![]() | 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. |
I've been watching the ongoing discussions on the talk page - pertaining to scripts - with initial interest, then amusement, followed by exasperation and now concern (due to the amount of bad blood it has begun generating, with allegations and counter-allegations being thrown around). It has been going on in circles for over a month now without any end or direction in sight and now seems to have reached a point of no return, as there appears to be absolutely no hope of the editors concerned reaching any consensus on the matter. After having consumed much space on the server, and wasting much productive time of the editors involved, I think it is time to invoke some community action - perhaps an RfC or even mediation - that will hopefully bring the existing discussion (more like an ugly war of words now) to a speedy close, resolve the issue for now and more importantly, restore focus to the core areas of the article requiring improvement (an attempt was recently made but seems to have gotten lost in the midst of all the mudslinging). What say? Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow! I somehow missed this whole thread on my talk page the last few days. Anyways:
I am skeptical of RFCs or straw polls working at this stage, since we'll still be left with the problem of closing either and determining consensus and I'm afraid they'll just generate much more circular arguments and heat. I am more hopeful of the mediation process, since the mediator can guide the discussion and hopefully help prevent it from getting circular, or uncivil. Since the parties seem willing, perhaps one of us can set the ball rolling (unless of course, everyone simply moves on - which would frankly be my preferred solution). Volunteers ?
Abecedare (
talk)
15:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks for giving that source,i think now rudra may give a neutral veiw
-- 115.240.109.56 ( talk) 08:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
i think if you want to keep this claim behalf of some secondry article,then you should represent it as "At least three redactions of the text are recognized by some scholars",instead of "At least three redactions of the text are recognized".so that everybody may understand it is a scholar opinion,not a true fact in mahabharata itself.it will resolve the whole discussion.because it is represented with the facts that are saying about claims present in mahabharata-- 115.240.69.242 ( talk) 12:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,Abecedare! i finally got source which contradicts 8800 verse claim,see Jhon Brockington contradicts it in his article,in this whole topic is disscused that how some scholars misinterpeted 8800 verse as a sepereate 8800 verse version as "jaya".I think it is enough for now,because this source cleary shows 8800 verses as a misinterpetation by some poor indian scholars.I hope now it will not a problem to delete this misinterpeted information.Thank you--Mayurasia 11:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
hi!Abecedare,i have done some changes in mahabharata aricle due to some unreferenced material,like ms spitzer dating,absence of virat parva in it from proper source,i gave Brockington reference for 8800 verse original veiw.If u think it is not suitable than edit it or revert.I will be grateful to you for guiding me.thank u-- Mayur ( talk) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for encouraging and guiding me,i want to inform you that this verse(refering 8800) has been removed by bhandarkar oriented institute poona,because it was found in very few manuscripts,this matter has also been discussed by Brockington,however this verse is present in gita press version,now suggest me either to add Brockington statement at talk page or gita press verse reference,i have also done some correction in your statement in mahabharata article,THank you-- Mayur ( talk) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Prof. Muneo Tokunaga is also refering Brockington book,but he is the editor of final version of mahabharata by BORI,and he had removed this verse from new edition of BORI,see this Link-- Mayur ( talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my misinterpetation,thanks for giving me right information, the Exact article name is"Papers of the Twelfth World Sanskrit Conference, Vol. II. Epic Undertakings" edited by Edited by Robert P. Goldman and Muneo Tokunaga.see Reference1 or Reference2 for confirming author and book name. if this information is not sufficient,then remove the reference regarding Tokunaga.More exactly title of particular paper was "Bhisma's Discourse as a sokapanodana" and author was Muneo Tokunaga I am again extremly sorry for my mistake,thank u for giving me nice instruction.-- Mayur ( talk) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia for over three years. And I've tried so much to make the quality of the project better or at least just good enough. While others spent their time adding scripts to satisfy their agenda, I was trying to make the best of what I could. Instead of edit warring, I better enjoyed my time yesterday creating Hindi film articles such as Judaai or Jahan Ara. This is according to me the spirit of Wikipedia and reflects the best of what I am doing here.
Today, someone violated a policy in a terribly extremist way and even admins are taking long time to conclude the clear verdict. It is terrible that a bureaucrat is assuming such bad faith on my part (Taxman), speaking of non-existent consensus (which I proved on the Bollywood talk page) and saying that I was edit warring, while it is actually the other user who did it. He ignored the fact that this user violated WP:CANVASS. I'm starting to think whether my time is well spent on Wikipedia.
Don't mind me. I just feel it is unbelievable that I'm fighting to prove something that is plain as day. I'm all for discussing the use of Urdu in Hindi films, its history, decline and varied presence in Hindi films. But could someone say that it is the language of Bollywood and as present as Hindi? Have you seen my analysis of the previous "consensuses" Anupam keeps mentioning? No, clearly no one wanted to hear. It is okay for them to cite random film posters and then ignore official film certificates (I spent hours checking film certificates). It is okay for them to cite some books and then ignore all those books and quotes I provided, ignore Google statistics, other editors' opinions.
I also do not think one discussion can reflect one decision for such a huge list of movies. This is far too inclusive. There's a great difference between Umrao Jaan and Omkara, so having one discussion concluding the fate of both is not the right way to go according to me. Shahid • Talk2me 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No. I don't think a new discussion should be started. I think Abecedare's decision and comments make perfect sense and is what I've been saying all along.... If it must continue to the point that either ANupam or Shahid "wins or loses" then take it to MEDCOM if you must but please lets NOT waste any more time on this issue.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Abecedare, thank you for your comment on my talk page and for your contributions to the current discussion at the Bollywood talk page. I agree with your statement and am willing to seek mediation on the issue. As I mentioned in the discussion, I have not touched a single new Bollywood related film article to add a new Urdu script, since this is the topic of the current discussion. I kindly asked Shahid to do the same, and so did the Wikipedia Administration/Bureaucracy. In his case, he should have not started to remove Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles until the current discussion was resolved. I only reverted Shahid's recent edits because they went against this mutual understanding and moreover was encouraged by two Wikipedia Administrators to do so. In other words, my reverts only put the articles in their original position, before the new discussion began. At the close of the administrative report, I fully agree that mediation should be sought in order to help peacefully resolve the current discussion. Thanks again for your concern. Best wishes, Anupam Talk 23:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
... on what to do about what LuxNevada is doing at the Gautama Buddha article: [1]? Mitsube ( talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ganesha article is very visible (FA status, many links to it, popular deity, 1.5+ K hits) and always been attacked by anons. Can it be protected? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I am often slow to get the news. Very best wishes on becoming an admin! Had I been active during your nomination I would have strongly supported it, but in reading the record it seems you were elected in a landslide. Buddhipriya ( talk) 23:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of standards and while I have the two most knowledgeable editors on the topic here: Is there some standard (in the sense of commonly accepted, not "officially" adopted) for abbreviating the name of various Hindu texts (Vedas, incl. the various samhitas, aranyaka etc, upanishads, puranas etc) ? Abecedare ( talk) 02:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you semi-pp? Too much vandalism and regionalistic POV. — Spaceman Spiff 06:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
hi!Abecedare,i m Mayurasia [2] my account has been blocked for sockpepptry,yellowmonkey blocked my account for having a sock account of mkbdtu,he has shownn many edits done by me in contributions,but i did this by informing you,you can check all of my other edits,i have nothing done critical to wikipedia policy.however if wikipedia wants to block my account,i have no objection,but donot blame me as a sock acount because it affect my tag name Mayurasia,i made my account on your suggetion and tried some edits after informing u.but it seems a surprise for me. congratulations for being administrator,i am very happy that very true wikipedians like u have been given this opportunity,finally i take bye from it was a very good experience talking to u in discussion.All the best-- 115.240.72.58 ( talk) 07:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
it is very sad that u r also blaming me for socking,have u checked all of my edits,all were one after telling u,some other can also be checked,i was not expexting this behaviour from u,mistakes can be happened by any one,if i have given any bad or wrong citation ,it does not mean that i m socking,it can be simply changed,i my memory i have given very less error citation,its very sad,i think u were encouraging me,but i was wrong,i didnot expect this bad ending from wikipedia,i donot know who is this mad man mkbdtu,because of him many innocent users have been blocked because they share same network of internet,i think me too is paying for his bad works,ok bye,all d best--mayurasia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.87.201 ( talk) 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Abecedare, I feel sorry that I moved the page without mentioning any reason. Actually, the name of the state Orissa, India has been changed to Odisha and thus the language from Oriya to Odia according to the local speaking language. It has done by the Parliament of India. Whatever pages I have moved are for the incorrect spellings of different places of my own state that I know better than any other.
