User talk:Abecedare/Archive 12

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

translation of dialectical materialism in Hindi and Bengali

~ Hi Abecedare, how do they translate dialectical materialism in Hindi and Bengali? I don't find a link for neither pedia on DM page in En pedia. I want to know about the first part only. Materialism would be bhautikvad for all. I have a vague notion that in Hindi it is dvandatmak materialism. Is there an alternate translation? dvantamak is dualistic, isn't it? Does it carry the sense of dialectics properly? In Malayalam the more popular (by far) translation is vairudyatmaka bhautikavadam.Is that version known in Hindi or Bengla? I look forward to getting some information from you. Please reply here. I will look for it here. Regards. --Advaidavaark (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Advaidavaark, I must admit that I didn't know the answer to your question off-hand, and had to look to up. For Hindi, I found a corresponding entry in Mahendra Caturvedi. A practical Hindi-English dictionary. Delhi: National Publishing House, 1970, which is accessible online. Under the entry for द्वंद्वात्मक (notice the extra व् ) on page 332 it defines, द्वंद्वात्मक भौतिकवाद (IAST: dvaṃdvātmaka bhautikavāda) as "dialectical materialism". A google search for द्वंद्वात्मक भौतिकवाद confirms that the term not only makes sense literally but also is used in practice to refer to dialectical materialism.

I don't know Bengali, and couldn't find any corresponding translation on a naive search. You may get better results in searching Biswas, Sailendra. Samsada Bamla abhidhana. 5th ed. Calcutta, Sahitya Samsad, 2000., which you can access here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking pains to help. So, for Hindi it is द्वंद्वात्मक. I wonder if Indian philosophy had a concept and term for this dialectical thing of binary opposites. Isn't द्वंद्वात्मक a recent coinage? Dialectics is said to be inherent to Hindu philosophy as well. dvaita and advaita can't be the terms for those things as they are entirely different categories. Can you help any further? Advaidavaark (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A vague memory from my (now long past) Marxist days tells me that it's something like "dvandvika bastubāda" in Bengali, but I don't know Bengali so take it with a pinch of salt. "Dvandvatmak" in Hindi is indeed a neologism, and like most Hindi neologisms it's been coined by directly translating the components of the English word. I don't think it conveys anything like the sense of "dialectic" in Marxism. FWIW, it Tamil it's called "iyangiyal porulmuthalvatham", which literally translates to something closer to "dynamic materialism", but conveys the sense much better (in Tamil, anyway).

As far as dialectic in ancient Indian tradition goes, whilst disputation clearly existed, I'm not sure dialectic in the classical Greek sense exist (and dialectic in the Hegelian sense definitely didn't). I suppose some aspects of tarka, nyaya and the Buddhist hetuvidya come close, but they're not the same. -- Arvind (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Arvind. The teachings of Nyaya Sutras in rhetoric and logic, would be the closest Indian analogs of the Socratic dialectics; while Hegelian dialectics would have some small overlap with advaita vedanta (concept of immanent absolute), achintya-bheda-abheda (tension between the duals), the three categories of Vishishtadvaita, or even Sri Aurobindo's work (involution vs dialectic progress) etc, but these all are a posteriori parallels, and not equivalent in any meaningful sense. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of User Rhp 26 and his many socks, and especially with the sock investigation too. It seems though that he can't draw himself away just as yet. He's not done anything objectionable yet, but he is editing, even though that IP range was blocked. See: here. Not sure if there's any need to do anything just as yet, but its just something I noticed. Thanks again. Jasepl (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP rangeblock expired a few hours back, but if he resumes his tendentious behavior just let me know and I'll reinstate it. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it's best to leave things be, unless he starts something again. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Help!

There seems to be a problem with disruptive editing on Akbar the Great (revision history, discussion) - repeated removal of properly referenced information on the ground of the changes being too drastic (!!!). Could you please help out? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page. I am hopeful that this can be resolved through talk-page discussion. I don't presently have the time to contribute content to the article at present, but will keep an eye on the discussion. Good to see the article receive some attention! Abecedare (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I have responded to the said editor's objections as well, and I too hope the dispute can be resolved through discussion on the talk page. By the way, I also came across this, which I found quite interesting in the context of the present objections :-| Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too. This edit is particularly ironic, but I didn't bring it up on the article talk page to avoid personalizing the debate. Best to simply focus on the content issue. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this and clarify whether I've interpreted policy correctly? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The situation seems to have deteriorated. Could you please step in? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I just left a message on the editors' talk page. I have also requested User:Fowler&fowler, who in my experience has good judgment about history sources, to provide input.

Besides that, I think Redtigerxyz's advice to split the discussion into separate modular sections is useful. That way, uninvolved editors who enter the debate later will be able to follow the discussion and contribute to it. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Request to not threaten

I am surprised to being called disruptive when all I have requested SBC to develop a consensus and not confuse the article. I hope you would not threaten me again. Thanks. More random musing (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing". It would have been more fair if you had told SBC and D'Souza the same thing. But thanks for clarifying. More random musing (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You are being very one sided in your analysis and repeatedly calling me disruptive is borderline threatening because you are an administrator and seem to be a friend of SBC. It would help if you were to follow the discussion on the talk page and be impartial to your friends and people you do not know. Thanks. More random musing (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There are whole bunch of edits that redtiger and others have made where they have, without any discussion, removed referenced material. Have you warned them for being disruptive or are just singling me out? Please request SBC to edit sections on which we have built consensus. Unilateral disruptive warnings are not in the spirit of wikipedia. More random musing (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you fair?

