6784 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I will be pleased if you let F&F know that admins cannot "confirm" the version of any page. Not the first time that I have seen them resort to such an excuse for edit-warring despite a consensus against. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler and TrangaBellam: TB is right: admins don't get to certify article versions or, in general, rule on content. Also, what's with the edit-warring and snippy edit-summaries? The subject of The Kashmir Files is fraught as is; it really doesn't need experienced editors like yourselves losing your minds over it too. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I saw the lead to its current state of lexical and syntactic resolution, lasting several weeks. The wording is pretty much all mine. It was the result of worrying about little nuances of meaning. Bishonen did not confirm a version of the article, only thought that "widely inaccurate" (my term) might have meant widely thought to have been inaccurate.
The last sentence of the first lead paragraph, which I had originally drafted, was later amended in light of TayiA and DaxS's talk page input and refashioned by Bishonen's interpretation. In this version it had lain for several weeks, maybe even a month, until this morning when TB appeared riding out of the blue like lone ranger and mangled the lead without waiting for a critical mass of input from others.
In the process, they restored my original edit absent one-third. Thereafter they removed another third citing it to prudent objections.
An easy thing would be to lock the lead in the state in which it was last night and give a chance to all the editors who had originally taken part in the discussion to have their say. Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
F&f, I am not arguing for the merits of either versions of the lede, or even that it was necessarily wrong for you to revert the changes the first time per BRD (although, sometimes it is better to undo only the particular changes one disagrees with so that incremental improvements can be made; I haven't reviewed the changes in this instance carefully enough to judge if this was one of those cases). The main issues I have with the recent article history are:
the series of reverts and rude-ish edit summaries. Undoubtedly both of you know the preferred process and have pointed it to newbies on innumerable occasions, so I won't patronize you(plural) by reading out from the rulebooks.
using the supposed imprimatur of "admin confirmed" to defend an article version. In rare instances, involving BLP and Copyright, that can be legitimate but I would guess that Bishonen too would be surprised at them being alluded to in this revert. I do value Bishonen's input on the grammatical issue of "widely inaccurate" but that is because their argument is persuasive; not because they are an admin.
The specifics of this incident aside: it's clear that there is some bad-blood between you and TB, whose origins I don't know and don't wish to explore. Speaking as someone who is familiar with both your contributions and greatly respects your(plural) knowledge, command of language, and adherence to wikipedia's content policies, I wish that you both would start treating each other with greater respect. Perhaps think of the other as (real-life) editors, those creatures whose tweaks and critiques are often annoying but nevertheless make ones work stronger. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: I took a quick look at the article/talkpage but they have been too busy for me to attend to today. Will re-review over the weekend.
On the unrelated topic of Paratarajas: saw your question about the date column but have yet to read the Tandon 2021 article. Will do that and get back. Btw, thanks for this edit: the BU link didn't work for me when I first tried it and I assumed that it was restricted to the university library system users; but it does work when I tried it just now and is obviously preferable to the Coinindia link I had added. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure - no issues. If you want, I can change the BU link to their pdf link for one-click-access but universities (at-least mine) suggest citing the handles (which are like DOIs) to avoid link-rot. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello sir,
It's really tiresome that same thing is happening again and again. Yes, i am aware of the discretionary sanction in that particular area. I would try to stick to my editing but what to do when need to settle such issue as nowadays every article i touch is edited by few editors in a bid to undo my changes. There is one problem that RuudVanClerk, who was earlier involved in content dispute with me never read the whole reference which are cited in an article and later they realise that they were wrong. Usually, they decide everything on the basis of page that is shown first when source is clicked. How to deal with these newcomers ? I usually have those books in hardcopy format and i wrote many articles using them but in order to retaliate the sourced content are screwed nowadays and if i revert it gets converted into edit war. I agree that I was edit warring on Rajput, but i am correct at many places. But, since for some people i am not reliable[11] , sourced content are being screwed out. Admins don't have time to look into the source many a times and since all of us has learnt some policies it is easy for other to engage someone on multiple pages in name of discussion. I would wait for your reply. How to deal with this ? I will specifically point out to this....PS: I am aware of WP:OWN.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Here's my advice for all involved:
Lets move past the past conduct, which I agree has been far from ideal.
From hereon follow WP:BRD strictly and in any article talkpage discussion focus on the sources and content, and don't comment on other participants. Use noticeboards such as WP:RSN, WP:NPOV etc as appropriate, and follow the feedback from uninvolved editors that you receive there. Use dispute resolution (3O, RFC or DRN) if needed.
If other's break (2) bring it to the notice of any admin, including me, on their talkpage focusing on currently relevant violations and not a litany of past infractions.