And, I assure you that I will not move my user page in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishupriyaparam ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The page is moved is moved to "Narada Buddha", which is improper. The user seems to be confused with one of the 24 Buddhas [3], which is NOT what the article is about. Please move it back. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you please let me know what was non-constructive in what I deleted? Do you know anything about Hindu mythology? I am a Hindu and I don't like mis-interpretations of my mythology by Western scholars. Did you really see what I removed? HE was being disgraced and I removed that. HE is superior to everything and everyone in this whole universe. HE inhabits all the 10 dimensions, which is there in Hindu texts from ancient times. Recently, string theory also suggests that this universe is made up of 10 dimensions. All this science is leading up to HIM only. Since westerners do not believe in Hindu mythology, they believe in science more, so you will reach HIM through science. You have chosen this way and HE will lead you through this way only towards HIMSELF.
Please reinstate my removals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Who made those contents? Some western scholars who don't know anything about Hindu mythology. Did they take permission from some important person in the Hindu religious community before writing that? How can they misinterpret something that's being believed by so many Hindus? Ask any Hindu and he will say that Lord Vishnu is not inferior to Indra. So, how can you write something wrong? We Hindus are very broad minded with respect to our religion but we will not accept any western crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone might write some book with all the nonsense and then can he write that on wikipedia and claim that it comes from a verifiable source? I would actually want to raise objection about the content that I removed unless that is confirmed by some important person in Hindu religious community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I know the role of Lord Vishnu very clearly. I have been reading Hindu Texts since I was a child. Anyways, I was just trying to spread what my Guru told me, He is an expert in all Hindu Vedas and Upanishads and Geeta. I will definitely write these on other websites but since Wikipedia is an important source of information these days, I wanted to write here too. I can organize it and write it better, but I want to know if you will allow me to. I can write it in a separate section too. So, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You can block me from Wikipedia. Getting blocked from wikepedia is not a big deal to me. You should read this: http://oedb.org/library/features/top-7-alternatives-to-wikipedia . And, I think wikipedia should do something on the lines of Citizendium, so that edits will be there with a disclaimer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess the Hindi-Urdu discussions are yet to come soon, but we'll later see how we are going to sort it. What just happened here now (the sockpuppetry thing) was actually nice to see, and I'll tell you why. I did most of my edits on the Preity Zinta article. I was inactive when it got to the main page, which was kind of ironic. It was very sad, but when I came back I was amazed to see this nice gesture from Rahul (for which I thanked him profoundly). To this day I'm still kind of sad that I was not here. Never mind, after some time I found this. It was so great to see it! Best, Shahid • Talk2me 22:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concerns WRT pranava veda [4], I've added more citations, now the details can be easily found. Refs added at Talk:Vedas#Pranava_Veda. Please respond. Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm now involved as I've commented on content and reverted. Can you take a look please? BLP edit warring going on right now on article and talk page. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI - Alison ❤ 10:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This one's not straightforward like the Mughal ones? Quite honestly, I think the removed map was a bit dubious, but would you be able to check in that book of yours? And can you take a look at Arundhati Roy? Repeated addition of same nonsense (read through the known fors especially!). cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Wonder if you follow this a bit as well as Hinduism. Stuff like New Kadampa Tradition, Dorje Shugden and Kelsang Gyatso, breakaways from the Dalai Lama, have been for about two years been taken over by two SPAs who are adherents and who engage in hagiography from non-indept sources all the time. One of them is actually a NKT website admin, apparently YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Abecedare, I lost my cool. sorry. Raj2004 ( talk) 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
yes, I agree. But for some reason, that editor is recalcitrant and refuses to budge, despite being provided with good references such as by Rudra. Raj2004 ( talk) 00:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Nah, it isn't vandalized often enough. Thanks, though. Woogee ( talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Mandot ( talk · contribs) has been around for a longer time than Abecedeare. However, seem to show a distaste to an eBook, in spite of Wikipedia itself; Wikipedia relies only on e resources while referencing. You seem to be quite shut to any new insight about the Indian Subcontinent. Quite apparent from your interests in Wikipedia. This is exactly the author expressed about the genetic makeup of the East Asians. However, before considering the use of word 'spam', you should have deliberated and not followed just superficial Wiki guidelines to defend yourself. You have no right to malign another Wiki editor or an author, whether self-published or not. Even Tagore was self published. Quite impressed with your 'cleaning up' zeal on Wikipedia, apply it on India too, if possible.
This is in reference to your this edit. I mentioned very clearly in the edit summary that the previous Bengal tiger image was not shot in India and therefore, the image does not belong to the India article. If you can find a "high quality" image of the tiger which is shot in India, feel free to add it to the template. However, I'm strictly against putting up that image which was shot in a U.S. zoo. Thanks -- Nosedown ( talk) 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi my name is Dewan.You have offered me the standard offer, so I wish to let you know that I accept your offer. This mean I will be unblocked by July. I am very grateful for your help. I will not edit until then. Thank you
Dewan357 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.151.97 ( talk) 05:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what the current best standard is for citing books? Has one or another of the citation templates met with general agreement within the Hinduism group? Buddhipriya ( talk) 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Side note: in case you don't know this already: Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk · contribs) = our old friend BalanceRestored ( talk · contribs). Abecedare ( talk) 18:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
On Yama (see this diff: [6]) I want to use Template:Harvard citation text but simply can't figure out where the documentation is for it. I want to make a complex citation that says something like: Note: Jones (2003, p. 345) claims that Wikipedia is the greatest source of human knowledge, but this is refuted decisively by Vyasa (2010, pp. 23-49, cf. 88) who proves it is filled with errors. Buddhipriya ( talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Jones (2003, p. 345) claims that Wikipedia is the greatest source of human knowledge, but this is refuted decisively by Vyasa (2010, pp. 23–49, cf. 88) who proves it is filled with errors.
How do we get the volume number to come before the page number in this citation to Arya & Joshi?
The characterization of Agni as "priest" in RV 10.52 is from Macdonell (1898, p. 171) . Arya & Joshi (2001, p. 319, vol. 4) note Wilson's version "(the servant) of Yama" referring to Agni as the burner of the dead.