"I haven't taken any sides in the content discussion ": Have you warned any other editor when they have removed referenced material without developing any consensus on the talk page? You are just singling me out for warnings. This is harrassment. Please be fair and consistent. Thanks. More random musing (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. lets keep the discussion in one place. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Revenge

Hi, I took care of your comments at the "The Revenge" FAC. Please take another look.--Music26/11 22:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look over the next day. Abecedare (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it's been a while, and I haven't seen any reply.--Music26/11 20:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Will be right there. Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied again, nothing much. If you can find some sources quickly it would be great, you can email them to "pietjepuk93@live.nl".--Music26/11 12:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Kanhopatra

I could not find any free images of Kanhopatra, is there a place on wikipedia where an image can be created by Inkspace or sketched by hand - on request. I have copyrighted images of Kanhopatra - which can be redrawn by someone based on the original images.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I had once used Wikipedia:Graphic Lab to help remove watermark from an image; you can ask there and see if someone is game for it. You can also ask User:Planemad - he is responsible for many of the WPINDIA SVG maps, and may either be up for this, or know someone who could help. Keep in mind derivative work issues, when deciding how close the new copy should be. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tamil people

Can you take a look at this edit. I reverted an unreferenced edit once, and the user and I had a discussion when I said anything should be referenced. He added a reference to this but nothing in the statement is supported by the ref, it's pure synthesis IMO, but I'd like another opinion. I haven't found any other reference to it, and the Tamil bell article doesn't support the add either. The editor is Tamil centric, but doesn't conform to Maleabroad behavior. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Te Ara seems to support a weaker form of the statement being added, but since the sea-faring is not discussed in the article, this doesn't belong in the lede. The second citation Lowie, Robert H. (1934). "American Anthropologist". Berkeley: University of California: 322. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help), which I think is to a journal article, is incomplete since the article name, and authors, volume and issue number etc are missing.

I think that, instead of worrying about removing the addition immediately, it would be better to ask User:Misssss for complete citation, and ask knowledgeable editors like (Arvind, Ravichandar84) etc, whether the seafaring is something notable enough to add a subsection in the article, or if its just trivia that can be mentioned in a single sentence somewhere in the body of the article. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Will check with them. Arvind has been inactive for a bit, so he may not respond soon. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 00:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually subscribed to my talk page's RSS feed, so I should usually respond within a couple of days. Just an aside by way of information. -- Arvind (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Abecedare. You have new messages at Talk:Akbar the Great.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Radhakrishnan

I am sorry! I have read the page in question really superficially. Please, remove my changes, - if you have not removed it already. Thanks for speedy action! Tellervo (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

please you stop

you stop you have made some inappropriate change to delhi. so i must fix. Bigsuperindia (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Will reply on user talk page. Abecedare (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

plz. check why i edited it. Delhi is global and local as you think. we don't want to get into local problem. let me represent it as it is seen globally. Bigsuperindia (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

please compare before you say or undo any edits. my request to you. Bigsuperindia (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rohit Bal

plz talk at Talk:Rohit Bal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsuperindia (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

Hello, I saw your comments at User_talk:Goethean#Userpage and you have mentioned here about mediation and RFC. However I have reported the problem at admin's noticeboard, should I also take the issue here? Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that your ANI report has been already addresses. If I may be frank, I think the report exaggerated some aspects of the complaints: "Racial abuse" (the comment was incivil, but not racial) , inappropriate page protection (which was fine), copyvio (only a couple of sentences seemingly were verbatim copy) and that hurt the credibility of any remaining aspects of the report.

Anyway, the way forward would be to discuss the specific issue at the article talk page, use WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN noticeboards, or call for a third opinion or Wp:RFC. It would also help if the discussion focused on 1 point at a time (eg, "I propose adding this paragraph to the article: 'blah blah blah'"); this may take time but is more likely to lead to actual improvements in the article. Abecedare (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you guidance ( and pointing out my mistakes ). Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One problem still persists, we need a uninvolved admin who can overlook the rewrite/reword part. Since the editors involved do not agree with each other. If you see Talk:Wendy Doniger, you will realize this. The content in dispute isn't much, about 3-4 paragraphs or so. One of the admins involved is on a semi break and I have also intimated another admin about it, but not sure if (s)he can do this; Probably will not take much of your time, you can drop by whenever you are free and share you thoughts. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Spdiffy, I have too many commitments on/off-wiki to mediate at the article currently. However, here is what I think would be the ideal way forward (if this interests you): rewrite the (first) Works section of the article in userspace as a Critical appraisal section (not a stand alone Criticism section, which is just poor writing practice that is too popular on wikipedia) so that (a) it is not a quote farm, and (b) presents a balanced picture of the positive and negative reviews Doniger and her work have received from the best sources available, giving the various POVs due (not necessarily equal!) weight. Once such a section is developed, you can add it to the article talk page, and invite other editors from related wikiprojects to provide feedback and decide on it's inclusion in the article. I realize that this is considerable work and will require access to sources and 5-10 hours of literature survey and writing time - but IMO this approach is the one most likely to succeed in improving this article on a polarizing subject. If you and/or other editors take this up, I will be happy to at least provide feedback on the content. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; I have sufficient time and access to literature survey to carryout what you have said. Will notify you whenever there is considerable progress. Cheers, Spdiffy (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Wendy_Doniger#Attention_to_admins:_Blatant_NPOV:_The_disappearance_of_Criticism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Have added my comments at the article talk page. I haven't look at the sources, reviews etc to know where the center of gravity of the appraisal should lie, but neither the current version, nor the previous one with the Criticism and other sections seem satisfactory. Abecedare (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Saw your comments and after reading so many comments, I feel that my edits as a ip address all these months, even though they were formatting edits and cleanups here and there were more productive. Also too bored to work towards this. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate that the unending and toxic debates at such articles can be quite draining. Take a break, work on something you enjoy, and then come back to this subject when you feel reinvigorated. Feel free to ping me if you have any question or comment; I myself don't plan to spend too much time on this article since the effort/results ratio is small, and the there are many other subjects that interest me more - but I can weigh in once in a while, if that helps. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:203.115.93.220

