This is an archive of past discussions with User:SpacemanSpiff. 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.
There's obviously some problems here in terms of behavior, and no talk page discussion. I of course have no opinion on the content itself beyond the obvious comment about sourcing. A GS/Caste warning seems required, so I'll drop that, but I'd think a post on WT:INB seeking the input of other editors might be helpful. —SpacemanSpiff17:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't drop a note at INB. Bgwhite stepped in after a bot edit and the article has now been stable for quite a few hours now. It does need work and I'll try to do that. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You'll notice that I keep drifting away, either to completely unrelated articles or simply off the project entirely. Some of that is health-related, much of it is pissed-offness. I don't know much about psychiatry but perhaps the sane part of my brain, such as it may be, is fighting back. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Drmies, the image should be deleted. We've been clear about using it as non-free images, but commons has like 100s of these images floating around and it's very difficult to get them deleted (they are clearly copyvios), see this for an example. I have no idea what predator-ship is, never heard the term before. Sounds POVish, but no clue and Google didn't help either. —SpacemanSpiff15:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm leaving that all to you. I'm going to go edit some caste articles. I have a sock account that I use only to revert Sitush. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: please tell me you are not dabbling at Awans of Pakistan. As for LTTE, I'm afraid you two lost me at the start. I, too, have no idea what predator-ship means, I thought LTTE was defunct, and if I had my way I'd delete every "own work" flag on the basis that they are either an infringement of some law or essentially useless due to lack of authority. Even the ones that claim to have authority - the old Indian dynasty things, for example, which sometimes claim to be visualisations of the written word - seem to turn out to be speculation in large part. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Any chance of semi-protection at Dhudhi? I've also had to remove what amounted to a copy of the article placed on the talk page but I realise there isn't much we can do about that. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Again...
I had reverted the Jayadeva article a few minutes back, and only now noticed in my watchlist that my edit had not "gone through" because it apparently edit-conflicted with yours. And yes, I was reverting o the same version you chose. This is getting uncanny. :) Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh I would have followed up there and at the user's talkpage, since those are the natural next steps. It was only when I was searching my watchlist for my original edit to look up the editor's name, did I discover that I had not been "credited" with the edit. :) Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, SpacemanSpiff. You have new messages at WP:MCQ. Message added 22:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I see that Bishonen has already taken care of that. BTW, Thomas.W, this was the reason I hadn't salted yet as I wasn't sure what the next title was going to be but the sock farm finally changed title today, we'd have to find the next (fourth) title now.—SpacemanSpiff12:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what the search function is for, and {{Link summary|ajitnazre.com}} etc. I regularly search for weblinks, and even have a special page for it, so there's no way he can create a new article about himself without being detected within a few days or so, no matter what name he chooses, since any addition of a link to any of his websites will soon be spotted. Thomas.W talk13:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
If you prefer you could use the {{top icon}} template to correctly display the icons.