Your unsubstantiated personal attack on Vyasa is a violation of WP:BLP (Biographies of Legendary Persons) and must stop. Buddhipriya ( talk) 02:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wise administrator, I ask a question. Someone, in bad faith, accused me of being a sockpuppet. Their accusations were wrong and very accusatory. This has left a bad taste in my mouth for Wikipedia. (I almost feel like the checkuser tore off my clothes, exposing my genitalia to the world to see) Is there any logic with my feelings? In some ways, I want to edit Wikipedia but in some ways, I don't. I have declared a wikibreak of 7 days for me to decide. Your advice is welcomed. Thank you. Perhaps an e-mailed response is better since these are personal matters? Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to clarify if the book Invading the Sacred may be considered a reliable source for purposes of documenting Indian criticism of Wendy Doniger. I put a list summarizing prior talk about this and put you down as "undecided", possibly misrepresenting your position. Could you please take a look and be sure that I have not misunderstood your position? Buddhipriya ( talk) 04:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
So I was trained not as a historian of religion but as a Sanskritist. But I was not a real Sanskritist; real Sanskritists (Ingalls was not at all typical) are 'anal-retentive' pedants interested only in verbs and nouns, and I was a hot-blooded ex-ballet dancer still interested primarily in stories. Real Sanskritists, on two continents, have been known to turn and leave a room when I entered it. I looked elsewhere for my intellectual nourishment.
To satisfy my curiosity, can you both take a minute to read just the lede of this version of the Ayn Rand article and drop a note when you have done so ? Abecedare ( talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, now without looking back at the article or the quotes above, can you recall if the lede refers to her as a (1) American, (2) Conservative, (3) Philosopher and indicate how certain you are of your answer ? Abecedare ( talk) 07:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the point here. None of the respondents "recalled" something that was not there. If this is evidence of any kind, I'd argue it's for descriptive terms tending to "stick" (that's what they're for: to have persuasive effect). So, in a sense, it probably does matter whether the actual word "philosopher" is/was used to describe Rand. (And it also explains the tenacity of a certain editor. He is being stubborn for POV reasons only. Note how it matters whether the word "Sanskritist" is inside or outside quotes. How's that for awareness of subliminal suggestion?) rudra ( talk) 08:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I added a book review critique. Please take a look. Thanks, Raj2004 ( talk) 12:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Goethan has removed this entire paragraph I wrote:
"However, her book, The Hindus: an alternative history is not without critics. Piali Roy, writing in the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, although stating that The Hindus is "quite a compilation, diverse and self-referential," and does a good job of tracking the influence of Buddhism and Jainism on the Vedic era, also states that Doniger admits herself that she is "not a historian." [18] For example, she slanted in her view towards northern India and emphasizes the South only with the bhakti movement, or new schools of thought in the 10th century. [19] Also her choice of historical figures is idiosyncratic; she highlights saints such as Kabir and Mirabai but ignores Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism who is just as pivotal. [20] Although Doniger should be commended for including Dalit voices and showing the variety of Hindu experiences, her attempts at inclusiveness is marred by a sloppy misreading of secondary sources and some overstretches of analysis. [21] For example, her suggestion that “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition,” near the end of the book, is such an exaggeration." This appears to be well-referenced What do you think? Thanks, Raj2004 ( talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
yeah, I agree. Maybe this edit is also too long to focus on one book. Raj2004 ( talk) 21:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Vedvyasa ( talk · contribs). Also seems to agree with an IP that Doniger taught at Yale, for which no evidence seems to exist. rudra ( talk) 13:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Abecedare. How are you? I would like to know if information pulled from Delhi Govt website falls under copyright issue or it should be regarded as a open source. website like this Yamuna Biodiversity Parkhas no mention of copyright information. -- Swaminworld ( talk) 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
As per your suggestion on the talk, I have replaced the disputed image in Toponymy, with Mumba devi's img. An anon reverted it, which I reverted. Do you support the new image? Please comment on the talk. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare,
Today I was browsing Jat states in Rajasthan when I came upon Sihag article n it says that it was deleted by you... can you please restore it or tell me the procedure to do so ? I think I can improve this article by removing unsourced stuff and adding citations...
regards -- Last Emperor ( talk) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Royal Jat Warrior, I have undeleted the article Asiagh that was deleted following an AFD and moved it to Article incubator. You can access it at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Asiagh. Please make sure that you have addressed the concerns raised at the AFD, and have edited it to be compliant with the sourcing and neutral POV requirements before requesting for it to be moved to mainspace, else the article is liable to be deleted again. Once you have the draft in shape, I'd recommend that you post at WP:INB so that an independent editor can review it. Abecedare ( talk) 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare, I totally recreated Sihag article in compliant with sourcing and neutral POV. I added as much inline citations as possible. Before putting it for evaluation, I personally request you to review it...and then you plz put it to eval. on WP:INB as I dont know how to do so....Thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 08:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What are the guidelines, if any, on publicizing email? I'm talking about this, which was apropos of the edit summary here. I imagine he thinks WP:NPA applies, but he has revealed my email address. rudra ( talk) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
“ | Better to shun the bait than struggle in the snare. -- John Dryden | ” |
Buddhipriya ( talk) 22:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I updated this article by citing references but this user User talk:RanaRajputana is removing referenced content and using foul language Here .thanks Chhora ( talk) 14:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Aseem Shukla, board member of Hindu American Foundation, published a critique on Doniger in the Washington Post and Doniger replied; see, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2010/03/whose_history_is_it_anyways.html
Raj2004 ( talk) 11:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I also posted this in the Talk section of Wendy Doniger so everyone can freely view and comment.
Raj2004 ( talk) 11:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am planning a FAC for this article about a regional Hindu village god - shortly. As such, I request you to please give constructive criticism on article. To point any issues (actually I request all issues you see) on article talk in consideration of FA criteria. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Read the World Bank report again --
Similarly, in economic performance, while parts of India compete for business in software engineering and biomedical research, parts of rural India have poverty rates comparable to borderline "failed states", such as Haiti and Nigeria, and have child malnutrition rates higher than any other country in the world.
The report says that certain rural areas of India have child malnutrition rates higher than that of any other country. Nowhere the report says that overall child malnutrition rates in India are higher than that of any other country. There is an obvious difference between the two.
Thanks. -- Nosedown ( talk) 14:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
This "Admin's Barnstar" is given to "Abecedare" for helping new editors and being a good admin. -- Last Emperor ( talk) 06:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks Abecedare for all your help,
SpecemanSpiff cleared Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Sihag article.Again thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 06:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear wiki admin,You blocked me for doing a crime of sockpuupetry,I read your reveiws on Contributions.I was already doing my work under some Admin dab,so that if I do some mistake or violate Wikipedia policy,he may revert it and instruct me.Dbachmann as a good Admin did so,he gave me useful instructions which was helpfull to me,But I see now that my Account has been blocked for keeping sock Account.I donot know what it is,But i Request wiki not to block any user on only ip basis,one ip is used by thousand of people daily.Like in my case 115.236-244.--.--,there exists 30 lacs user on it.I donot want you to unblock my account bcoz i have not so much time to do repeated request.Thank you-- 115.242.21.64 ( talk) 05:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Running? Socks on India are like Taliban etc in Pakistan/Iraq/Afghanistan YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Our friend the date change vandal is still doing his numerical scrambling -- most recently at 117.204.126.21 and 117.204.114.97.
