There has been a issue in WT:CRIC that needs your vote. Thanks --ashwinikalantri talk 06:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my message was Limited to 20-25 WP:CRIC active members, Neutral, Nonpartisan, Open and thus appropriate. This is not canvassing. Thanks. --ashwinikalantri talk 07:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry no, but it is an inappropriate mass posting and is in violation of WP:CANVASS. —SpacemanSpiff 07:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I dont feel posting to 20-25 members is termed as Mass Posting! This is Limited posting! Of the 200+ active memabers, I only sent the message to random 10-15%! How else am I supposed to notify people? --ashwinikalantri talk 07:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The only reason it stopped was because I notified you in the middle of your posting spree. Now that you've stopped I don't see any further need to continue this discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 07:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your way of accusing me is rude, baseless and unnecessary. --ashwinikalantri talk 08:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Er, no. What was rude and unnecessary was spamming of user talk pages including mine. My initial note to you on not doing that was quite polite. We're done here. —SpacemanSpiff 09:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." quoted from WP:CANVASS. So not spam. You received that message because you are a part of WP:CRIC. Its upto you to follow. Your initial note was unnecessary and following ones were baseless and rude. And yes, I am done here. Thanks. --ashwinikalantri talk 09:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kochi sub district means Kochi taluk. The above mentioned population from Kochi Taluk,not from metro area or city. Please check the bangalore with same link http://www.censusindia.gov.in/PopulationFinder/Sub_Districts_Master.aspx?state_code=29&district_code=20
--Bijuts (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- THat's fine then, ignore the link as a possible source. —SpacemanSpiff 13:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you think of a filing at WP:Arbitration enforcement under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience? This might allow for topic bans for the promoters of Yogi Bhajan who just won't give up. Their relentless advocacy, under both accounts and IPs, looks to me like abuse and a violation of WP:COI. Topic bans are a fairly common outcome at WP:AE if there is good evidence. I know hardly anything about this topic, but Gatoclass's comment suggested to me that we have some editors who have enough background to discuss it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will admit that I am not well versed in these topics either, I accidentally came by only because these accounts were promoting some Points of View outside of the Yoga/religion area too; my knowledge is limited to what I've read subsequent to coming to this article and I do echo Gatoclass's comments as what is happening here is selective source mining and usage. If you see the main article on Harbhajan Singh Yogi you will notice that his disciple and biographer is the primary editor and his book is being used as a source across the board on many of these articles (as also the 3HO website). This topic has come up at WP:FTN a couple of times too (I can't seem to find the correct right links but but one is located at : Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Kundalini_syndrome); another time I'd asked Dougweller to check some of these bits and he did some chopping too. The other aspect is that there's so much of the random additions that it's difficult to glean the actual good bits out of them. If we can get a couple of eyes from the AE area and from editors active on FTN that will be a positive outcome I think -- the former for process and the latter for actual content. I've never been near AE or arbitration in general, so I don't have a well informed opinion currently, but if you think it's a good idea then I have no reason to think otherwise. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hello again. In one of your edit summaries at Kundalini yoga you referred to possibly socking by Fatehji. This diff may interest you, because it shows that RogerThatOne72 is the same editor as 66.65.62.138. On behavioral grounds one might suspect that both of these are the same as Fatehji, but I have not examined the question in detail. Fatehji and RogerThatOne72 don't overlap in time, but Roger and the IP do overlap. To edit a contested article with both an IP and a registered account *is* a violation of WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ed -- here's our past conversation on this; ironically, at that time I was of the opinion of giving a second chance to this account. All three are CU confirmed to be the same. I'm going to be mostly offline for a couple of days now, so I will not be quick in any response. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding the previous CU, which I had forgotten about. I've opened a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fatehji in case you want to add your own comment. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Will add there. I think a CU can find a log of the old finding, so it might be a good idea to formalize the report for the future. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The stumpy image is from the Official Press Kit from ICC. So it should be usable here at WP. Could you help with the copyright part? I am not sure how to go about it. Thanks --ashwinikalantri talk 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You will need to add a rationale for the use, the file has to be of low resolution and the image itself has to be discussed in any articles it's been added to. Right now that is not the case. If you take care of those, then an admin will decline the speedy at the end of seven days. At this point, even with a cursory look, I can say that the only possible article where it might be used is the article on Stumpy, not the other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the recording length, but I don't see a problem with Cricket World Cup media — it appears to me that the article is about the non-free images. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You can check gcdaonline.com, http://www.kerala.gov.in/annualprofile/urban2.htm, http://www.kerala.gov.in/importantsites.htm, http://www.kerala.gov.in/dept_planning/er/chapter6.pdf and http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/20/stories/2010092058650300.htm. Its enough for you.