some template stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{Top icon|id=1|wikilink=List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble|imagename=Cscr-featured.svg|description=This user wrote List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble, a featured list.}}
{{Top icon|id=2|wikilink=List of centuries in women's Test cricket|imagename=Cscr-featured.svg|description=This user wrote List of centuries in women's Test cricket, a featured list.}}
{{Top icon|id=3|wikilink=List of centuries in women's ODI cricket|imagename=Symbol question.svg|description=This user helped make List of centuries in women's ODI cricket appear on the DYK? section of the Main Page.}}
{{Top icon|id=4|wikilink=List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble|imagename=Symbol question.svg|description=This user helped make List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble appear on the DYK? section of the Main Page.}}
{{Top icon|id=5|wikilink=Fort Geldria|imagename=Symbol question.svg|description=This user helped make Fort Geldria appear on the DYK? section of the Main Page.}}
{{Top icon|id=6|wikilink=Flag of India|imagename=Cscr-featured.svg|description=This user helped retain Flag of India's FA status.}}
{{Top icon|id=7|wikilink=List of India women ODI cricketers|imagename=Cscr-featured.svg|description=This user wrote List of India women ODI cricketers, a featured list.}}
{{Top icon|id=8|wikilink=Denise Annetts|imagename=Symbol question.svg|description=This user helped make Denise Annetts appear on the DYK? section of the Main Page.}}
{{Top icon|id=9|wikilink=R. K. Narayan|imagename=Symbol support vote.svg|description=This user wrote R. K. Narayan, which is a good article.}}
{{Top icon|id=10|wikilink=List of India women Test cricketers|imagename=Cscr-featured.svg|description=This user wrote List of India women Test cricketers, a featured list.}}
{{Administrator topicon}}
I had created this when everyone was on monobook, I still am so I didn't notice that vector was any different. I'll change soon, thanks for the info :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff15:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind blocking User:Pluto2012? I blocked him five days ago for stalking another user (Settleman), and as noted at my talk page, he's already resumed stalking the same guy: Pluto shows up at Talk:Bezalel Smotrich for the first time just after Settleman edits the page, and his first edit there is partly to confront Settleman. Basically the same with Murabitat: Settleman creates it, and Pluto quickly shows up at the talk page. I don't see the significant difference between this behavior and the behavior that led me to block him, so I'd like to restore the block, this time for a longer duration. However, I fear accusations of WP:INVOLVED: Pluto objected to my original block because you are a contributor of Jewish ancestry (the information is important enough at your eyes so that you mention this on you user page), so I suppose that it would be better if he were blocked by someone who doesn't self-identify this way. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Nyttend, admittedly I'm disconnected to ARBPIA stuff but that also means that I don't see the context in most of it and spending some time here I couldn't figure it out either. I think someone with an understanding of that space or ANI (or AE, I'm assuming these editors have been warned about DS) would be the better options. Sorry. —SpacemanSpiff03:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Very well, but it takes about two minutes to see that one person's stalking another. You don't need to know anything about the context. Nyttend (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion regarding the deletion of Articles and the Creator
Hello SpacemanSpiff, Today during reviewing new pages, i found two articles Preetha P V and Soumya Sanathanan found not to be any importance and the article creator used some articles that are very short and it doesn't shows any importance of the articles to be there on Wikipedia. When I check the Creator I found that its from Jdmlive, i feel its again from the creator of JithDominicJose04. So can you please review the articles and can you please tell me whether my find outs where right or wrong. So that we can make fight against these Sock-puppets. Josu4u (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear SpacemanSpiff,Josu4u.My name is Jerry Varghese,and I have created the user Jdmlive both the articles of Preetha P V and Soumya Sanathanan,has started building only in the next few days will be refined and added with more contents and relevant articles.so please do not take any action on my user and the pages created.Both the pages created are of playback singers.Preetha P V has started his singing career 25+ years back and a well known stage performer too,she bagged several awards as well as nominated too.Soumya recently came back after a long gap with Acapella cover versions of Vande Mataram and another song Thumbappokattil which received huge appreciations from around the world even MP Shashi tharoor also mentioned in his tweet too which you will can search from the google itself.