Also, please check your email; I've just sent you a reply. :) Cheers, AtticusX ( talk) 08:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare,
There is unlimited vandalism going on here and here. This ip user is regularly removing sourced information,spamming and creating pov from last 7 days...I request u to plz protect Haryana and Gurgaon pages or if possible ban this user...this is really too much now..thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 10:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,its not a problem now he's not doing any vandalism now,he's now adding refs to his additions...but the only problem is Sihag article...even after providing refs and valid sources which are currently in use in other articles too no one is trying to review it but sadly articles like Chandela, Bhaduria and many others are still prevailing without any refs and sources....thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,Abecedare
He is back (that vandal ip) with even more pov pushing refs removing and even image removing propaganda + making thousands of edits for small-small things....idk how he'll stop,I cant even give him warnings because last digits of his ip keeps on changing! I request you to protect Haryana article coz banning him will not stop him,he'll come with another ip...thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 05:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ahh...sorry to interfere but I think you forgot to move Sihag article to mainspace...thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 07:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
hi, thanks...actually chautala is a name of a village of Sihag Jats in haryana...after Devi Lal some of them prefer to bore name chautala..same is with bolan..its a village of sihag's...rest are alternative names with changes due to language like Sihag-Sehag-Sehwag...and one last query, Sehwag page is redirected to Virender Sehwag and is fully protected...so it can't be edited by normal editors...I think it'll be right to create a disambiguation page for it linking to both Sihag and Virender Sehwag...regards -- Last Emperor ( talk) 07:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ya its fine, I'll post about chautala and bolan in near time...cheers -- Last Emperor ( talk) 01:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
ah, I did'nt wanted to interfere now but plz have a look at this funny super vandal who himself dont know what he want to prove and is not stopping even after one ban on him.....have close look at the edits which he is making from last 7 days...thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 05:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the article on Doniger is as much NPOV as it should be. What do you think? See talk section.
Raj2004 ( talk) 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't care much about Doniger. It appears that she is a controversial scholar to some Hindus, and I wanted the article to reflect a more balanced point view of view. There are many neo-Hindu scholars who present their own interpretation of Hinduism and such articles should note that this is one point of view that may not be accepted by all. Raj2004 ( talk) 11:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute about an image on the article and there are number of new editors who only edit the article. I suspect sock puppetry. Can you please check. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi i would like to inform you than recently a new user Arjunr240576 is vandalizing Madrassi repetitively despite 3 warnings.
Edits1 and Edit2. He has also uploaded copyrighted images image 1 and image 2.
Please take a look and warn him. -- Onef9day ( talk) 12:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you do this history merge move for me? I can't do complicated things without messing up somehow! -- RegentsPark ( talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Luchipuchi ( talk · contribs)? He was active as IPs yesterday. Check the reverted history of my talk page for the swinging dialog! — Spaceman Spiff 16:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this IP? Static, same edits, discussed on talk page, IP warned, reverted by many. — Spaceman Spiff 09:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Melakavijay: The editor is adding Melakadambur link to many articles, where they are WP:UNDUE. The putting of links and promoting the article is at spam-like level. Can you please talk to this new editor and explain wiki-policy about UNDUE and SPAM (if applicable)? I do not want to discourage him, by my words, which may become too formal and insensitive explaining policy. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
When you have a lot of time and feel masochistic, could you look at the history of The Recognition of Śakuntalā and of Abhijñānaśākuntalam? Not important. :-) (There is probably another move required after it is figured out what the title should be.) Shreevatsa ( talk) 16:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
PLease have a glance, Sir at Talk:Mumbai#Reverting_again_and_again. A user named Mr. Deepak D'Souza is repeatedly reverting my constructive edits. Can U make him understand that these edits are constructive. He doesn't seem to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.6.226 ( talk) 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:45, 25 April 2010 (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. Thank you.—
Dæ
dαlus
Contribs
09:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I had a question on redirects : here and here. Do you think this is OK, I thought Swami is a integral part of monastic name(?) If this OK, somebody has to do history merge as well. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 10:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your help. I need help on the topic that I had earlier raised at Help Desk Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_quickly_add_templates_to_articles.3F. Pls do let me know for any such tools. Thaejas ( talk) 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have installed AWB after requesting to use. I would like to know if it is possible to correct redirects using AWB. I have done the following for correcting the redirect pages.
In the status bar of the window, Skipped: 8. But the changes are not reflected. Should I click on Save? Pls help. Thaejas ( talk) 05:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to revert your change for the User:Thaejas/Sri Ruthra Kaliamman Temple. Pls let me know. Thaejas ( talk) 14:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments in my talk page. I have put the subject of "merging all templates into one template - Hinduism" on the Noticeboard for discussion. Presently, I wish to know your personal opinion about this subject as an immediate feedback. Kindly leave two lines in my talk page. Regards Naveen Sankar ( talk) 04:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Daedalus969 continues to revert to his preferred version, claiming that MoS says that the "first mention" of a country should be spelt out; however, this only applies to the article body, not the infobox, where brevity is preferrable. Radiopathy •talk• 02:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying. I have left my comments on Radiopathy's [11]. Let me know if you notice a repetition of the reported behavior. Abecedare ( talk) 23:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at this and feel free to give an opinion. Radiopathy •talk• 04:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A WP:SPA has been adding conspiracy theories to that article again [12]. Just thought i'd let you know. Thanks for your attention. 117.194.199.225 ( talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this make sense? -- RegentsPark ( talk) 21:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Some revisions to my quick comment above:
Abecedare ( talk) 23:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
i was curiosu when it comes to the India article, or an article in general, is there one person who is in charge of that artciile and / or is there one person in charge of an article in general? Suppose an article cant be editited anymore, who decides, and who has the power to edit the article then? If it cant be editited anymore? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about this, so seeking your opinion. How do we deal with CC images with creator's name on it like
File:Yudhisthira.jpg? I have removed it for now, since it looks encyclopedic; Also another problem with the image is that, it could be anyone, and its advisable to settle with some museum's historic image. Any thoughts on this? Also, off late astrologers have started to make some
awesome predictions
--
TheMandarin (
talk)
07:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, another question regarding File:EpicIndiaCities.jpg. The image clearly says that "100% accuracy is not claimed". Do you this its advisable to have such images in articles or should they be removed? -- TheMandarin ( talk) 08:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I have known your work on Wikipedia since a very long time. I desperately need your views and involvement in this article. User:Sinneed and User:Profitoftruth have been undoing my edits (ignore the removal of the POV template that was put up in between a revert; I don't dispute that) for no good reason.
Please evaluate my edit and tell me where I have wronged? I have explained my stand on Talk:Sikh extremism. But User:Sinneed is adamant to remove the incident on Ujjal Dosanjh and if you go through the page history he displays signs of WP:OWNership of the article.