I note that you've had a visit from 203.115.93.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I strongly suspect that it's Druid.raul again. Rewareded him with a month off. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes its surely him; he has left similar friendly missives on my and other talk pages before. Guess he'll be IP hopping soon, and if he persists we can rangeblock him. Let him waste his time in the meantime. :-) Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, he tried changing my password too. Abecedare (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest a longer block each time he tries his tricks. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since he does not edit from a static IP, I don't think longer blocks are really helpful. Better to semi-protect the pages he trolls, block current IP for a day or two, and use a range-block if he really persists. Abecedare (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I suppose that the month block should be reduced to a week then. Mjroots (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can do that, since the aim of a single IP block is simply to make him work to at least reset his IP. The good news is that his IP range is relatively small (~4000 IP addresses), so rangeblock is an option if and when it is needed. Sooner or later, he'll realize the futility of his actions and move on to troll some other website. In the meantime, we need to just ensure that wikipedia content is protected. Abecedare (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reset the block to 1 week. Mjroots (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record his usual IP range is: 203.115.80.0/20 and 203.76.181.0/20 (note: a rangeblock is not justified for the recent socking). Abecedare (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So I see I'm not the only person who has had a visit from the password-reset fairy! at least I know I'm not the only one. :o) Jasepl (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Spideyismycopilot

As a member of WP:Comics and someone who watches the Hobgoblin (comics) article, I have to say, this guy seems to be way too big of a fan of Doc Ock and I can only guess just watched the episode of Spectacular Spider-Man where it was revealed that Doc Ock was the Master Planner. Anyways, just wanted to say thanks for setting a ban on the guy. What I'm really curious though is why he picked those three articles. Hobgoblin at least has a Spider-Man connection, but Sherlock Holmes? Slavery? Anakinjmt (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As a non-member of WP:Comics and someone who has no familiarity with Hobgoblin (comics), I have to say, I only have a vague inkling of the allusions in your message. But Spideyismycopilot (talk · contribs) was such a clear case of a disruptive account, that admins would have bid for an opportunity to block him. ;-)

Let me know if he comes back in a different guise. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, that's alright. It probably was something only a complete Spider-Man fan like me could get (no offense intended at all, mainly a poke at myself). Anakinjmt (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Abecedare (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I should say that your support at my RFA was more like a co-nomination :) and was very valuable ! Thanks a lot ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edit

Thanks for the feedback. On Wikipedia, there are two sorts of edits - minor and major. If I make a major edit, then rest assured that I always make that clear by not checking the minor edit box. I disagree with you that only changing spelling mistakes and rearranging text without changing the meaning is a minor edit. The main job of an editor is to tidy up what others have written, to state things more concisely, to remove weasel words, ambiguities and the like. These are all minor edits even if the meaning gets changed somewhat in the process. On the "Testing for Sex" Wikipedia page, absurdly misnamed "Testing for Gender", I replaced the weasel words "also loosely called", or some such (I am relying on my memory here) with "erroneously called". Two words become one, and the weasel phrase is removed. Evidently, you consider that a major edit. Sorry - but I don't. User:Colenso - 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ft stands for full text. Again, I have to disagree with you. If I have removed a link it's because it's dead. If I have replaced a link it's because there's a better link -ie one that goes to a primary (or one closer to a primary) rather than a secondary source or a dubious one. In my book that’s not a major edit – it’s a minor one. If you say that I have been marking my edits incorrectly for so long, it seems strange to me that 1. you have only now decided to let me know (wouldn't it have been better the first time you believed that I had over stepped the mark?); 2 that you are the only person to call me out so far on this after many hundreds of edits.

I'm quite happy to leave all my edits unchecked if that's what most other editors want. Personally, I don't want to be notified over every change that someone else makes to my work. If it's changed it's changed. Life is too short to get in a stew over such trivial issues. User:Colenso - 15:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You’ve touched on many issues here close to my heart so forgive me for seizing the right to reply at length to your charges against me.

Etiquette was an invention of the French Court supposedly intended to minimise the chance of a member of the Court inadvertently insulting the honour of one of their peers. New entrants to the Court, exclusive by necessity of its role and function, were rigorously coached in the Court’s manners and customs and were thus expected to know when they had committed a breach of those. Etiquette in this sense does not exist on Wikipedia, where anyone with Internet access and an opinion, no matter how badly informed, expects to be treated as a matter of right with the same respect as someone who has spent years in trying to master a discipline.

Consensus means unanimity; it’s only ascertainable, and even then rarely prevails for long, in discrete, highly selective and stable groups such the Royal Society or L’Academie Francaise. Check the two groups’ records of proceedings to see what I mean by this. On Wikipedia, as with most free-for-alls, just like the Angel Housing Coop (AHC) in North London to which I had the misfortune to belong in the early eighties, consensus only occurs at best, where it exists at all, in the “loose sense of trend of opinion” (The Chambers Dictionary, 11th ed, Chambers Harrap, Edinburgh, 2008). At worst, as I learnt from the AHC, which had almost one hundred members in total on its books, meetings, real or virtual, of up to twenty or so participants can be easily browbeaten into sullen agreement by a concerted minority of special interest advocates, simply because the majority has become exhausted by their opponents’ brutal tactics and desperately wants to go off to the pub for a drink before closing time. For evidence of such tactics, see those used in the months leading up to May 2008 and thereafter by the Roman Catholic laity group that had hijacked Wikipedia’s Roman Catholic page at the time. The group's then leader was a fervent convert to the Church of Rome who, in our considerable emailed correspondence, demonstrated her great knowledge of North American ecclesiastical practise in the Roman Catholic Church by insisting on spelling the plural of diocese again and again as “diocese’s”.