--Bijuts (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- And none of them give any population figures. Besides the article is on Kochi, not the metro, not the greater Kochi area, not the district. —SpacemanSpiff 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
check gcdaonline.com, population data clearly visible. Otherwise we can reinstate old population figure only or we can remove from there.
--Bijuts (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any population on that site, can you give me a specific link? As far as removing the population figure and just saying it's part of Greater Kochi, that's fine with me because this is not an article about Greater Kochi. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Check this http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/programme/ud/presentations/banglore/Kochi_region.pdf and go to 40th page. Everything is clear, but slight variation about populations.
--Bijuts (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Bijuts, The article you are trying to edit is the Kochi city article; not the Greater Cochin or Kochi UA article. The census population figures are available only for the city and the UA. Hence, please adhere to the followed practises instead of trying to push your POV.
Dear SpacemanSpiff, There are a few editors(Dileepks, Bijuts, Mountainwhiskey) who started to edit wiki almost the same time and mainly concentrated on Kochi article. They are likely Meat Puppets and is trying to glorify the city in all possible ways. There are lot of discussions already happened in the article talk page, and these editors are constantly trying to overtone the article despite attempts to educate and several warnings. They all tends to edit war for longer periods, and it is very difficult to educate them. Bijuts was even blocked once for trying to glorify the article by engaging in editwar. Thanks, --Chektomate (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Spaceman, I guess you'll have to semi-protect the article now. Cheers. —Why so serious? Talk to me 08:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's one editor on two IPs adding the same content, so I don't think it's protection worthy currently. Can just be reverted for now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. BTW I'd like to thank you for supporting me when I was blocked allegedly for sockpuppetting.
—Abhishek Talk to me 11:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I knew someone else would see it! I was busily chasing down WP:ELNO to make sure that I was in the right to revert (and I was pretty sure that it was), but you were right on the spot. Many thanks for keeping it timely while I fumbled around with policy. :D --Doriftu Speak Up. 11:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, if you see an IP adding more than 3 links consecutively, it's more than likely that it's just spam. I was a little concerned initially but then I realized that in this case it was spamming a blog host domain. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you please semi-protect coimbatore? It came of edit protection on Feb 4 and the guy who caused it to be protected just appeared again to do the same thing he has been doing for the past four months.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just saw your request, looks like there hasn't been anything in 24 hours now, so I don't think I should protect now, but I'll add to my watchlist and protect if I see any repeats. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- He is back--Sodabottle (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Done —SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks :-)
Hi,
I came across your page searching for information on my great great grand dad Late Rao Bahadur A.T.Pannir Selvam and landed up on your page. I am intending to write a biography on my grand father and would be grateful if you have any information that would be helpful to me.
I look forward to hear from you.
Cheers,
Selvam
selvamraja@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selvamraja (talk • contribs) 05:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry, I don't have any more information than I added to the article. There are quite a few books on Google, but they're not available online. You might be able to get copies of them at your local library. If you're in Chennai, I'm sure that both the Connemara and the new library should have some books on him. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This edit [412670770=1&oldid=409679568] made me wonder - is the 8 holy cities or whatever the number is properly sourced? This suggests not. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sapta Puri or "Seven sites" is the answer to your question, we even have
{{Sapta Puri}} to link them all. I wasn't aware that Kancheepuram was one of them so thanks for asking me the question! Gbooks isn't working for me now, but there should be a few good quality books on there. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I thought it should be 'sites' and not cities. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I give up though, the list at Dwarka is different. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any difference from the quoted Garuda Purana text: Ayodhyā = Ayodhya, Mathurā = Mathura, Māyā = Haridwar, Kāsi = Varanasi, Kāñchī = Kancheepuram, Avantikā = Ujjain, Dvārāvatī = Dwarka. Note that not all these names are in use any longer, e.g. Kāñchī has been "Tamilized" to Kancheepuram, Avantikā went out of vogue ages ago and became Avanti and now is Ujjain (I don't know the story behind that change). Something I'm missing on this? BTW, present day translation of Puri is city/town; it's the archaic usage that roughly translates to site or location. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- This book might be helpful, gbooks doesn't have much of a preview, but the cover note explains this. It's from Rupa & Co, a reputable publisher, so I think it's at least an OK source. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's just me being ignorant, eg I didn't know Māyā = Haridwar, combined with the archaic usages. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- These are a little more complex than that, so you should give yourself more credit :) Maya actually refers to Mayapuri around which the town of Haridwar grew. I think currently it's just a neighborhood out there. I have no idea about the Dwaraka name though, and unless you're into these things like Dab and others, it's difficult to figure it out. Generally speaking, the best editor sources for questions on these topics are Shreevatsa (talk · contribs), Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) and Nvvchar (talk · contribs). I normally check with either of the first two, never interacted with the third; Shreevatsa's a Sanskrit guru too, so he sets me right when my basic knowledge is insufficient. Red's a very good resource on most Hinduism topics. Abecedare (talk · contribs) was another good resource on such topics but he's most likely retired. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the second para of this section and see if it is a copyvio of this, whether the source (boloji.com - I've never heard of it) is reliable, and whether it is blp appropriate? --rgpk (comment) 00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Will take a look. Boloji is submitted content for the most part with no editorial control (we had this discussion before on the Gurjar highway thingy a few months ago I think) so I don't think it will qualify as a resource for contentious material. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fellow editor, I understand you have dealt with the editor here. Please can you explain to him what WP:Consensus is. I also added your comments here. Thanks --SH 18:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the discussion, User:Sikh-history wants to add what is completely unecessary. Winston786 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Ho spiff, Have the sinsen ranges (117.193.160.0/20 and 17.206.96.0/20) been blocked? Please let me know once they are blocked and i will start the cleanup.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to the SPI page, Tnxman blocked two /20 ranges...? —SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to verify it by searching here - [1] but they seem unblocked (i am not sure i am doing it right). Can you please verify if they were indeed blocked?--Sodabottle (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see it in Tnxman's block log either, go ahead with the clean up, I'll check with him, but if it becomes necessary I'll block in the meantime. —SpacemanSpiff 04:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have finished cleaning up the newer creations. Now digging through IP contributions.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting me there, I didn't even understand when that happened.. Sometimes I mistakenly press the rollback button in the watchlist.Redtigerxyz Talk 15:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, has happened to me a couple of times too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Good morning,
I notice that you have deleted all of Anu's personal life details from her page. I am her husband and have already had a long and tortuous conversation with another editor, AtticusX, regarding the information in this section. There was a lot of erroneous information being posted to her page after media reports in January, and we agreed that the modifications that I had made and citations were acceptable. In fact, Anu made the forum comments you refer to specifically to be linked to wikipedia.
Would you please confirm that it is acceptable as is, or let me know what other work needs to be done
Thanks and regards
Graham Jay
- Sorry, no. THere's no way to confirm that the forum comments were in fact made by her. Please see WP:BLP and Reliable sources. Also, there's no way to verify anything that comes as "personal information". Wikipedia requires verifiability from reliable sources, and especially so in a biography of a living person. —SpacemanSpiff 08:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: I never advised Gjay66 that citing forum posts or any other unverifiable sources would be acceptable — quite the opposite, in fact — and I went to some pains to explain why not. Note to Gjay66: you need to log in whenever you're editing; also, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Thanks. AtticusX (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well if thats the way it has to be then fair enough. Shame that the article can't be made more accurate. However, if I was to remove every bit of information from it that had no citation then there would be precious little left.
The only reason that I updated it was because the Indian media did not pick up on the wedding until 30th January, claiming that it had happened "recently". This then led to the page being updated with a January wedding date,with a link to the webpages reporting it.
So this would leave a situation where an incorrect fact about someone can be added within Wikipedia guidelines, whereas a post to Anu's own forum by her (and that anukwa "Anu - Koffee with Anu" is her userid can easily be verified by checking her posts) confirming the correct information can be disregarded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjay66 (talk • contribs)
- We need citations to reliable sources, anything else that's deemed controversial by anyone, be it positive or negative, then it does not belong in an article, definitely not one about a living person where the chances of damage to reputation etc are rather high. I have taken this up at the BLP noticeboard as this appears to be a longer time frame problem. —SpacemanSpiff 09:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Coincidentally, when we went to the UK High Commission in London to get her spouse visa organised, the consultant was a fan of hers who had seen her wedding date as January 2011 on wikipedia. Her application stated October 2010. That led to a problem and her visa was almost rejected because of it.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess.
There's also another problem insofar as her name is spelt incorrectly throughout the article. Its spelt as Haasan howver the correct spelling is Hasan. Any ideas how this can be changed?
Gjay66 (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- From a cursory look at independent reliable sources, her name seems to be spelt with the double a everywhere, Wikipedia follows what's published elsewhere, we do not report the truth, rather, we report what reliable sources have already said, and only what they have said, with a neutral point of view. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff
Her name is spelt as Hasan, Hassan and Haasan. Haasan is the most common error as that is how her uncle, the actor Kamal Haasan spells it. I think a google search will show a pretty even split. Can't you at least give us this one? It really is incredibly frustrating to have your lives messed around with. Imagine how you would feel if people listed incorrect information about your wedding date about your name and whatever else they like on the internet and there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it. I'm not having a go at you individually and I apologise if it seems that way but at the very least spell her name right
http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1R2ACPW_enGB411&q=anu+hasan&rlz=1R2ACPW_enGB411&aq=f&aqi=g-s1g1g-s2g-o1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=ea957c5f5373d165
Gjay66 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have no dog in this fight, if you think there are sufficient reliable sources to say that her name should be spelt differently (and the key is "reliable" -- newspapers, reviewed books, journals etc) then by all means request a move to the correct spelling on the talk page. The instructions for such a move are located at WP:RM. The discussion will be closed after a week or so, and the article may or may not be moved based on the sources identified during the discussion. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear SpacemanSpiff
Your POV is clearly not neutral but anti-muslim.
