User talk:Abecedare

.

Sockpuppet?

Your edit here stated possible sockpuppet. A "new user" has started restoring the same outdated and unreliable sources to the article, Portuguese conquest of Goa. Would you care to take a look? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Looks like Mughal Lohar. Pinging @SpacemanSpiff: to see if an SPI is required or if the account can be indeffed directly. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thank you! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a duck block should be fine but an SPI may be needed if he starts using another account -- I think in the past he's created multiple accounts in one go for sequential use, but I could be confusing that with someone else. Alamgir II and Third Battle of Panipat are giveaways as they are two of his favorite articles. Also, some sort of clean up behind the IPs is required too, as well as protection. I don't have time right now to do either, but I see that @Drmies: has blocked the account currently, so if any protections are needed either he or I could do it later. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• The third or fourth IP in that Goa article overlapped on another article with the now-blocked account, if I remember correctly. An SPI may well be worth it, if only to archive the IPs and their interests. Spiff, I'm making Tres Leches cake, and Mrs. Drmies whipped up some curry-flavored hummus. Come by for swimmies and snacks, if you like. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like I missed the lovely food Drmies but it appears that we're being served Mughlai cuisine by the sockmaster here. —SpacemanSpiff 06:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the entire list, but I'll have Korma for lunch, please. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If only I knew there was such a feast on offer, I would have been here sooner!

Btw, not reporting DurChalen123 at SPI for now since the master would have probably moved onto another account by now (which in the past SPI have have not helped locate). For the record, 182.182 (Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan) is a known Mughal Lohar IP range since at least 2011, so will be a DUCK case if they ever start reusing this account. Abecedare (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• @SpacemanSpiff and Drmies: Back as 182.182.87.195. Should we continue playing whack-a-mole, or is there a better solution to this LTA? Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, sure. Murder. Jimbo's traveling hit squad. Semi-protection all over the place. Edit filters. In short, probably not. Spiff, are these edits bad? The best thing is always to improve articles irreparably, but this is well outside of my field... Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

On the first: alas. On the second question: A couple of months back I had looked at and dicussed the edits of a bunch of the Mughal Lohar socks (before I had realized that they were socks) and found that the user's edits are despite appearances:

• Usually WP:OR supplemented with random gbook/web refs added to make them look legitimate; some of the OR has persisted so long that we now find circular refs on the topic; and
• invariably tilted to make the Mughal kings look benevolent and great, and their rivals corrupt and weak. Of course, there are rival camp of editors intent on portraying Shivaji, Hemu or Rajput kings as the great HINDU saviors protecting India from the foreign Muslim scourge... which makes improving the Maratha-related articles a task that not even User:Sitush would attempt. :)