When I began editing the drivel that so often passes for an encyclopaedic entry on Wikipedia, to the best of my recollection the advice on the Wikipedia editing page at that time was to use “ft” to identify to the original author the full text of one’s edits (a practise I have tried to adhere to ever since) and to mark every edit as a minor edit unless in fact it was a major edit – that is, a substantial rewrite of part of the original that significantly changed its meaning. It may be that my recollection of what I read at the time I began editing is now faulty. If so you may attribute that to my advancing years and failing faculties. Or it may be that the “consensus” on Wikipedia on this point has changed since then. I wouldn’t know, and frankly it’s a bit late in the day to discover this now, because until you notified me I had no idea that I might not be complying with what I had always understood to be Wikipedia editing protocol from the time I had first carefully read it.

Contrary to your assertion, I did not set up a straw man argument solely with the intention of knocking it over in order to win a point in my disputation with you. Rather, I was trying to make the point, evidently unsuccessfully, that the distinction between a minor and a major edit, on which Wikipedia has always tried to insist, is in essence a pointless distinction, albeit one to which I have tried, evidently not to your approval, to adhere to at all times by exercising my judgement. I say that the distinction is pointless because every serious writer I know, who tries, as I do, to take great care with everything they write, regards with horror any tampering whatsoever with their work - be it the deletion or moving of a single comma, or the respelling of a single word, from say the British “colour” to the North American “color”. Thus, where our work is concerned, there is no such thing as a minor edit – change the tiniest part of what we write and you change our intent. (Hence, I had to decide early on either not to contribute to Wikipedia or simply ignore the endless changes that I knew others would make to my painstaking work - for the reasons I explain later, I chose the latter option.)

On the other hand, if someone cannot spell and does not bother to use a spell checker in lieu; cannot form a syntactical sentence; neither possesses, nor can be bothered to access at their library, books of reference or the works of the leading authorities in a given field; can barely read indeed; but simply sucks up a little nourishment from elsewhere, alights like a fly amongst a storm on the great turd heap of Wikipedia, and then regurgitates the resultant mess back on to the heap – well, then nothing short of a wholesale rewrite or, ofttimes, a complete deletion will suffice. In these cases, which unfortunately are the norm on Wikipedia, the distinction here between a “minor” and “major” edit is also rendered redundant. Wherefore then the point of the distinction? My point is that an edit is an edit; a change is a change; the distinction in the context of what goes on at Wikipedia between minor and major edit is artificial and capricious – inform the original author you have edited their work and leave it at that.

Finally, rest assured that editing Wikipedia never makes me happy. Quite the converse. I regard editing Wikipedia as my dutiful and most unhappy chore that I must nonetheless force myself to undertake every time I stumble across yet another ill thought-out, badly written, incomprehensibly structured and woefully referenced article. I try to do then what I must to ameliorate the awfulness that has become the stamp, too often of too much, of what has become a great global force, not for the spread of knowledge as its founder fondly imagines, but for the perpetuation and consolidation of unassailable ignorance amongst the perpetually ignorant. User:Colenso - 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. My experience with the possibility of collaborative editing, and the simple pleasure of editing here has been diametrically opposite to yours - so it's informative to hear from the other side. Abecedare (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion?

On this? I've asked Arvind a question about a page move, your opinion would help too. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 16:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Added my 2c at User_talk:Vadakkan, although my comment doesn't really address your question. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

wholesale voip business article

Dear Abecedare. Please explain how is you see as wikied this article? I just beginning to form it, so i need your suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinogradovisoleksii (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk page. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you reconsider my csd before the water gets deeper? Please look at the "improvements" Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't fit any of the CSD criterion, but is at the same time not ready for mainspace, possibly because of the inexperience of the user. I'll ask him if he is willing to develop it in userspace, else we may need to stubify or delete it. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I can deal with that. It looks like english isn't their first language, they might need a little help there. But it appears they are making a how to guide as well. see my talkage and see if you can get that same understanding there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You are wondering why I didn't inform the attacker of the ANI notice. I hardly feel inclined to go anywhere near the talk page of someone who leaves obscene garbage like that on my talk page. I am not an admin and I expect those who are to do their jobs by protecting genuine editors from attacks. You have said on his page that his conduct is completely unacceptable so why haven't you banned him? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is political correctness. Just like something out of New Labour. You are evidently more concerned about me not leaving a message on his page than you are about his obscene conduct. In addition, you have failed to deal with the "sockpuppetry" he is engaged in. It is not enough to say you don't know the background. Investigate it and do something about it. I have no confidence in you and I want another admin to deal with this. Are you going to hand it over to another admin or do I have to find one myself? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know I've taken a look at the case and have issued a 48h block. A sustained and lengthy tirade like [1] really exhausts any presumption of good faith. I don't think anything longer than 48h is warranted at present. --Xdamr^talk 22:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though I took a more lenient first step, I have no objections to the block or its duration. The users tirade was really over-the-top. Thanks for reviewing the situation. Abecedare (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:3RR

It looks fine to me (sorry for the delay in reply). I'm on my BlackBerry right now, so I'll reply in full later. Cheers, Master of Puppets 01:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

Imposing editing restraints on fellow-editors was one of the many unpleasant responsibilities I was able to avoid as a non-admin, until recently. <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you change your mind, email me. I refuse to be a part of Wikipedia under the current circumstances. I've been blocked twice this month for other editors' antics, and it's pointless to go on. Radiopathy •talk• 02:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I already tried assuming good faith once and unblocked you early, but given your subsequent actions it's clear that a revert restriction is necessary to prevent harm to wikipedia. Secondly, you comment above indicates that you still haven't understood the problem with your edit-warring. Finally, edit-summaries like the one in your most recent edit, suggest that a voluntary wikibreak might be beneficial anyways. Abecedare (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