Jdmlive (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jdmlive, I can only be able to find references regarding Acapella only on Google. Tweets are not at all considered to be as references, if you can build more references regarding the contents it will a great donation to Wikipedia, otherwise please remove the contents that you cannot provide references. Also I can found that you undo the edit of BLP sources tags from Soumya Sanathanan and on Preetha P V without even commenting about the changes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josu4u (talk • contribs)
Hard to say if it is the same group (CU may be the only way to be sure), but the articles are promotional and the subjects likely to be non-notable. AFD is the right route as far as the articles are concerned; will comment more there. Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I've issued a final warning (there wasn't any edit after your note), and have watchlisted his talk page, will block if there's any further disruption. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff05:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello SpacemanSpiff, This is to state that I am not getting paid or getting any kind of compensation for the matter uploaded. I have tried to keep the information only based on facts and on authenticated references. If there is any conflict on that please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankulbarar (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Js82 is on a war path again [1]. It is difficult to conduct an NPOV conversation on intricate issues like this with a user with an agenda. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, I'm going to ping NeilN as he's had some luck in the past in getting through. Neil, there's the POV issues here as well as copyvios at Sikhism (I removed once and issued a warning) but he apparently reinserted it again and it was removed by DeCausa. Almost every talk page discussion appears to be the same, see Talk:Guru Gobind Singh. At this point, I'm thinking there's no option but a ban on any Indian religion related topic per WP:ARBIPA enforcement. He was warned about it earlier on, and I've given him at least two follow on warnings to it. What do you think? —SpacemanSpiff13:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Woah, this is a bolt from the blue. Sometimes, I can sense something coming, but this was unexpected. Just an honest question on the Hindu talk page (I did not even touch the article on this issue, but only raised it on the talk page), asking why the first paragraph has been written the way it is, and we have this. This is surprising indeed.
Coming to the issues, I am going to respond to them here, spending my valuable time, but then, also hoping that it will be handled with, and responded to, with honesty, with detail (rather than unsubstantiated allegations), and without bias. And since we are discussing a ban/no ban, let me also call in all the editors I have "interacted" with over the past couple of months. Calling @Human3015: , @Onel5969: , @Utcursch: , @Apuldram: , @Abecedare:, @DeCausa:, @Ms Sarah Welch:, @RegentsPark:. This includes all I believe. @NeilN:, @Kautilya3: are already here, as is Spaceman (who has never really interacted I think, but only issued block warnings (often misleading, as is again the case here; explained below). @All, if you can share your opinion on my editing, and whether it calls for taking away my editing privileges, that would be welcomed.Any opinions from your side, if you can share, would help settle (one way or the other) some of this repetitive bombarding, directed from Mr. Spaceman (who surprisingly is always the first choice of anyone to go to, if they have anything to mention against me), which I constantly need to respond to and waste my time on.
The question I posted on the Hindu talk page yesterday seems to have triggered this conversation. Rather than editing the article or warring, I believe I took the recommended route: raised an issue on the talk page. What is wrong in that ? How can Kautilya accuse me of being on the "war path again", "with some agenda". If you go to the discussion, you would see I am just raising pertinent issues, which are being debated in a healthy manner. How has it been construed to be a war path, I have no real clue. Please do explain.
The other issue, which Neil has pointed out in a message on my talk page, is again related to the Hindu page. It has to do with my re-insertion of the fact that Sikhs did not accept the Constitution of India. First off, please read ALL the discussion in "Sikh views of the term" in the talk page. There was consensus on moving the CoI definition down, and a mention of the Sikh/Jain opposition. Further, before making any edits, I did clearly post this:
"For the moment, I have just noted the Sikh and Jain opposition to the constitution definition. I think we can move the definition down soon, as the consensus here seems to suggest so far. I believe the fact that the Sikhs did not even provide their approval to the Constitution of India is of absolute relevance here, and must be mentioned. I would do that sometime. Js82 (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)"
In this post on the talk page, I clearly stated my belief that "Sikhs did not even provide their approval to the Constitution of India is of absolute relevance here". No one objected to this. After having waited several days (8 days to be precise), I went ahead and made the edit in the article. Subsequently, someone removed the "Sikhs did not approve the CoI" portion later, without providing any explanation (at least I do not see any.) Who then is not following the rules here ? After seeing that it had been removed, I inserted it back yesterday, clearly stating the reason in the edit summary. Now, we are having a healthy debate on this topic on the talk page. Anybody care to explain, how is my role being questioned here ?