Guess WP:RBI it is. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but a fair bit of protection should also be done except the two above as they can be used to id the socks. Most of these pages don't get any edits except for ML or Sridhar Babu anyway. —SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: To give an example of the two issues: This edit includes text copied from the Pindari page (the copying is obvious since even the refname "autogenerated340" was copied), but while that wikipedia page says, They were composed of different tribes who congregated solely for purposes of plunder., the new text citing the same source is, They were composed of different villagers who congregated solely for purposes of plunder, rape, arson and are known to have committed communal acts of genocide where I have underlined the added text, which is not in the original 1879 source (which shouldn't be used as a reference in the first place!) Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Just filed an SPI and then noticed your block of the user (any reason it is for edit-warring and for a week, instead of for socking and indef?). In any case, y'all are welcome to comment there. Btw, see this edit by user. It's not just a duck quacking, but babelfish translating the quack as "Hi! I am Mughal Lohar" :-) Abecedare (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted that same edit over there while you posted here. It's a duck by me, but just wanted to get confirmation from someone else since it's been ages since I've done blocks on/protections due to this farm. —SpacemanSpiff 23:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• He's back, I've reverted some articles, blocked the newest IP and protected a few. If you or Kansas Bear can take a look at the rest, it'd be good. —SpacemanSpiff 12:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You got all of the 182.182.45.212 (talk · contribs) and 182.182.68.247 (talk · contribs) edits. Were there any other IPs used today? Abecedare (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Not today, but there could've been yesterday or the day before. I've kept Alamgir open as that's a common point of entry, and should help in identifying. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Checking the contributions for the 182.181.0.0/16 range shows that the prvious two IPs used were 182.182.29.136 (talk · contribs) and 182.182.87.195 (talk · contribs). The latter needs some reverting, which I'll attend to. Abecedare (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Done (left a couple non-controversial edits untouched). Btw, while I was on the fence before, this sequence of edits (which matched similar edits at other pages), have convinced me that 119.160.116.131 (talk · contribs) is also Mughal Lohar, using his mobile phone. Worth noting for spotting future socks. Abecedare (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is why it took me so long to do that article, I had to waste some time checking individual contributions from that IP to see if there was a pattern match. —SpacemanSpiff 14:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it is difficult to determine what version to even revert to since though an article edit-history may show numerous contributors, they all turn out to be Mughal Lohar socks. Case in point: Muqarrab Khan, where all substantive contributions are by the guy, and while the article cites some ostensibly reliable sources, as I have found previously with ML's edits, that means nothing. User:Sitush, care to take a look? Abecedare (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, can you take a look at Harappan language? There was some constant copyvio of a Current Science paper into the article and some repeated changes to sourced content of opposite of what the sources say. I've cleaned out the copyvio and blocked the editor, but I think it's an ignored article with no regular editors going there, and not in my reading area either. I've left the link to the paper on the talk page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted Harappan language. I have some only very high level knowledge of Indus language and script, and based on that the current version of the article does not raise any obvious redflags for me (which does not mean that it is correct or complete though). The Current Science paper on the other hand, though published in a normally RS periodical (though not specializing in this area), is very much fringe. The claim that the Indus script is linked to Dravidian scripts itself is a minority view, based essentially on geographical closeness, which has neither been verified nor definitively debunked (that is basically the case for all theories of Indus script), but Clyde Winters (who seems to mainly self-publish online and through Lulu) starts from there and adds heavy doses of Afrocentric pseudo-history to it. The paper is not worth citing, let alone basing the article on. Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to start with the Khan article. There appear to be several people who bore that name, all of them seemingly notable for single events. I've noticed this before but never made the ML connection. Perhaps with some digging there might be good cause to create List of Mughal commanders, which includes a field for their main claim to fame, and redirect a lot of articles to that. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Richards only mentions him briefly as a Golconda turned Mughal nobleman. Not sure if there is enough material to deserve an article. Not sure of a redirect target either. Is there any source that discusses Mughal commanders as a category? Else, I am afraid it will become another dumping ground for OR. Abecedare (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: PiedPiperofAgra321 duck or case for SPI? Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it, but no Alamgir, freshly created account though. My eyes are still hurting from the Tobias Conradi mess, so I'll take a better look in a day or so if you or the absent RegentsPark don't beat me to it.—SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I am being (perhaps overly) cautious in using my admin tools here since I once had a content discussion with two of the socks at Talk:Flag of the Mughal Empire, before I even knew of the existence of Mughal Lohar. But perhaps that is a too officious interpretation of WP:INVOLVED given that the issue is persistence sockpuppetry and not any particular content dispute, and overwhelmingly involves articles that I have never otherwise edited. Will give it some more thought, but in the meantime will lean on you and others admins who recognize the sockmasters patterns. Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Can you block Upsy777 (talk · contribs) and speedy Later Mughal-Maratha Wars (1728-1763)? Article was previously created by another sock 468SM (talk · contribs), and only been really edited by another IP sock. For the record, latest IP socks are 182.182.107.117 (talk · contribs) and 182.182.75.176 (talk · contribs) (already reverted; don't know if worth blocking). Abecedare (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And now at 182.182.116.202 (talk · contribs). Abecedare (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've protected a few more pages, and watchlisted Upsy777 for now. —SpacemanSpiff 04:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, back at 182.182.116.202 (talk · contribs) and 182.182.21.43 (talk · contribs); will revert next time I have a bit of ime, unless someone beats me to it. Abecedare (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Perfect timing on User:Hinono134. I was considering filing an SPI report (didn't want user chalking up 100s of more edits that would then need to be reverted). Saved me the effort. Now lets see if the user even uses the commons account they created on en.wiki. Abecedare (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've filed the SPI since there's at least two likely socks active. On a cursory look new protections didn't seem necessary, but we might have to evaluate it again I think. —SpacemanSpiff 05:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark: Block needed in sector Chince666. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and protected a few more articles based on frequency. I think the protections are having an impact as he's having to slow down on a lot of the stuff. —SpacemanSpiff 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and yup. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Shakya

Well, I feel like today I might be running out of admins who know something of the problems re: India articles. Truth only 1 is quite obviously editing Shakya while logged out and their last edit summary shows they have no intention of stopping. There is discussion about the hatnote issue on the article talk page but this has been going on since 2013 (where the other side of the issue arose at Kachhi).