When the restriction is lifted, I'll be back. Last word. Radiopathy •talk• 03:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some people fight the system, but it's a bit saddening when they do. :( Wish this could have turned out drama-free... after all, we're here to create a free source of information for all the world's people, not bicker with each other. /sigh Master of Puppets 04:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's even sadder when the people who are supposed to protect and support the system refuse to see who it is that's doing the fighting. Case closed. Radiopathy •talk• 04:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet, you do this? Master of Puppets 04:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A little parting shot...try to see the humour in it. Discussion over. Radiopathy •talk• 04:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Radiopathy avoiding sanctions. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Bband11th

He has already been warned - [2] - if that makes a difference. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But he hasn't edited the article possibly because the warning worked, or maybe because his edit hasn't been reverted. I added my warning to his talk page only to emphasize that he should not take his not being blocked this time, as a license to continue edit-warring. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see now that you were probably referring to the Sep 9th 3RR warning. Sorry, I did miss that. As it stands I would prefer to keep the account unblocked since he has already been told that no action is being taken, but if you prefer issuing a 3RR block, I won't object. Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the situation - I just noticed that this user has a habit of removing talk page warnings and ignoring whatever people tell him - so I thought I would let you know. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the EWN report that I responded to. It lists the latest diffs. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Page move

There were a few pages for Badgujar under multiple titles (see my post at INB - here). However, while the best content was at Badgujar, it apparently wasn't the best title, which is Bargujar. An IP comes back and adds a lot of OR etc to that title converting it from an article every so often. Also Bargujar appears to have most of the wikilinks. Could you do a G6 deletion and move Badgujar to Bargujar? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I assumed that there were no GFDL issues, since you know about all that stuff. You may need to update the project templates on the talk page, since the old Talk:Bargujar had both WPINDIA and WPHINDUISM tags, which got lost in the overwrite. Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. I asked for a move because these "newer" pages all had content copied from the older one, and then expanded. I initially chose that title for the page because of the content development (not because of what was most apt for it). But every month or so, a couple of IPs come back and revert the redirects adding all sorts of OR and email ids in these articles, so figured, might as well move it so that the edit history attribution is maintained. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 15:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Better let it play out entirely

I think it is best that Wikipedia:ANI#Ottava_Rima_.22community.22_sanction is played out entirely instead of archiving prematurely yet again - something this topic seems to suffer from. This entire discussion is the result of a 6 hour open Community Sanction thread which was closed where a mere 5 votes were cast (Frankly i assume most contributers involved weren't even online). Eventually this lead to Jehochman issuing a community sanction, which was opposed at several other pages including the community sanction page, a few talk pages and now ANI.

This entire thing now has 5 archived threads, all of which archival's seemed to spark new threads instead of returning peace. I would therefor suggest that we let this one burn out or fade away so that this situation is finally done with. If not we will likely only see more threads created or at least some non vented negative comments on random talk pages which could possibly spark the entire thing all over again. At least everything is discussed in one place for now. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I very much doubt that this thread will lead to any resolution, and would still recommend starting a user RFC where evidence can be collated instead of being lost in threaded discussion. But I won't let my cynicism stand in the way of your (and others') optimism! I didn't plan to, and won't, re-archive the discussion, but will bet you a celebratory/drown-your-sorrows pint that the discussion will end in a stalemate (you'll have to pay for your own beer, but still ... :-) ) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Aaah, ill be glad if this monstrosity reaches some form of conclusion, regardless if its a "Win", "Lose" or "Stalemate" - which are all relative because i assume no one can actually win in the first place. This entire issue has just caused to much friction between some editors, and on top of that we aren't dealing with some silly sockpuppet this time. Ottava is an excellent contributer, but i deem civility a huge issue.

A ban for Ottava would mean that Wikipedia could potentially lose an excellent editor, perhaps more then just for the ban duration (And yes, with her/his qualities that would be a grievous loss). On the other hand we cannot have incivility issues chasing other editors away such as Chillum who was more or less forced on a wikibreak. If Wikipedia wasn't a website with people everywhere around the globe those beers could be put to much better use... If we all just went to a pub and had a coke, beer or anything else this could probably be settled with some laughs over a good drink. Yet now... *Sigh*. This situation just isn't helping anyone. Even if archived i assume that it will just result in some form of feud which has not been entirely played out as it should be. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals poorly with good mainspace contributors with behavioral issues (cf. Science Apologist, Betacommand etc). Unfortunately, we let the situation fester for months, with polarized admins administering quickie blocks and unblocks, till there is some sort of blow-up and the only sanction available is long-term project/topic ban, and/or large-scale disillusionment with the project. I haven't looked into the issues involving OR deeply enough to know if we'll retread that path, but it does look that way. So when you say, "ill be glad if this monstrosity reaches some form of conclusion", I can only add amen to that. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He just won't stop...