Next, Neil mentioned on the message on my page, that "I am continuing to insert copyrighted material". This issue has only been raised related to my edits on Sikhism page. Spaceman first raised this issue sometime ago. At this, I had edited the material (clearly stating in the edit summary that I had modified the text). Spaceman is referring to it above as "apparently reinserted it again" (giving the impression that I blindly reinserted the same text again). Did they read the reinserted material ? As I said, it had been edited significantly. This all happened almost 3 weeks ago. Last week, DeCausa wrote about Copyright issues, and removed the content (Importantly, they did not remove it because of copyright issues principally, but "principally because the language is very unencyclopedic"). Although I was not certain of the concern, I respected it, did not argue further or war with them, and said that "I would try to improve it further". I am not sure that my actions here solicit a ban or a ban warning. The copyright issue here pertains to using some exact phrases (and not any blatant copying). I guess the problem here is that I did not insert some of the exact phrases inside quotes, which I believe might not have raised such concern. In any case, as I said, this is the only article that has been discussed in this context (with the last edit which raised issues having been made 3 weeks ago).
Finally, coming to Spaceman, again, they appear to have given misleading and vague information. They refer to the Guru Gobind Singh article talk page. Can they explain what exactly is their concern? Have they read the talk page ? PLEASE DO READ IT, rather than believing blindly whatever they are saying. There has only been one topic there, with participation from Human3015, who was questioning the use of the word Prophet. After my indisputable proof, they did not respond further. So, if Spaceman can explain what the issue is that they are referring to, that would be welcome.
If you can not understand why your behavior is disruptive after all the careful explanations provided, this may not be the place for you to edit. —SpacemanSpiff21:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, again, no explanation, as expected. I spent so much of my valuable time writing the above, including responding to your false and misleading allegations. You should respond to what I wrote above, especially "What is the issue you have raised regarding the Guru Gobind Singh talk page", since you have made that allegation. And let us see if any of the other editors I have interacted with have something to say on whether "this is a place for me or not". You have already passed your judgement, so no use beating the same trumpet again. Js82 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Js82: I have complained primarily about your post in Talk:Hindu that I have linked above at the top. It gives a sense that you are trying to make this a battleground between Hindus and Sikhs. No reasonable conversation becomes possible after that. Your best course of action is strike that comment and come back to discuss with a collaborative attitude. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) JS82, I don't know why you pinged me or what this thread is all about (and tldr, I'm not going to read through it to find out). All I can say is you cut and pasted text from a website into the lead of Sikhism which was a WP:COPYVIO. I removed it. There were other policy problems with it as well. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
DeCausa, thanks for responding. I had stated the following "Last week, DeCausa wrote about Copyright issues, and removed the content (Importantly, they did not remove it because of copyright issues principally, but "principally because the language is very unencyclopedic"). Although I was not certain of the concern, I respected it, did not argue further or war with them, and said that "I would try to improve it further". I am not sure that my actions here solicit a ban or a ban warning. The copyright issue here pertains to using some exact phrases (and not any blatant copying). I guess the problem here is that I did not insert some of the exact phrases inside quotes, which I believe might not have raised such concern. In any case, as I said, this is the only article that has been discussed in this context (with the last edit which raised issues having been made 3 weeks ago)." I think what you have mentioned is consistent with my description. Js82 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
And its amazing that Mr. Spaceman, in his very first post above, where he listed out the problems with my editing, has linked to a warning that was issued to me very early on, when I had just joined Wikipedia and was unaware of most of the policies. How can you keep using that as part of your arguments. Completely dishonest. Js82 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:: This is what my post said "I find the first paragraph of the article to be rather strange. It gives the controversial definitions (one coming from a RSS mouthpiece, and another coming from some Greek literature) upfront. The more commonly used and most logical definition (a follower of Hinduism), is provided at the end. In a neutral, "disinterested tone" article, the controversial parts should not be provided so much prominence. If anything, they should be included in the "disputes" section, no ?"