I know it is painful to read all the bumpf but perhaps you could at least look at the recent Truth only 1 + IP edits of the last hour or so at Shakya? - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Psshhw, 3RR + obvious sock-puppetry + edit-summaries such as this one (the last two sentences; the first one is par for the course) made this an easy one. :)

No opinion on the hatnote itself (I'll need additional coffee to even figure out the nuanced variations being discussed). Am confident that you + Joshua + MahenSingha will be able to resolve it amongst yourself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: What's the prior probability that an editor with "truth" in their name edit-wars to right great wrongs? 0.9? Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and yep! Although I've yet to come across any account in the Indic topic area that has that word in their username and survives here, so you may be erring on the low side even with that figure! - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Content discussion by block evading sock

Just want this to come to notice of editors The current hatnote is- “This article is about the ancient Shakya people . For the modern Kachhi community of North India using Shakya Surname, see Kachhi (caste).” If I am a regular (non-history professor) reader, then I will think “Oh this article is just about the ancient Shakya people. I guess they are all dead now. And well, Kachhis are using Shakya surname now. Since North India, Nepal, Tibet are all adjacent so if anyone says he is a Shakya then he must be a Kachhi. Yeah !” Now let’s look into some facts that there are Shakyas presently who are not Kachhis:- 1) Present Shakyas as higher caste ( https://books.google.co.in/books?id=P0RuAAAAMAAJ&dq=shakya+caste&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=shakya ) 2) Present Shakyas as priestly caste Page 42: ( http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/5413 ) 3) Just search for word ‘shakya’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newar_caste_system — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrections No.8395 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC) And these are just a few citations I found hastily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrections No.8395 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC) All I am requesting is this. Change the hatnote to reflect something like this "This article is about the ancient history of Shakya clan. For the Kachhi community of North India who also sometimes uses this surname, see Kachhi (caste)." This will remove all the ambiguity. This whole war is just to make this one simple correction supported by facts and logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrections No.8395 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not a participant in the hatnote discussion at Shakya, so you don't need to convince me either ways. You did have ample opportunity to make your case to other editors interested in the topic, but you have wasted it in edit-warring and sock-puppetry, over a period of several years. Now unfortunately you have run out of chances, and it would be best if you found another hobby. I trust that the editors on the page, who have shown exemplary patience and judgment while dealing with your disruptions, will be able to research the topic for themselves and arrive at a reasonable solution as far as wikipedia is concerned. Please move on. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thats not gonna happen. Will fight until we all know the truth and accept the facts and evidences without making a prior biased opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.228.43.134 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Please see this Shakya related edit at Ogress`s talk page. JimRenge (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You've been featured...

...in The Times of India -- [The Vandals of Wiki, albeit playing second fiddle to me! —SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

....clipping - NQ (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Congrats both of you for featuring in the news, its nice that national media is taking notice of your good work. It will definitely inspire whole community. Best luck and thanks. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Can now retire in peace. :) The funny thing though is that before clicking, I wasn't sure which side of the vandal-divide TOI-reporting would have placed me. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I was quite apprehensive at first too. To think I came across this when I was searching for a mirror. Thanks NQ for that, will come in handy to frame. Thanks Human. —SpacemanSpiff 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit protection

I have had some personal attacks lately on my user page and talk page, mostly redacted by kind editors, but if you wanted to partially edit-protect my page I'd be glad. Ogress _smash! 02:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I have left a message on India Talk Page regarding images for Ancient India section, do help me contribute to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.204.211 (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Replied.

Btw, if you look at the article and talk-page archives, you'll see that images is a contentious issue, with everyone having their favorites that *must* be included without necessarily taking due-weight, image quality and overall balance (regional, period, subject) into account. The current selection was decided after a lengthy discussion with wide participation. That is the reason changes are resisted until wide consensus for a change is established. So be patient as the process plays out. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pebble101:. Reagrding this issue: It is probably a side-effect of web caching. Try these tips the next time you face such issues. (Replying here so as not to distract the discussion on Talk:India from article-related matters). Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help regarding issues with web cache, Abecedare. Would it be okay to add Ajanta cave image in Ancient India section? do let me know in Talk:India, Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Pingali Venkayya

@Abecedare: Ok,I will take care of that,thank you :).I will try to update Pingali Venkayya without copy pasting things :DDD thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Haxxorsid (talk • contribs) 16:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Haxxorsid: OK. Perhaps though you should slow down and read through WP:FIRST to get an idea of how to cite and summarize sources to comply with wikipedia's core content policies of verifiability and neutral point of view. Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but right now you are making some newbie errors, due to which your edits are being repeatedly reverted. Being a bit more circumspect will make it more probable that you edits "stick". Also don't forget to leave edit-summaries for your edits, and sign your posts on talkpages (I realize that this is a lot of jargon and instructions; hence the advice to slow down). Let me know if you have any specific questions. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: OK.Thank you :)Haxxorsid (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The harassment

The guy who posted on my page that you redacted, who also attacked other users, is apparently sleeping as Binhash (talk · contribs). I know he's an evading sock you've been chasing, but I don't know which ... and since your redacted my page I can't tell! Check his (four) edits, especially the last one. Ogress _smash! 18:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano had revdelled the edit to your userpage and blocked the user who had made it. Without knowing the background I can't say if this user is related, but in any case I have indeffed this account given the clear trollishness of their last three edits. Abecedare (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Marchoctober ANI

Damn! I got an edit conflict then saw you closed the discussion about Ricky's alleged ethnic slur. Here's what I was going to say (not that it matters, but if I just hit "cancel" I'll feel unfulfilled...)