So our potty-mouthed password-reset fairy is back to reverting edits and using more wonderful language. Could you take a lok when you get a chance? Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see he is already blocked. I have also extended the semi-protection at the articles he hit. Abecedare (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Odisha

I changed the name in States as Orissa article was renamed with Odisha, referenced with a RS. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fought this: HT says "To formalise the changes, the Centre is expected to introduce a bill to amend the Constitution in the winter session of Parliament. “The new name will be effective once the approved amendment bill is notified,”" --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your fairness

let us see how fair you are. I have added secondary sources which interpret the primary sources. In addition I have added more references to the sections which people deleted by waving their hands and without any discussion like this one: [3] "Relations with the Ottoman Empire: cleaned up (?) - this section is a disaster." More random musing (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You are still blindly reverting improvements by other editors, and edit-warring to retain your preferred version. This does not aid collaboration. I have added my comments at EWN report, and will let another admin weigh in, since my and several other editors' advice to you does not seem to have helped. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Habibi_Silsila

Hi abecedare, could you or somebody remove the AfD tag from Habibi_Silsila in incubation? The authors are working on a MS Word version off line with some help for the time being. E x nihil ^(talk) 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ex nihil, just ignore the AFD notice and somebody will be along anytime now to close the discussion. I do not want to close it myself, since I commented at the AFD, and though I can invoke WP:IAR or WP:Common sense, that can in some rare cases lead to unnecessary drama. For future reference, it is usually better to wait for the AFD to end before moving the page; but don't worry about such legalese too much. Hope you can help the editors get the article in shape suitable for wikipedia mainspace. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

At 24.35.117.254 (talk · contribs). The contribution history speaks for itself. Also my talk page, SBC-YPRs talk page (SBC-YPR deleted it after warning the editor on their talk page, see that response too), another editor's TP over the weekend, with all these ridiculous attacks. Been warned many times. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 03:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for personal attacks and incivility at SBC-YPR, your and the IP talk page. Abecedare (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thx, today just seems to be my day! RP blocked another on Reddy for another attack. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a fair division of labour. You write articles, fight POV pushers and vandals, and thus get attacked. RP and I can stop by once in a while and use the block tool ... till you get it yourself. Then we can be even more lazy. :-) Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for the warning. The problem was User:119.173.81.176 didn't understand what was personal attack nor was 3RR violation. FYI, he was blocked for 3 hours for the matter of personal attacks and content removal. I think he just vented his anger on me by reporting an edit war at ANI. As a result, he made you waste your time on the ANI report. As for User:Trikemike, I once asked an admin help at here. Probably I should have added the reference I found and wrote about on the talk page to the article. What is the best way to communicate with a user who refuses to communicate? If you know some more tips, please let me know. Thank you and best regard. Oda Mari (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope the content issue is resolved now.

As for your question regarding communication: It really helps outside editors/admins to assess the situation if one makes an attempt to discuss the edits at the article/user talk page. That helps even if the other party doesn't respond since then it is clearer who is obstructing a consensus from being reached. Else we just see two editors reverting each other and leaving templated warnings, and without being expert in the subject matter, we cannot really judge who is "in the right". Of course, in case of genuine content disputes that are not resolved even after discussion between editors, it's best to expand the circle of editors involved by inviting knowledgeable editors and project members to weigh in, or by using one of the dispute resolution processes. This often makes for extra, and what we may rightly think as unnecessary work, but in a project that allows anyone to edit without caring for their education, knowledge or ideology, this is the best system we can devise. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Now the article Japanese language is protected, I can have a cooling period. In the meantime, I'll try to find more ref. and post my comments if I can find some helpful information. Thank you again and happy editing to you too. Oda Mari (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Blank vs. unblank

Since my curiosity has been piqued, and I've appointed you the resident expert, tell me: is it, other things being equal, easier to search a page than to search a historical version of a page? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK: For indexed pages (eg, the whole of mainspace), yes it makes a considerable difference, since blanked pages can be searched by any generic search engine, while the page history is generally not available (except to the extent that historical versions still reside at mirrors and search engine caches). For non-indexed pages (eg RFA, arbcom pages etc) generic search engines don't work (as long as they follow the NO_INDEX directive); however wikipedia search can still access non-blanked pages, though not article histories.

Detour: Here is what I have been able to come up with as arguments for blanking/unblanking for non-indexed pages (the argument for courtesy blanking of indexed pages is obvious)

Arguments for blanking

It's a courtesy (?)
It's what we do
Why not ?
It makes the page accessible only after 1-2 extra clicks
It makes it unsearchable even using wikipedia search

Arguments for not blanking/unblanking

It's what we do, i.e, it's the default
Why not?
It makes the page accessible only after 1-2 extra clicks
It makes it searchable using wikipedia search

Not much to choose between the two arguments although in my view points 3 and 4 for non-blanking win the debate (if we want the pages to be truly inaccessible, we should delete or oversight them).

I think, courtesy blanking was introduced (w.r.t. arbcom case pages, I think) during a time when all wikipedia pages were indexed, and now it has become a hallowed tradition even in cases where that justification no longer holds since it makes us feel virtuous and benevolent. Would make a good subject for a anthropologist to study: Origins and persistence of sacred rituals in online communities. Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I know you're really

in disguise, here's a suggestion: you can title your next paper Lack of sex and temperament in wiki societies. :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Can be joint work. Suggest using intemperance^{(pun intended)} in the title; and we need a colon somewhere, else it won't sell. Once we have the title set, the rest is a breeze. :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AN3 report