Regards, -- 59.182.35.235 ( talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
My 2c: it is legitimate to mention the 1985 attacks and (less persuasively) the 2010 threats against Ujjal Dosanjh, but it should be done concisely. No need to go into the exact injuries and number of stitches he received; all that can be included in the Ujjal Dosanjh page. As it stands, the space devoted to the (relatively minor) Dosanjh incidents is equal to/greater than the Kanishka bombing, which is plain ridiculous. The article on the whole is in horrible shape:
Sorry for going beyond your original query - but it is disappointing to see poorly developed articles on wikipedia, even though its length suggests that considerable effort has been devoted to its writing. (I'll copy part of my comments to the article talkpage; hopefully involved editors will give them some consideration). Abecedare ( talk) 23:59, 10 May 2010 (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. |
I've been watching the ongoing discussions on the talk page - pertaining to scripts - with initial interest, then amusement, followed by exasperation and now concern (due to the amount of bad blood it has begun generating, with allegations and counter-allegations being thrown around). It has been going on in circles for over a month now without any end or direction in sight and now seems to have reached a point of no return, as there appears to be absolutely no hope of the editors concerned reaching any consensus on the matter. After having consumed much space on the server, and wasting much productive time of the editors involved, I think it is time to invoke some community action - perhaps an RfC or even mediation - that will hopefully bring the existing discussion (more like an ugly war of words now) to a speedy close, resolve the issue for now and more importantly, restore focus to the core areas of the article requiring improvement (an attempt was recently made but seems to have gotten lost in the midst of all the mudslinging). What say? Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow! I somehow missed this whole thread on my talk page the last few days. Anyways:
I am skeptical of RFCs or straw polls working at this stage, since we'll still be left with the problem of closing either and determining consensus and I'm afraid they'll just generate much more circular arguments and heat. I am more hopeful of the mediation process, since the mediator can guide the discussion and hopefully help prevent it from getting circular, or uncivil. Since the parties seem willing, perhaps one of us can set the ball rolling (unless of course, everyone simply moves on - which would frankly be my preferred solution). Volunteers ?
Abecedare (
talk)
15:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks for giving that source,i think now rudra may give a neutral veiw
-- 115.240.109.56 ( talk) 08:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
i think if you want to keep this claim behalf of some secondry article,then you should represent it as "At least three redactions of the text are recognized by some scholars",instead of "At least three redactions of the text are recognized".so that everybody may understand it is a scholar opinion,not a true fact in mahabharata itself.it will resolve the whole discussion.because it is represented with the facts that are saying about claims present in mahabharata-- 115.240.69.242 ( talk) 12:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,Abecedare! i finally got source which contradicts 8800 verse claim,see Jhon Brockington contradicts it in his article,in this whole topic is disscused that how some scholars misinterpeted 8800 verse as a sepereate 8800 verse version as "jaya".I think it is enough for now,because this source cleary shows 8800 verses as a misinterpetation by some poor indian scholars.I hope now it will not a problem to delete this misinterpeted information.Thank you--Mayurasia 11:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
hi!Abecedare,i have done some changes in mahabharata aricle due to some unreferenced material,like ms spitzer dating,absence of virat parva in it from proper source,i gave Brockington reference for 8800 verse original veiw.If u think it is not suitable than edit it or revert.I will be grateful to you for guiding me.thank u-- Mayur ( talk) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for encouraging and guiding me,i want to inform you that this verse(refering 8800) has been removed by bhandarkar oriented institute poona,because it was found in very few manuscripts,this matter has also been discussed by Brockington,however this verse is present in gita press version,now suggest me either to add Brockington statement at talk page or gita press verse reference,i have also done some correction in your statement in mahabharata article,THank you-- Mayur ( talk) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Prof. Muneo Tokunaga is also refering Brockington book,but he is the editor of final version of mahabharata by BORI,and he had removed this verse from new edition of BORI,see this Link-- Mayur ( talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my misinterpetation,thanks for giving me right information, the Exact article name is"Papers of the Twelfth World Sanskrit Conference, Vol. II. Epic Undertakings" edited by Edited by Robert P. Goldman and Muneo Tokunaga.see Reference1 or Reference2 for confirming author and book name. if this information is not sufficient,then remove the reference regarding Tokunaga.More exactly title of particular paper was "Bhisma's Discourse as a sokapanodana" and author was Muneo Tokunaga I am again extremly sorry for my mistake,thank u for giving me nice instruction.-- Mayur ( talk) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia for over three years. And I've tried so much to make the quality of the project better or at least just good enough. While others spent their time adding scripts to satisfy their agenda, I was trying to make the best of what I could. Instead of edit warring, I better enjoyed my time yesterday creating Hindi film articles such as Judaai or Jahan Ara. This is according to me the spirit of Wikipedia and reflects the best of what I am doing here.
Today, someone violated a policy in a terribly extremist way and even admins are taking long time to conclude the clear verdict. It is terrible that a bureaucrat is assuming such bad faith on my part (Taxman), speaking of non-existent consensus (which I proved on the Bollywood talk page) and saying that I was edit warring, while it is actually the other user who did it. He ignored the fact that this user violated WP:CANVASS. I'm starting to think whether my time is well spent on Wikipedia.
Don't mind me. I just feel it is unbelievable that I'm fighting to prove something that is plain as day. I'm all for discussing the use of Urdu in Hindi films, its history, decline and varied presence in Hindi films. But could someone say that it is the language of Bollywood and as present as Hindi? Have you seen my analysis of the previous "consensuses" Anupam keeps mentioning? No, clearly no one wanted to hear. It is okay for them to cite random film posters and then ignore official film certificates (I spent hours checking film certificates). It is okay for them to cite some books and then ignore all those books and quotes I provided, ignore Google statistics, other editors' opinions.
I also do not think one discussion can reflect one decision for such a huge list of movies. This is far too inclusive. There's a great difference between Umrao Jaan and Omkara, so having one discussion concluding the fate of both is not the right way to go according to me. Shahid • Talk2me 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No. I don't think a new discussion should be started. I think Abecedare's decision and comments make perfect sense and is what I've been saying all along.... If it must continue to the point that either ANupam or Shahid "wins or loses" then take it to MEDCOM if you must but please lets NOT waste any more time on this issue.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Abecedare, thank you for your comment on my talk page and for your contributions to the current discussion at the Bollywood talk page. I agree with your statement and am willing to seek mediation on the issue. As I mentioned in the discussion, I have not touched a single new Bollywood related film article to add a new Urdu script, since this is the topic of the current discussion. I kindly asked Shahid to do the same, and so did the Wikipedia Administration/Bureaucracy. In his case, he should have not started to remove Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles until the current discussion was resolved. I only reverted Shahid's recent edits because they went against this mutual understanding and moreover was encouraged by two Wikipedia Administrators to do so. In other words, my reverts only put the articles in their original position, before the new discussion began. At the close of the administrative report, I fully agree that mediation should be sought in order to help peacefully resolve the current discussion. Thanks again for your concern. Best wishes, Anupam Talk 23:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
... on what to do about what LuxNevada is doing at the Gautama Buddha article: [1]? Mitsube ( talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ganesha article is very visible (FA status, many links to it, popular deity, 1.5+ K hits) and always been attacked by anons. Can it be protected? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I am often slow to get the news. Very best wishes on becoming an admin! Had I been active during your nomination I would have strongly supported it, but in reading the record it seems you were elected in a landslide. Buddhipriya ( talk) 23:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of standards and while I have the two most knowledgeable editors on the topic here: Is there some standard (in the sense of commonly accepted, not "officially" adopted) for abbreviating the name of various Hindu texts (Vedas, incl. the various samhitas, aranyaka etc, upanishads, puranas etc) ? Abecedare ( talk) 02:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you semi-pp? Too much vandalism and regionalistic POV. — Spaceman Spiff 06:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
hi!Abecedare,i m Mayurasia [2] my account has been blocked for sockpepptry,yellowmonkey blocked my account for having a sock account of mkbdtu,he has shownn many edits done by me in contributions,but i did this by informing you,you can check all of my other edits,i have nothing done critical to wikipedia policy.however if wikipedia wants to block my account,i have no objection,but donot blame me as a sock acount because it affect my tag name Mayurasia,i made my account on your suggetion and tried some edits after informing u.but it seems a surprise for me. congratulations for being administrator,i am very happy that very true wikipedians like u have been given this opportunity,finally i take bye from it was a very good experience talking to u in discussion.All the best-- 115.240.72.58 ( talk) 07:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
it is very sad that u r also blaming me for socking,have u checked all of my edits,all were one after telling u,some other can also be checked,i was not expexting this behaviour from u,mistakes can be happened by any one,if i have given any bad or wrong citation ,it does not mean that i m socking,it can be simply changed,i my memory i have given very less error citation,its very sad,i think u were encouraging me,but i was wrong,i didnot expect this bad ending from wikipedia,i donot know who is this mad man mkbdtu,because of him many innocent users have been blocked because they share same network of internet,i think me too is paying for his bad works,ok bye,all d best--mayurasia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.87.201 ( talk) 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Abecedare, I feel sorry that I moved the page without mentioning any reason. Actually, the name of the state Orissa, India has been changed to Odisha and thus the language from Oriya to Odia according to the local speaking language. It has done by the Parliament of India. Whatever pages I have moved are for the incorrect spellings of different places of my own state that I know better than any other.