It is hard to fathom how this gave you the sense that I am "trying to make this a battleground between Hindus and Sikhs." I did not even mention the word Sikh there. @Ms Sarah Welch: and I have been discussing this subsequently in a healthy manner (still there is no mention even of the word Sikh), it is only you who got some "war path" impression. Disappointed. Js82 (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Yes, of course, I had it and it is still there. What is your point regarding it? That is asking Hindus to come forward and themselves also actually define what a Hindu is. How did you construe that to be a "Hindu Sikh battleground" is beyond any comprehension ("no mention of Sikh at all"). I do understand that Wikipedia is not a forum to have this debate (which I myself agreed to, and did not pursue it further). However, coincidentally, you yourself have started a debate there now on "Hindus' definition of Hindu". Js82 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Js82: The fact that you don't know what is wrong with it is precisely why I brought the issue to the admins. I am sure they can explain it to you. You should at least read WP:Righting great wrongs and the surrounding edicts on user behaviour, and reflect upon yourself. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The plain fact of the matter is that you've been alerted to the issues multiple times. That you choose not to listen and keep repeating this "explain it to me" is not for someone else to address. You've been given more than enough leeway, you are now wasting the time of multiple people. —SpacemanSpiff14:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Spaceman's posts are comical (an admin, he is ?). His low level of debate can be seen by one-and-all here. While I'm giving detailed explanations regarding the allegations leveled against me (since I was asked to by an admin), everyone can see what he is doing, as always, making false allegations to mislead, and continuously evading the questions asked of him. Exposed completely!! I will give him one more chance to actually explain what his allegation really is regarding the "Guru Gobind Singh talkpage" ? I don't want to get into filing official complaints so as not to waste my valuable time, but I will probably need to do it here.
Kautilya, I know what is wrong. The irony, as I said, is you have yourself actually started a discussion there on exactly the same issue that I raised ! And you are still trying to justify your actions ? Please reflect up on yourself too. Js82 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Js82: You have pinged me twice in this thread. Contrary to your impressions, in the Hindu article talk page and above, your approach is one of battleground. You have also drifted into WP:PERSONAL against @SpacemanSpiff. Don't. That is not the way to collaborate and help build an encyclopedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
JS82 quoted me in his edit here on 16 September, so I am belatedly adding my contribution. I too have found JS82's edits to be disruptive and discouraging, reacting to my attempts to find common ground by reasserting his edits. As I do not like to be involved in such edit wars, I have backed off, to my shame. I would like to restart my attempts to improve the relevant articles, subject to the responses of other editors, but I fear that JS82 will start again as soon as that is possible. Apuldram (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Ogress, you've been here for a dozen years, about double the time I've been on here, and you know that these sorts of disputes do happen. This one appears to be nothing more than a tempest in a teacup and it will disappear as quickly as it progressed. This isn't to say that no one appreciates your efforts here, quite the contrary I see that both Sitush and Kautilya3 who have worked with you on various areas have voiced that they have a disagreement with the idea but appreciate your efforts. It is not in my place to tell you what you should or shouldn't do, but your efforts have definitely benefited the encyclopaedia and it would be a loss to the encyclopaedia should you retire. I have often found that a few days or a couple of weeks break from editing helps me regain that perspective and put behind any issues that I might have strong feelings on. This is an online effort and everyone has an opinion, rightly or wrongly, we have certain processes that may not always be suited towards specific situations but are targeted towards the betterment of the 'pedia in general. We have to take the good with the bad and in this case I urge you to let it be. I see that at least on a couple of articles someone has started move discussions; sometimes things may not happen at the speed you want it to, but perhaps it's just Wikipedia being what it is. I strongly urge you to take a few days break and return refreshed. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree with that totally. This is just one of those myriad disputes, Ogress. Please don't take it personally. The diacritics pose a practical problem for English Wikipedia readers. But that is not to say that there is anything wrong with them. Please take a break and cheer up! - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
+1. This situation is no more than a difference of opinion. I don't think anyone is questioning your abilities, your efforts or your integrity etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of page G. Satheesh Reddy
Dear SpacemanSpiff,
The page which I created was about a globally renowned Distinguished Aerospace Scientist Dr G. Satheesh Reddy. The contents mentioned in the article which I last revised did not have any duplication of data except for his awards. May I request you to restore the article please. Regards. Santosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroind (talk • contribs) 12:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Aeroind, I don't know what it is with this bio and copyright violations but you are not the first account filling it with copyvios. I will not restore it as all revisions so far from the two deletions have been copyvios. Please read WP:C to get an understanding of our copyright policies. If you wish to create an article please follow WP:MFA. —SpacemanSpiff12:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Moving Ramjas College
Hey! There change the name of Ramjas College to Ramjas College, Delhi. And delete if any Redirected page is created with name Ramjas College. As we are on a mission of changing name of all the DU colleges as College name, Delhi. Same as in the case of Oxbridge ( University of Oxford & University of Cambridge). Hope you'll understand & corporate. Thanks.