Closed, and warned. Thanks, Black Kite 00:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

letting you know of an SPI in which you may have an interest

Your talk page was recently vandalized by a Druid.raul sock, and you discussed it with Mjroots here: User talk:Abecedare/Archive 12#User:203.115.93.220. I am just letting you know that I have linked this IP with a new SPI of 203.76.185.35. This is the first SPI in which I have involved myself, as a drive by commenter, and I am just letting you know as you seem aware of the case and have some interest in this sockmaster. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at the SPI. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re the IP socks, is 24h enough? I'd prefer a week block at a time. Make it harder for him. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Given how easy it is to change IPs with many ISPs (just reset or power-cycle the modem), I don't know if the length matters. However, since there are hardly any other editors aediting from that range, extending the block doesn't do any harm either. By the way, I mentioned you as a point man with regards to this sockpupeteer; now you can expect many more userpage vandalisms and password-change emails. :-) Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I found this tool useful to assess how many anon. users are using that IP range (although it seems to be at a fritz right now). Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you mentioned me at the new SPI. I've posted there concurring with your post. They can vandalise my talk page as much as they like, plenty of anti vandal patrollers about to revert them. At least my user page is safe (perk of being an admin :-) ). Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have admin rights, and will do my utmost to stay that way. I don't know how you guys cope. Kudos. So.... as a one of the hoi polloi, I don't mind reverting these edits on sight hemceforth; my question is whether it would be worth keeping a log of the IPs somewhere? It may help sometime in the future. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you wish, you can create a subpage in your userspace to list known IPs that Rhp_26 has used. You can find some of the IPs listed in this ANI report, and User:Jasepl will know of others. Note though that some trolls crave such attention, regard such pages as "shrines", and undertake more egregious trolling so that their exploits gain further recognition; so at best we should have a purely functional, instead of trying to track, document and archive their every move. See WP:RBI and WP:DENY for some related thoughts. Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The usual contributions log will be plenty to get a record if ever required. I'll revert if I see it and ignore otherwise, and maybe alert mop-bearers only if there's too much mess on the floor. Thanks for the advice! Adios. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

R. K. Narayan

I would like to nominate R. K. Narayan for Featured Article status and would like your opinion on the article and how it can be improved. Can you provide feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/R. K. Narayan/archive1? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll be happy to add my 2c; may take a few days though before I get to it. Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR

I'd like you to rescind my six month 1RR restriction. Radiopathy •talk• 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Iyer

Can you keep a look on this article? I did a mass revert, explained on the talk page. The edit summaries of the user who deleted about 31K of content didn't allow me any room to AGF. The page should be on Ravichander's watchlist, so he should definitely see my revert and TP note. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I dealt with some image copyvios uploaded by User talk:Jaggi81‎ earlier today! Yes, mass blanking makes it hard to judge if the user has any legitimate concerns, especially since the content and comments Jaggi added was POV and OR. I see that you have already reverted the edits; I'll watchlist the article and see how it goes. Abecedare (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Sivakasi riots of 1899 please. Unrelated to the above user though. -SpacemanSpiff 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll atke a look. Abecedare (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the IP. I am not familiar with the content debate, but the IP is clearly blanking sourced content simply because the user disagree with it - and that is easy for even us uninformed admins to deal with.:-) Abecedare (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I could read from that page, the article was created by someone who didn't exactly mean well. Since then, IPs from the two castes have been fighting on the page, two admins have tried to mediate and walked away. Then Ravichandar and CarTick moved the page and I accidentally came across the page and got fascinated by its history, and am now wishing I didn't ever find it! cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The term low caste or emulation must be avoided. Because it isnt what we believed in. We didn't unite to act. We believed strongly that we were placed wrongly in the caste hierarchy and we still do. We are a clean upper caste today and many prominent hindu temples are taken care by the hindu nadar association. All these books were written by the British and it did'nt have our involvement. The Nadars were actually irritated bcoz of these books. So that makes these not neutral. [4]. Refer page 101 of this book. It says that some nadars were wealthy right from the beginning. We want you to look at things in our pt of view also. 122.164.139.122 (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to discuss the content on the article talk page with other users there. However you should know that wikipedia articles are written based on reliable sources, and are not censored to assuage the feelings of any persons or groups. For the meantime, I have protected the article, since you have been ignoring previous advice and warning and using multiple IPs to blank sourced content. Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki page on Bully Kutta

Hello, the wiki page on bully kutta has been vandlised by Ukbullyk (talk · contribs), he has deleted all words about the origin of bully kutta in india. Even the photo of bully kutta which has been uploaded by an indian has been now incorrectly labelled as "Pakistani Mastiff" by Ukbullyk (talk · contribs). The said user has been known to use verbal abuse against other members who have corrected the inaccuracies. The information regarding the height of the bully kutta dog added by Ukbullyk (talk · contribs) is ridiculous which points to the fact that he has never seen a bully kutta dog before. I request you keep to revert the page to last correct version edited by 59.92.233.197. Thanks --59.92.238.34 (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the article from further editing, since you and Ukbullyk (talk · contribs) were reverting each other, without citing any sources. That does not mean that I support the current version of the article, but I am not going to revert the page till the content disputes are settled. I suggest that you gather reliable sources for your claims above and post them at the article talk page; Ukbullyk can do the same. That way it would be easy to judge what should and should not be in the article and the page can be reopened for editing. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me for the talk on the subject but since i havent got enough time please excuse me. And to clear up some things, i didnt get into an edit war with Ukbullyk, I just pointed out his vandalism on this page and previously on thw wiki admin page. I kindly suggest that if possible you might edit that page back to a [WP:NPOV]. Thanks --59.92.239.12 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bollywood

The name bollywood does no justice to Hindi Cinema. Even American movie industry's name is not hollywood check Cinema of the United States. What is the rationale of keeping the name bollywood. Specially when the city is not anymore named Bombay? I was trying to rename it to Hindi Cinema which is much more appropriate, but it got misspelled as Hindi Cinena and would not rename to Hindi Cinema, so I had to change it to Hindi Movie Industry. Bollywood in no way is a justified name. Why dont you rename the Indian people name to Curries just because thats the name for them popular in Australia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihits (talk • contribs) 08:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to rename the article, propose and discuss it on the article talk page, and open a rename request if needed. Unilaterally renaming long standing articles, often in violation of wikipedia article naming conventions, is disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious new editor

Luken2005 (talk · contribs) did this as his first edit today. Is it our old friend? Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so; Rhp_26 seems more interested in airline inventories and routes than personnel issues. This sounds like a typical edit by a disgruntled employee. Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Kanhopatra/archive1

