![]() | 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. |
~ 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)
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)
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 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)
"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)
Hi, I took care of your comments at the " The Revenge" FAC. Please take another look.-- Music 26/ 11 22:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. - Spaceman Spiff 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
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 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)
you stop you have made some inappropriate change to delhi. so i must fix. Bigsuperindia ( talk) 16:34, 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)
plz talk at Talk:Rohit Bal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsuperindia ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On this? I've asked Arvind a question about a page move, your opinion would help too. cheers. - Spaceman Spiff 16:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
He has already been warned - [2] - if that makes a difference. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
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. - Spaceman Spiff 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 changed the name in States as Orissa article was renamed with Odisha, referenced with a RS. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. - Spaceman Spiff 03:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Closed, and warned. Thanks, Black Kite 00:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. - Spaceman Spiff 04:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like you to rescind my six month 1RR restriction. Radiopathy •talk• 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
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. - Spaceman Spiff 02:46, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Luken2005 ( talk · contribs) did this as his first edit today. Is it our old friend? Mjroots ( talk) 14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please comment about Kanhopatra, in in consideration FA criteria. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
(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)
![]() | 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. |
~ 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)
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)
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 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)
"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)
Hi, I took care of your comments at the " The Revenge" FAC. Please take another look.-- Music 26/ 11 22:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. - Spaceman Spiff 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
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 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)
you stop you have made some inappropriate change to delhi. so i must fix. Bigsuperindia ( talk) 16:34, 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)
plz talk at Talk:Rohit Bal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsuperindia ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On this? I've asked Arvind a question about a page move, your opinion would help too. cheers. - Spaceman Spiff 16:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
He has already been warned - [2] - if that makes a difference. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
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. - Spaceman Spiff 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 changed the name in States as Orissa article was renamed with Odisha, referenced with a RS. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. - Spaceman Spiff 03:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Closed, and warned. Thanks, Black Kite 00:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. - Spaceman Spiff 04:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like you to rescind my six month 1RR restriction. Radiopathy •talk• 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
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. - Spaceman Spiff 02:46, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Luken2005 ( talk · contribs) did this as his first edit today. Is it our old friend? Mjroots ( talk) 14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please comment about Kanhopatra, in in consideration FA criteria. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
(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)