ISahilBhaskar (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff, "we" are Delhites University of Delhi students. And how could you say it useless. It'll even improve the articles signalling that Colleges location & affiliation to University of Delhi. I'll still request you to make changes. ISahilBhaskar (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Please understand our policies. I have left you a welcome note, please go through the linked policies and guidelines. I see that Thomas.W has already alerted you to a few issues with your edits. The "missions" etc of you and your friends can work when they coincide with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not otherwise. —SpacemanSpiff15:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Religious data for Indian states
Hello. I noticed your revert on Delhi so I thought I'd tell you that the editor you reverted had added correct numbers, not fake data. I don't know if their other edits are correct since I don't have that material at hand, but according to this file from the official Census 2011 site the data for "NCT of Delhi" were correct. Cheers Thomas.W talk15:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The source that's within the article now supports the current number, that's the one I checked. This from the article has the population figures that are currently in the article. As for the religious data they changed the 2001 sourced data to something that was unsourced, and this page on the census site didn't have any proper info on it. Sigh, it's all so confusing. I'll self revert and change the source. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff15:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
It would have been a lot better if there wasn't any data at all for religion in those articles. Everyone is fighting over it and trying to change the numbers to suit their views... Thomas.W talk15:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) See this related INB discussion. I had updated the dempgraphics sections of some 10-15 states, but got waylaid with other stuff before getting to the rest. Fwiw, Abusaid's numbers are correct, although he should have of course updated the reference too while updating the stats. Abecedare (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I seemed to have missed that, but we probably have to go through with a round of "source cleaning" on all these articles as we've got far too many disparate census pages being linked within the same article (I just saw that at Chandigarh which had a similar problem as the Delhi article). —SpacemanSpiff15:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I had covered the states upto J&K in this list + Maharashtra and Telangana. The others need to be updated (or, checked to see if someone else already did the work). If anyone is interested, I can email them a modified version of the census excel sheet with the percentages calculated. Abecedare (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
A, but we have something like another 4-5 refs with conflicting data included within articles. I just randomly went to Jharkhand which is something you didn't tackle and see that there's 2001 data, a 2008 table with 2011 data, conflicting population numbers, data from 2001 mixed with a ToI report from 2015 and so on. A major overhaul would be needed of this entire mess. —SpacemanSpiff17:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
True. Even in articles I did tackle, you'll find similar problems with other demographic data (see my edit summaries here, here, here etc). Basically, we need more (cluefull and neutral) editors working on and watching these articles... and I want a pony. :) Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, I wasn't aware of the existence of this article, and I expect that it will have to be tackled sooner or later. This might merit an exception as it is exclusively the disputed content in the other article, so I'll protect now. —SpacemanSpiff19:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
On what citations you reverted back my changes on Hosur page?
You had reverted my changes on Hosur page .
On what basis you did it?
i have attached proper citations but still you reverted and added wrong content without any citations?
Justify your content added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendRahul (talk • contribs)
I have not added any content, I have reverted your change of adding that the population is 80% Telugu because it is solely based on the claim of a politician who has got other facts wrong within the same sentence (note: this portion is not verifiable through any WP:RS data, just that the other claims have been verified to be untrue). —SpacemanSpiff17:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You had reverted back again my content with the data that doesnt have any citations.
alos you removed my attached wikitravel data cite reference.