Please comment about Kanhopatra, in in consideration FA criteria. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance. I have added some quick comment at the PR about sourcing issues that are likely to arise at FA. Will add more over the next few days. Abecedare (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have access to Abott, but it's a translation of Bhaktivijaya. Bhaktivijaya continues the Kanhopatra chapter even after her death. It tells about the priest of the temple arrested by the soilders. The priest enables the Badshah to have the divine sight of Vithoba and then he is freed. This is not included in the article. And since other references were available for the same legend, Abott is not cited in rest of the article. I have also searched jstor.org : No references with details about Kanhopatra. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, information about Kanhopatra is quite scarce (the wikipedia article may be the best single source!). This paper has a passing mention; don't know if it's of any use. Have you looked at

Tupule: Classical Marathi literature from the beginning to A.D. 1818. (A History of Indian Literature, Vol. IX, Fasc. 4.) ix, [109] pp. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1979. Tulpule has also written, Mysticism in medieval India, which I guess will have the same information.
Vanita, Ruth. Three Women Saints of Maharashtra
Swami Ghanananda, John Stewart-Wallace, Women Saints of East and West

Basically, we can expect reviewers at FAC to ask questions like the ones Nemonoman raised at PR, and as long as they can find books/articles that haven't been cited in the article, there is always the possibility that the article is incomplete. However, if we can show that the article is as comprehensive as reliable sources allow it to be, there is no objection on it being just short (some people disagree, but length is not currently a roadblock at FACs).

Another remedy would be slightly expand upon and source the paragraph that says, "Kanhopatra's history is known through stories..."; if I understand right, most of our knowledge about Kanhopatra and fellow saints comes through Mahipati's Bhaktavijaya, which is a much later work and mixes myth and biography. We can mention this (if we find an appropriate source), to explain why the information is scarce and somewhat hagiographical. Abecedare (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Looked at jstor papers, just passing references. Swami Ghanananda, John Stewart-Wallace is used in the article. I do not have access to Tulpule and Vanita (if you can search for those and check). I have found 1 more English in the Ramakrishna Mission journal (March 2004), will add that but the information is the same that cited by Marathi sources. To prove that the article is comprehensive, "Little is known about the historical Kanhopatra's life" is cited with a reference. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked my library: it does not have the Vanita book (I am not even sure it is a book; may be an article in some journal/collection), and the Tulpule book is checked out till January. You can contact Priyanath to see if he can get the Tulpule volume; he had accessed another volume (Ludo Rochers' Puranas) of the "A History of Indian Literature" series earlier for the Bhagavata Purana article. I'll take a look at the other aspects of the Kanhopatra article by early next week. Abecedare (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruth, vanita in Manushi : a journal about women and society 50-52. Their website [/www.manushi-india.org] all past records except the vol. 50-52. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Another point: Kanhopatra is not the centre of the article: The title is Three Women Saints of Maharashtra: Muktabai, Janabai, Bahinabai.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Thewtfchronicles

Hi, you're the admin who blocked this user previously, though that was in regards to edit warring, and this isn't. I have some concerns about this user, specifically their rapid editing, some questionable CSD nominations, and while I can't say who it would be, they seem to strike me as far to knowledgeable about WP policies and procedures...which makes me wonder if they're a sock. Between 0248 and 0349 (my time) they performed 50 separate edits, most of which involved templates, and showed remarkable insight into WP. Most of their contributions seem to be okay, if a little shotgun-ish...but they're raising a few flags for me. Wonder if you might be able to take a look and provide your own thoughts. Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Frmatt, editors who regularly work with US Television related articles are more likely to recognize socking and content related issues. If teher is any specific user conduct related matter that does not require area knowledge, I can help. I did notice some of the questionable CSDs; I have to sign off soon but I'll deal with the ones I saw. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm headed to bed shortly myself, but will continue to watch this user for the moment. cI've opened up some dialogye on their talk page so hopefully that will resolve it. Frmatt (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

These CSD taggings are becoming problematic. LadyofShalott 06:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Any suggestions on how to deal with it ? Abecedare (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not much... several of us now have made similar comments to no apparent effect. I hate to say it, but a block might become necessary if the user persists. LadyofShalott 07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

True. I hate to see a user blocked for good faith errors (as Thewtfchronicles seems to be making), but the scale of his mistakes, and ignoring all the advice he has been given is getting disruptive. I'll add a warning to his page so that he is aware of the consequences. Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that will stop him. If not, at least he's been warned. Not all the tags are bad, but enough of them are, and they have the potential to be harmful enough, that it's important an end be put to the situation. LadyofShalott 07:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

He is still nominating pages, but at least he is leaving edit-summaries and informing the article creator. The new noms. look okay till now, but in case he starts slipping again I think a block would be warranted. Have to sign off now, but will check again later. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent, ec)I've been lurking most of the day (busy with other, less enjoyable things and haven't edited), but I'm not seeing any indication that this user is hearing or understanding what the issue is. As I said on their talk page, I'm particularly concerned that with their shotgun-style they're just going to drive new editors away as they almost did with the creator of the Prison page. While I don't want to drive them away, but I'm starting to agree that maybe a short block would be beneficial unless they show some sign that they are seeing the same concern we are. Frmatt (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(reply after ec), he does seem to be leaving edit summaries and notifying people...but my concern is that he hasn't responded to anyone (that I'm aware of) about the concerns that have been raised except in snarky edit summaries like [5] and [6]. Frmatt (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Many of us have reached the same conclusion. He has chosen to walk along the knife's edge and continue to nominate speedy-deletions, instead of taking a break as I suggested; if he makes any further errors or bitey remarks it would be fair to block him next. Abecedare (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)