But don't try to game the system by trying to bait/catch the other in trivial violations or throw a kitchen sink of accusations, in order to get them blocked; admins are familiar with such tactics that can result in boomerang sanctions)
If everyone follows the above advice, I am hopeful that progress can be made in improving the articles. And if one or more editors fail to follow these steps, they will be blocked or topic-banned, and that will enable progress to be made at the articles. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, currently discussing the image issue on Rajput talk page we were engaged in a different issue, "the issue about Varna and Rajputisation of caste like Lodh".[12] Me and RS6784 seem to differ in opinion on this issue. But, since that section was meant for discussion on image only. I created a new discussion on talk page of RS6784. This was done so that we can discuss those issues which are not covered under the lead of the talk section of Rajput article. Is something wrong in doing that ?. As they don't want to discuss it out here and pleading me to not come to their talk page. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Heba Aisha:, it is better to discuss content issues on the article talkpage so that others interested in the subject are aware of the discussion and can participate. It would also be better to let the ongoing discussions at Rajput]/Talk:Rajputisation be resolved before (re)starting a discussion on a different topic, such as "the issue about Varna and Rajputisation of caste like Lodh". In the meantime, since RS6784 has asked you not to post on their talkpage, please do not continue the current conversation there. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
One info
Dear Admin, the other editor even after your instructions posted the comments, now should I respond there ? Or Avoid it? As I don't want to get myself in trouble like getting accussed of not following your instructions. I request you to explain me a bit of this clause WP: SNOWCLAUSE and what is the role of it in such scenario ?RS6784 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
IMO, it is not productive to get into such a back and forth at an RFC. Instead take your time (a few days, if you wish!), and formulate your best arguments for the image's inclusion/exclusion and post it in one place at the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Conclusion of Prithviraj Chauhan talk page dispute
Hello Abecedare; I hope you are doing fine; You recently closed Prithviraj Chauhan talk page discussion regarding his territories which a user is exaggerating by including regions from Pakistan, Uttrakhand, H.P etc. I presented counter sources for it but they kept on with original reasearches to push their POV which are prohibited.
My main question is:- What wr should maintain about his territories in North or move that to Legacy part altogether. Thanks. Packer&Tracker«Talk»17:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Packer&Tracker: FYI, I have also page-blocked Asr99.0979 from that article and talkpage for reasons explained on their userpage. But that should not be taken as me weighing on either side of the issues that were being discussed. Any unresolved issues can be re-raised at Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan but please keep any discussion focused and be concise as seeing endless lengthy posts just discourages participation by other informed editors. Abecedare (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I tried to reopen a fresh discussion to conclude this argument but end up creating this mess (accidently), I tried it again to no avail diff & diff
I seriously don't know how that happened but it was not in bad faith to remove previous debates. Could you please suggest a solution or Is there a issue in my hardware itself ? Packer&Tracker«Talk»18:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
To open a new discussion just start a new section (click here) with a short descriptive title and then describe (1) what changes you are proposing to the article (or what current content you are discussing), and (2) what sources support that change (or support/contradict the current content). Keep the discussion focused by, for example, not interspersing the issues of king/emperor with territorial extent etc; keep personal opinion of the subject to a minimum; and, don't comment on other editors. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I tried to solve the matter by switching to my mobile instead of PC, but the issue is still intact. I think the page is very bulky, which needs a bit of archieving in near future. Could you please help in these regard ? Packer&Tracker«Talk»03:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Packer&Tracker: I adjusted the archiving settings for the talkpage to trim it down. But I didn't have any problems editing the page as it stands, so the page-size is unlikely to be the cause of the problem you are facing. Try (1) clearing your wikipedia cookies and cache, logging-in again, and then editing the talkpage; and, (2) if the problem persists, post at WP:VPT describing your system details and the exact steps that lead to the unintentional deletion, and someone there may have an answer. Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare: There are no replies/counter arguments on that talk page from the opposition camp despite being active on other articles pretty much on consistent basis. I did inserted a Disputed tag though. What to do in such cases for consensus?? Please guide. Packer&Tracker«Talk»22:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I read your post at the talkpage and (having not followed the previous discussion too closely) have only a rough idea of what exact changes to the article you are proposing. Perhaps you can make the proposal explicit, as in,
I am proposing to change the article lede text from Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet... to consectetur adipiscing elit, sed... and replace the citation from "John (1900)" to "Jane (2000)". Let me know if there are any objections.
And if no one objects in a day or so, then you can implement the change. And if someone does, then at least the locus of dispute is concrete. Abecedare (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't their contributions looks disruptive ?? Very similar to Asr99.0979 whom you blocked from editing this article and it's talk page ?? Thus, they used alterante account to bypass their block on this article. Please, take a look on how they are deliberately misrepresenting source to exaggerate his territory (Asr99.0979 trait again) by claiming that Hooja mentioned that he inherited Sirhind (Although, I added Hooja quote in Legacy section), they jumped to Tarain-1191, but clearly don't know What inherited means, same fascination for usless tittles like ruler/king and in Asr99.0979 for emperor. Please guide me how to deal with this account, explain again my edits on talk page ?? Thanks. Packer&Tracker«Talk»00:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Packer&Tracker: I took a quick look and while suspicious, I cannot be certain (yet) that Savior is a sock of Asr. So lets see how they proceed. Now that you have objected to and reverted their edits, they can, if they wish, discuss the topic on the article talkpage. Will keep an eye but ping me if there are any developments that need admin intervention. Abecedare (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I am quite confident now that Savior is related to Asr. Please, take a look at their recent revert again and deceptive edit summaries citinf legacy section. As usual, instead of replying on talk page, they pushed for their prefered version again diff & diff. Please take care. Packer&Tracker«Talk»04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Saviour 244: It's quite obvious that you are Asr99.0979 who is using this account to evade the block at that article and it's subsequent talk page.
Your behaviour itself is as usual disruptive, where you don't care for any guidelines and reverted my addition again without explaination on talk page which I started in sub section, though it was your job to use talk page and explain your addition instead of misrepresenting the source.
Anyway, the consensus at that page inserted by TB was to either use ruler/king, I am alright with both but since another user yesterday changed it to king, I simply refuse to engage in another edit war over trivial issue. Since, article use king from many years, I didn't bothered to change it again to ruler.
Next, on his inherited domain, you are again using sources as it suits your writting (another Asr99.0979 trait), Rima Hooja clearly mentioned Thanesar (Haryana) in north (whom you used in your deceptive edit summary); Majumdar source mentioned Sirhind in northwest not North. Packer&Tracker«Talk»04:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bihari_villagers_watching_Mallah_fishermen.jpg){kind=link}