I am a obidient user of wiki and i have been donating for it only bcz i need it to be a good source of data with proper facts.
If you gain revert back my changes i will complain to wiki and it is a serious concern related to our hosur telugu community.
I see a tp discussion and it seems to go in a direction, if there's further disruption after that it would have to be handled as such. In this case I can't really take a stance on whether it's right or not as it can be a difference of opinion. The edit warring is what's problematic. I'm going to page Cyphoidbomb as he seems to like adminning the Indian films area and I'm not going to be on only very intermittently over the next few days, perhaps he can keep a watch, else, best bet is to take to WP:AN3 if an when a problem comes up after the talk page discussions. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff04:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
reverting back my appropriate content on Hosur with that of inaccurate data
I will take this seriously to the notice of wiki if at all it is reverted back with false data.
you are promoting Wikipedia:Vandalism.
Its a serious concern and it will not be entertained. If your data reverted is appropriate then why there is no proper reference to cite?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendRahul (talk • contribs)
Sigh, once again, I don't have any interest in the content but you adding stuff that is unsourced or poorly sourced is the problem here. You are likely to be blocked if you continue this behavior of adding opinion as fact and not providing reliable sources. —SpacemanSpiff03:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
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!
Hey Spaceman, this is in relation to a content dispute on Hosur. I am not the filing party, nor currently involved in the dispute. Hope to see you soon, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Restoring article on Dr G. Satheesh Reddy
Dear SpacemanSpiff, I feel that though there might be some repetitions of information pertaining to the article G. Satheesh Reddy, if we remove that, then the article is absolutely neutral and needs to again released in wiki. You have vast expertise and I am sure you will be able to remove the required contents and restore the article. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.157.14 (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem isn't repetition but copyright violation. I'm assuming you are the editor in question, but there's been repeated copyright violations on that article despite multiple notifications to the editor and the sockpuppets. This is clearly in violation of our policies and until that is cleaned up the contents will not be made visible. —SpacemanSpiff14:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Edits were made only on the basis of truth of the subject matter.
Half the content posted on that particular Wiki page is tampered with, I only made the necessary changes. The edits were neutral, as per the neutrality clause of Wikipedia and in accordance with the case file. The use of the word "criminal" over and over again doesn't satisfy the neutrality clause. You should probably once go through the case files and then re-edit the content you have posted.
There are also many flaws in the 'career' section of the page. To point a few, it is Anwarul Haq of RJD and not BJP. Also, his early life here hasn't mentioned that before joining politics he was a member of National Cadet Corp (NCC. Bihar and Jharkhand unit).
The mention of his writings fete has been removed, why? His stories have been added to CBSE course syllabus this year and has been made into a movie too. Kindly add that!
The hunger strike was not because he was provided with "simple food" but because of the ill treatment meted out by the Jail Authorities, by burning his belongings.
Kalpana09Singh, you need to have a read of WP:NPOV as it does not mean what you think it does. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. In this case what you've been doing is removing those sources, including quotes attributed to the subject and other sources. If you disagree, you should discuss it on the talk page with other editors involved in the topic. What you have done is removed content large scale, removed sources that have been included in the article and then added your own text that is unsourced and provided no reason for doing so. That is essentially the problem here. —SpacemanSpiff12:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That paragraph I deleted in Shramana gives wrong information about Jainism. If such disrespectful articles regarding Jainism are published. They are bound to be deleted. Don't publish such paragraphs in name of Jainism without any information. Articles such are written to malign Jainism. So don't warn me warn those whom wrote that paragraph.
Hi Spaceman, it is partly my fault. I hadn't noticed that the editor wasn't inducted before I gave the ARBIPA notification. I will do it now.
Ashvawiki, you are one step away from getting blocked or topic-banned. So, please think carefully about your next steps. I will post a (belated) welcome message on your talk page. Please read through the policies and make sure that you understand how Wikipedia works before you make contentious edits. If you need any help or queries, please feel free to ask me. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