I respect your personal religion, but don't push your personal POV here in wikipedia.
Please maintain NPOV while editing wikipedia articles.
I hope you will not revert my further edits.
Thanks.
112.80.151.186 (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you semi-protect this page, please? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done —SpacemanSpiff 07:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sir. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SyberGod--Sodabottle (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The user Maheshkumaryadav is at it again. For example, this edit. I page needs to be merged with 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution and 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. An admin has to do something about this. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I issued a warning because of the general disruption, but I'm not going to comment or take any action on the validity of merging, keeping or deleting the article -- the AfD discussion can settle that and there's no reason to fast forward in my opinion. If he has copied things over fro other articles without attribution, then this can be deleted as A10/G12. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi SpacemanSpiff,
User:AroundTheGlobe proposed a merger of the above said articles. There has been a discussion open here for the same. But this user seems to add his own conclusion on the discussion. Please have a look at the discussion and do give the user an appropriate message. And according to you, what would be the outcome of the discussion? Thanks. Have a nice day! —Abhishek Talk to me 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- If he's refactoring your comments or misrepresenting you then warn/let him know, but other than that I don't see anything that merits any action. —SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Basavarajitnal (talk · contribs), whom you blocked sometime ago, has been active on WikimediaIndia's facebook page. Thought you might want to know. utcursch | talk 16:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's not the first time that a block of mine has been brought up off-wiki, normally it's at one of the caste groups on Orkut etc, but this is a first. Eitherways, the block was a bit late I think, given the amount of BLP vios that elapsed. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- That guy is a journalist who had earlier attended wikimeetups in Bangalore. He has completely misunderstood wikipedia, got blocked and his ego bruised and is now demanding that wikipedia behave like a news organisation.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, journalist or not, that was more tabloid material -- not newspaper material, pure POV, completely unsourced and soapboxing, defamatory to living persons and he was repeatedly reinserting it despite being alerted to policy. —SpacemanSpiff 18:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly the guy was making a COI edit given that he wrote "whatever article" about Garuda Mall. Now there is Undue weight attached to him all the way to India mailing list Srikanth (Logic) 07:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Huh? --rgpk (comment) 00:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yes, it needs to go. We have one interview that's been regurgitated a few times, I haven't had time to go through it in detail, came across it a few days ago but kept it on the backburner. Maybe take it to WP:BLP as it affects two BLPs right now. —SpacemanSpiff 05:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi SpacemanSpiff. Spjayswal67 (talk · contribs) has filed a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-26/Ambarish Srivastava. Cunard (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- THis is nothing but a waste of time, we have one user who use photographs of houses as evidence of architectural works, scanned copies of random membership certificates as reliable sources and sub-local calendar listings as evidence of notability and we're going through all sorts of hoops to accommodate advertising his profile through Wikipedia. This is a sorry state for an encyclopaedia when we enable this behavior. —SpacemanSpiff 01:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Spiff, I know you're busy like heck but could you take a peek at the discussion above when you get the chance? I took a look at the Gurjara article and it does seem to me that someone has been making stuff up there. But, I'm just guessing so your expertise is needed! --rgpk (comment) 21:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Quite limited on-wiki time for a while, but he does have a point there. Most of the dubious Gurjar content across multiple articles was added by one Gurjeswar and to a lesser extent by Chorra, and a few IPs and throwaway accounts; basically they've been using caste publications and forum posts as RS or as copy-paste sources. I've pretty much given up cleaning the caste articles, but a lot of the history articles need cleaning as do some tangential articles on Indian railways etc which apparently are also linked to Gurjars -- Mistry something, you'll be able to find it. Utcursch is a good resource on these, he's been cleaning up a ton of this stuff everywhere, although he said he's given up with the caste articles I'm sure he'll be more than happy to help clean up history and historical biographies. The main thing is the linking of the Pratihara rulers to the caste group of Gurjars which has some support among sources, but not a majority support I think, but our articles make it out to be fact. My suggestion would be to protect some of these messy articles because this is one set where the off-wiki canvassing and collusion to doctor content is high. sorry, can't be of any real help for a few days. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 22:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