And, I assure you that I will not move my user page in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishupriyaparam ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The page is moved is moved to "Narada Buddha", which is improper. The user seems to be confused with one of the 24 Buddhas [3], which is NOT what the article is about. Please move it back. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you please let me know what was non-constructive in what I deleted? Do you know anything about Hindu mythology? I am a Hindu and I don't like mis-interpretations of my mythology by Western scholars. Did you really see what I removed? HE was being disgraced and I removed that. HE is superior to everything and everyone in this whole universe. HE inhabits all the 10 dimensions, which is there in Hindu texts from ancient times. Recently, string theory also suggests that this universe is made up of 10 dimensions. All this science is leading up to HIM only. Since westerners do not believe in Hindu mythology, they believe in science more, so you will reach HIM through science. You have chosen this way and HE will lead you through this way only towards HIMSELF.
Please reinstate my removals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Who made those contents? Some western scholars who don't know anything about Hindu mythology. Did they take permission from some important person in the Hindu religious community before writing that? How can they misinterpret something that's being believed by so many Hindus? Ask any Hindu and he will say that Lord Vishnu is not inferior to Indra. So, how can you write something wrong? We Hindus are very broad minded with respect to our religion but we will not accept any western crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone might write some book with all the nonsense and then can he write that on wikipedia and claim that it comes from a verifiable source? I would actually want to raise objection about the content that I removed unless that is confirmed by some important person in Hindu religious community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I know the role of Lord Vishnu very clearly. I have been reading Hindu Texts since I was a child. Anyways, I was just trying to spread what my Guru told me, He is an expert in all Hindu Vedas and Upanishads and Geeta. I will definitely write these on other websites but since Wikipedia is an important source of information these days, I wanted to write here too. I can organize it and write it better, but I want to know if you will allow me to. I can write it in a separate section too. So, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You can block me from Wikipedia. Getting blocked from wikepedia is not a big deal to me. You should read this: http://oedb.org/library/features/top-7-alternatives-to-wikipedia . And, I think wikipedia should do something on the lines of Citizendium, so that edits will be there with a disclaimer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2030 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess the Hindi-Urdu discussions are yet to come soon, but we'll later see how we are going to sort it. What just happened here now (the sockpuppetry thing) was actually nice to see, and I'll tell you why. I did most of my edits on the Preity Zinta article. I was inactive when it got to the main page, which was kind of ironic. It was very sad, but when I came back I was amazed to see this nice gesture from Rahul (for which I thanked him profoundly). To this day I'm still kind of sad that I was not here. Never mind, after some time I found this. It was so great to see it! Best, Shahid • Talk2me 22:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concerns WRT pranava veda [4], I've added more citations, now the details can be easily found. Refs added at Talk:Vedas#Pranava_Veda. Please respond. Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm now involved as I've commented on content and reverted. Can you take a look please? BLP edit warring going on right now on article and talk page. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI - Alison ❤ 10:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This one's not straightforward like the Mughal ones? Quite honestly, I think the removed map was a bit dubious, but would you be able to check in that book of yours? And can you take a look at Arundhati Roy? Repeated addition of same nonsense (read through the known fors especially!). cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Wonder if you follow this a bit as well as Hinduism. Stuff like New Kadampa Tradition, Dorje Shugden and Kelsang Gyatso, breakaways from the Dalai Lama, have been for about two years been taken over by two SPAs who are adherents and who engage in hagiography from non-indept sources all the time. One of them is actually a NKT website admin, apparently YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Abecedare, I lost my cool. sorry. Raj2004 ( talk) 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
yes, I agree. But for some reason, that editor is recalcitrant and refuses to budge, despite being provided with good references such as by Rudra. Raj2004 ( talk) 00:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Nah, it isn't vandalized often enough. Thanks, though. Woogee ( talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Mandot ( talk · contribs) has been around for a longer time than Abecedeare. However, seem to show a distaste to an eBook, in spite of Wikipedia itself; Wikipedia relies only on e resources while referencing. You seem to be quite shut to any new insight about the Indian Subcontinent. Quite apparent from your interests in Wikipedia. This is exactly the author expressed about the genetic makeup of the East Asians. However, before considering the use of word 'spam', you should have deliberated and not followed just superficial Wiki guidelines to defend yourself. You have no right to malign another Wiki editor or an author, whether self-published or not. Even Tagore was self published. Quite impressed with your 'cleaning up' zeal on Wikipedia, apply it on India too, if possible.
This is in reference to your this edit. I mentioned very clearly in the edit summary that the previous Bengal tiger image was not shot in India and therefore, the image does not belong to the India article. If you can find a "high quality" image of the tiger which is shot in India, feel free to add it to the template. However, I'm strictly against putting up that image which was shot in a U.S. zoo. Thanks -- Nosedown ( talk) 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi my name is Dewan.You have offered me the standard offer, so I wish to let you know that I accept your offer. This mean I will be unblocked by July. I am very grateful for your help. I will not edit until then. Thank you
Dewan357 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.151.97 ( talk) 05:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what the current best standard is for citing books? Has one or another of the citation templates met with general agreement within the Hinduism group? Buddhipriya ( talk) 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Side note: in case you don't know this already: Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk · contribs) = our old friend BalanceRestored ( talk · contribs). Abecedare ( talk) 18:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
On Yama (see this diff: [6]) I want to use Template:Harvard citation text but simply can't figure out where the documentation is for it. I want to make a complex citation that says something like: Note: Jones (2003, p. 345) claims that Wikipedia is the greatest source of human knowledge, but this is refuted decisively by Vyasa (2010, pp. 23-49, cf. 88) who proves it is filled with errors. Buddhipriya ( talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Jones (2003, p. 345) claims that Wikipedia is the greatest source of human knowledge, but this is refuted decisively by Vyasa (2010, pp. 23–49, cf. 88) who proves it is filled with errors.
How do we get the volume number to come before the page number in this citation to Arya & Joshi?
The characterization of Agni as "priest" in RV 10.52 is from Macdonell (1898, p. 171) . Arya & Joshi (2001, p. 319, vol. 4) note Wilson's version "(the servant) of Yama" referring to Agni as the burner of the dead.
Your unsubstantiated personal attack on Vyasa is a violation of WP:BLP (Biographies of Legendary Persons) and must stop. Buddhipriya ( talk) 02:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wise administrator, I ask a question. Someone, in bad faith, accused me of being a sockpuppet. Their accusations were wrong and very accusatory. This has left a bad taste in my mouth for Wikipedia. (I almost feel like the checkuser tore off my clothes, exposing my genitalia to the world to see) Is there any logic with my feelings? In some ways, I want to edit Wikipedia but in some ways, I don't. I have declared a wikibreak of 7 days for me to decide. Your advice is welcomed. Thank you. Perhaps an e-mailed response is better since these are personal matters? Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to clarify if the book Invading the Sacred may be considered a reliable source for purposes of documenting Indian criticism of Wendy Doniger. I put a list summarizing prior talk about this and put you down as "undecided", possibly misrepresenting your position. Could you please take a look and be sure that I have not misunderstood your position? Buddhipriya ( talk) 04:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
So I was trained not as a historian of religion but as a Sanskritist. But I was not a real Sanskritist; real Sanskritists (Ingalls was not at all typical) are 'anal-retentive' pedants interested only in verbs and nouns, and I was a hot-blooded ex-ballet dancer still interested primarily in stories. Real Sanskritists, on two continents, have been known to turn and leave a room when I entered it. I looked elsewhere for my intellectual nourishment.
To satisfy my curiosity, can you both take a minute to read just the lede of this version of the Ayn Rand article and drop a note when you have done so ? Abecedare ( talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, now without looking back at the article or the quotes above, can you recall if the lede refers to her as a (1) American, (2) Conservative, (3) Philosopher and indicate how certain you are of your answer ? Abecedare ( talk) 07:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the point here. None of the respondents "recalled" something that was not there. If this is evidence of any kind, I'd argue it's for descriptive terms tending to "stick" (that's what they're for: to have persuasive effect). So, in a sense, it probably does matter whether the actual word "philosopher" is/was used to describe Rand. (And it also explains the tenacity of a certain editor. He is being stubborn for POV reasons only. Note how it matters whether the word "Sanskritist" is inside or outside quotes. How's that for awareness of subliminal suggestion?) rudra ( talk) 08:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I added a book review critique. Please take a look. Thanks, Raj2004 ( talk) 12:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Goethan has removed this entire paragraph I wrote:
"However, her book, The Hindus: an alternative history is not without critics. Piali Roy, writing in the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, although stating that The Hindus is "quite a compilation, diverse and self-referential," and does a good job of tracking the influence of Buddhism and Jainism on the Vedic era, also states that Doniger admits herself that she is "not a historian." [18] For example, she slanted in her view towards northern India and emphasizes the South only with the bhakti movement, or new schools of thought in the 10th century. [19] Also her choice of historical figures is idiosyncratic; she highlights saints such as Kabir and Mirabai but ignores Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism who is just as pivotal. [20] Although Doniger should be commended for including Dalit voices and showing the variety of Hindu experiences, her attempts at inclusiveness is marred by a sloppy misreading of secondary sources and some overstretches of analysis. [21] For example, her suggestion that “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition,” near the end of the book, is such an exaggeration." This appears to be well-referenced What do you think? Thanks, Raj2004 ( talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
yeah, I agree. Maybe this edit is also too long to focus on one book. Raj2004 ( talk) 21:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Vedvyasa ( talk · contribs). Also seems to agree with an IP that Doniger taught at Yale, for which no evidence seems to exist. rudra ( talk) 13:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Abecedare. How are you? I would like to know if information pulled from Delhi Govt website falls under copyright issue or it should be regarded as a open source. website like this Yamuna Biodiversity Parkhas no mention of copyright information. -- Swaminworld ( talk) 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
As per your suggestion on the talk, I have replaced the disputed image in Toponymy, with Mumba devi's img. An anon reverted it, which I reverted. Do you support the new image? Please comment on the talk. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare,
Today I was browsing Jat states in Rajasthan when I came upon Sihag article n it says that it was deleted by you... can you please restore it or tell me the procedure to do so ? I think I can improve this article by removing unsourced stuff and adding citations...
regards -- Last Emperor ( talk) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Royal Jat Warrior, I have undeleted the article Asiagh that was deleted following an AFD and moved it to Article incubator. You can access it at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Asiagh. Please make sure that you have addressed the concerns raised at the AFD, and have edited it to be compliant with the sourcing and neutral POV requirements before requesting for it to be moved to mainspace, else the article is liable to be deleted again. Once you have the draft in shape, I'd recommend that you post at WP:INB so that an independent editor can review it. Abecedare ( talk) 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare, I totally recreated Sihag article in compliant with sourcing and neutral POV. I added as much inline citations as possible. Before putting it for evaluation, I personally request you to review it...and then you plz put it to eval. on WP:INB as I dont know how to do so....Thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 08:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What are the guidelines, if any, on publicizing email? I'm talking about this, which was apropos of the edit summary here. I imagine he thinks WP:NPA applies, but he has revealed my email address. rudra ( talk) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
“ | Better to shun the bait than struggle in the snare. -- John Dryden | ” |
Buddhipriya ( talk) 22:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I updated this article by citing references but this user User talk:RanaRajputana is removing referenced content and using foul language Here .thanks Chhora ( talk) 14:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Aseem Shukla, board member of Hindu American Foundation, published a critique on Doniger in the Washington Post and Doniger replied; see, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2010/03/whose_history_is_it_anyways.html
Raj2004 ( talk) 11:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I also posted this in the Talk section of Wendy Doniger so everyone can freely view and comment.
Raj2004 ( talk) 11:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am planning a FAC for this article about a regional Hindu village god - shortly. As such, I request you to please give constructive criticism on article. To point any issues (actually I request all issues you see) on article talk in consideration of FA criteria. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Read the World Bank report again --
Similarly, in economic performance, while parts of India compete for business in software engineering and biomedical research, parts of rural India have poverty rates comparable to borderline "failed states", such as Haiti and Nigeria, and have child malnutrition rates higher than any other country in the world.
The report says that certain rural areas of India have child malnutrition rates higher than that of any other country. Nowhere the report says that overall child malnutrition rates in India are higher than that of any other country. There is an obvious difference between the two.
Thanks. -- Nosedown ( talk) 14:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
This "Admin's Barnstar" is given to "Abecedare" for helping new editors and being a good admin. -- Last Emperor ( talk) 06:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks Abecedare for all your help,
SpecemanSpiff cleared Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Sihag article.Again thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 06:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear wiki admin,You blocked me for doing a crime of sockpuupetry,I read your reveiws on Contributions.I was already doing my work under some Admin dab,so that if I do some mistake or violate Wikipedia policy,he may revert it and instruct me.Dbachmann as a good Admin did so,he gave me useful instructions which was helpfull to me,But I see now that my Account has been blocked for keeping sock Account.I donot know what it is,But i Request wiki not to block any user on only ip basis,one ip is used by thousand of people daily.Like in my case 115.236-244.--.--,there exists 30 lacs user on it.I donot want you to unblock my account bcoz i have not so much time to do repeated request.Thank you-- 115.242.21.64 ( talk) 05:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Running? Socks on India are like Taliban etc in Pakistan/Iraq/Afghanistan YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Our friend the date change vandal is still doing his numerical scrambling -- most recently at 117.204.126.21 and 117.204.114.97.
Also, please check your email; I've just sent you a reply. :) Cheers, AtticusX ( talk) 08:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare,
There is unlimited vandalism going on here and here. This ip user is regularly removing sourced information,spamming and creating pov from last 7 days...I request u to plz protect Haryana and Gurgaon pages or if possible ban this user...this is really too much now..thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 10:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,its not a problem now he's not doing any vandalism now,he's now adding refs to his additions...but the only problem is Sihag article...even after providing refs and valid sources which are currently in use in other articles too no one is trying to review it but sadly articles like Chandela, Bhaduria and many others are still prevailing without any refs and sources....thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,Abecedare
He is back (that vandal ip) with even more pov pushing refs removing and even image removing propaganda + making thousands of edits for small-small things....idk how he'll stop,I cant even give him warnings because last digits of his ip keeps on changing! I request you to protect Haryana article coz banning him will not stop him,he'll come with another ip...thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 05:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ahh...sorry to interfere but I think you forgot to move Sihag article to mainspace...thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 07:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
hi, thanks...actually chautala is a name of a village of Sihag Jats in haryana...after Devi Lal some of them prefer to bore name chautala..same is with bolan..its a village of sihag's...rest are alternative names with changes due to language like Sihag-Sehag-Sehwag...and one last query, Sehwag page is redirected to Virender Sehwag and is fully protected...so it can't be edited by normal editors...I think it'll be right to create a disambiguation page for it linking to both Sihag and Virender Sehwag...regards -- Last Emperor ( talk) 07:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ya its fine, I'll post about chautala and bolan in near time...cheers -- Last Emperor ( talk) 01:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
ah, I did'nt wanted to interfere now but plz have a look at this funny super vandal who himself dont know what he want to prove and is not stopping even after one ban on him.....have close look at the edits which he is making from last 7 days...thanks -- Last Emperor ( talk) 05:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the article on Doniger is as much NPOV as it should be. What do you think? See talk section.
Raj2004 ( talk) 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't care much about Doniger. It appears that she is a controversial scholar to some Hindus, and I wanted the article to reflect a more balanced point view of view. There are many neo-Hindu scholars who present their own interpretation of Hinduism and such articles should note that this is one point of view that may not be accepted by all. Raj2004 ( talk) 11:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute about an image on the article and there are number of new editors who only edit the article. I suspect sock puppetry. Can you please check. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi i would like to inform you than recently a new user Arjunr240576 is vandalizing Madrassi repetitively despite 3 warnings.
Edits1 and Edit2. He has also uploaded copyrighted images image 1 and image 2.
Please take a look and warn him. -- Onef9day ( talk) 12:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you do this history merge move for me? I can't do complicated things without messing up somehow! -- RegentsPark ( talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Luchipuchi ( talk · contribs)? He was active as IPs yesterday. Check the reverted history of my talk page for the swinging dialog! — Spaceman Spiff 16:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this IP? Static, same edits, discussed on talk page, IP warned, reverted by many. — Spaceman Spiff 09:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Melakavijay: The editor is adding Melakadambur link to many articles, where they are WP:UNDUE. The putting of links and promoting the article is at spam-like level. Can you please talk to this new editor and explain wiki-policy about UNDUE and SPAM (if applicable)? I do not want to discourage him, by my words, which may become too formal and insensitive explaining policy. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
When you have a lot of time and feel masochistic, could you look at the history of The Recognition of Śakuntalā and of Abhijñānaśākuntalam? Not important. :-) (There is probably another move required after it is figured out what the title should be.) Shreevatsa ( talk) 16:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
PLease have a glance, Sir at Talk:Mumbai#Reverting_again_and_again. A user named Mr. Deepak D'Souza is repeatedly reverting my constructive edits. Can U make him understand that these edits are constructive. He doesn't seem to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.6.226 ( talk) 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:45, 25 April 2010 (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. Thank you.—
Dæ
dαlus
Contribs
09:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I had a question on redirects : here and here. Do you think this is OK, I thought Swami is a integral part of monastic name(?) If this OK, somebody has to do history merge as well. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 10:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your help. I need help on the topic that I had earlier raised at Help Desk Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_quickly_add_templates_to_articles.3F. Pls do let me know for any such tools. Thaejas ( talk) 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have installed AWB after requesting to use. I would like to know if it is possible to correct redirects using AWB. I have done the following for correcting the redirect pages.
In the status bar of the window, Skipped: 8. But the changes are not reflected. Should I click on Save? Pls help. Thaejas ( talk) 05:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to revert your change for the User:Thaejas/Sri Ruthra Kaliamman Temple. Pls let me know. Thaejas ( talk) 14:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments in my talk page. I have put the subject of "merging all templates into one template - Hinduism" on the Noticeboard for discussion. Presently, I wish to know your personal opinion about this subject as an immediate feedback. Kindly leave two lines in my talk page. Regards Naveen Sankar ( talk) 04:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Daedalus969 continues to revert to his preferred version, claiming that MoS says that the "first mention" of a country should be spelt out; however, this only applies to the article body, not the infobox, where brevity is preferrable. Radiopathy •talk• 02:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying. I have left my comments on Radiopathy's [11]. Let me know if you notice a repetition of the reported behavior. Abecedare ( talk) 23:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at this and feel free to give an opinion. Radiopathy •talk• 04:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A WP:SPA has been adding conspiracy theories to that article again [12]. Just thought i'd let you know. Thanks for your attention. 117.194.199.225 ( talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this make sense? -- RegentsPark ( talk) 21:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Some revisions to my quick comment above:
Abecedare ( talk) 23:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
i was curiosu when it comes to the India article, or an article in general, is there one person who is in charge of that artciile and / or is there one person in charge of an article in general? Suppose an article cant be editited anymore, who decides, and who has the power to edit the article then? If it cant be editited anymore? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about this, so seeking your opinion. How do we deal with CC images with creator's name on it like
File:Yudhisthira.jpg? I have removed it for now, since it looks encyclopedic; Also another problem with the image is that, it could be anyone, and its advisable to settle with some museum's historic image. Any thoughts on this? Also, off late astrologers have started to make some
awesome predictions
--
TheMandarin (
talk)
07:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, another question regarding File:EpicIndiaCities.jpg. The image clearly says that "100% accuracy is not claimed". Do you this its advisable to have such images in articles or should they be removed? -- TheMandarin ( talk) 08:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I have known your work on Wikipedia since a very long time. I desperately need your views and involvement in this article. User:Sinneed and User:Profitoftruth have been undoing my edits (ignore the removal of the POV template that was put up in between a revert; I don't dispute that) for no good reason.
Please evaluate my edit and tell me where I have wronged? I have explained my stand on Talk:Sikh extremism. But User:Sinneed is adamant to remove the incident on Ujjal Dosanjh and if you go through the page history he displays signs of WP:OWNership of the article.
Regards, -- 59.182.35.235 ( talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
My 2c: it is legitimate to mention the 1985 attacks and (less persuasively) the 2010 threats against Ujjal Dosanjh, but it should be done concisely. No need to go into the exact injuries and number of stitches he received; all that can be included in the Ujjal Dosanjh page. As it stands, the space devoted to the (relatively minor) Dosanjh incidents is equal to/greater than the Kanishka bombing, which is plain ridiculous. The article on the whole is in horrible shape:
Sorry for going beyond your original query - but it is disappointing to see poorly developed articles on wikipedia, even though its length suggests that considerable effort has been devoted to its writing. (I'll copy part of my comments to the article talkpage; hopefully involved editors will give them some consideration). Abecedare ( talk) 23:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)