Comment There is no merit to Marchoctober's claim that Ricky81682 issued an ethnic slur. His comments were a direct observation of the behavior being employed by other users, who were bent on promoting Telugu over any other language. Pradeeps369 wrote: People please give due credit to Telugu and stop being cheap and taking the credit for the work that has nothing to do with Tamil. That sounds like cultural pride to me. I made an observation similar to Ricky's: Give credit to whom? A language? An ethnicity? We don't give film credits to languages or ethnicities. Marchoctober also seems to be forum shopping for admins sympathetic to his arguments. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun on closing the ANI. Could you add your comment to the archived discussion since I had not directly address the charge of "ethnic slurs" at ANI (had done so at March's talkpage earlier, before I even knew of the ANI report, and reached the same conclusion as you)? It would be good to have it for the record. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Help Akshardham Environment Violation Section

Hello,

If you have time would you please take a look at this article: [1] and this discussion [2] and provide your input. There is a cited content dispute I am having [3] and I feel you can help with some clarification for this topic. I looked up editors who have worked on Hinduism topics and found you.

Thank you

Swamiblue (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Swamiblue: Will take a look and comment at the article talk page once I've had the time to read through the cited sources and discussion. For future reference, a good venue for asking for external input is the Hinduism project noticeboard (or, the Indian project noticeboard depending upon the topic). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Abecedare. I will post this in the Hinduism project noticeboard to get more attention because I knew having that many citations for an issue that is well documented should not be left out. I was getting bullied there because they want to portray their building in a way that ignore all factual issues that came with it. I disagree that a separate criticism section shouldn't be there because the building is well known. Even our Wiki criticism section [4] states, "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location."

Similar topics have criticism and controversy sections. Please see [5] and [6]

I would really appreciate your input as the discussion continues. Thank you

Swamiblue (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are ubiquitous on wikipedia and in almost all cases a sign of poor organization and writing. I have yet to see an actual encyclopedia article with such a stand-alone section. That said, my main reason for suggesting that the content be rewritten before being added back to the article is that the sentences being added are ungrammatical and poorly written; don't provide enough context about the issues; and due to ref-bombing. I see that you have started an RFC on the topic, which might invite more eyes and helping hands. I'll try to help with the copy-editing but its likely to be only towards the end of the week. Abecedare (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

RfPP ping

The IPs are Nangaparbat and Mrpontiac1. Elockid was perhaps more active on this that I've been over the past two years. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Spaceman. Just noticed that there are two related SPIs open at the moment:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnightWarrior25

Can you or @Elockid: take a look? Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been away from this hornet's nest for close to two years now, I think I'll stay away from it a little longer. The articles were all unprotected because NP/MrP were found to be non-threats, so let it be like that. RegentsPark will probably remember how this came about as you weren't active then. —SpacemanSpiff 18:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ya, I missed the original, but looks like I'll get to see the sequel and learn all the series tropes. :) Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure looks like Nangparbat (location + edits). @Darkness Shines: would spot them right away but, in our collective wikiwisdom, we've chucked him out. --regentspark (comment) 19:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been around for most of the DS activity, I meant the earlier post YM "let's unprotect the hell out of this mess" bit. —SpacemanSpiff 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Elockid is not active. Neither is Hersfold. DS is banned. YM long gone. Spiff, that makes you the surviving resdient Nangpartbat expert! --regentspark (comment) 20:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Knew of DS's periodic blocks. Didn't realize he had been banned. A loss since I liked his article-space work that I had seen.

Btw, I think the Nangaparbat IP accused some of the editors/IPs he was battling of being DS socks (too lazy to locate the diff). If it is true, I wish DS would just walk away since I have always find such obsession with wikipedia sad and pitiful and DS seemed intelligent enough to find himself a more fruitful hobby. Abecedare (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Spaceman, I can see why you would want to keep away from this mess. Spending even fifteen minutes in the area finds obvious sock-trolls like SUMANTHARKI, ShivaParvati587 and Pakistani randi female and numerous IPs battling and taunting each other. All throwaway accounts for whom it is not even worth identifying the sockmaster. Any reason articles in the area were thought to be better off unprotected? Or was that intended sarcastically? Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here you go. That was the start of it. After that I stopped looking at that mess, it's just an incredible waste of time. DS, for all the other problems that editors had with him, did some good work on this front, but he and Elockid were pretty much waging a lonely battle. —SpacemanSpiff 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Filed an AN report. Hoping that attitudes have changed in the last 5 years, and AN/ANI participants have realized that sockpuppetry (and POV pushing for that matter) needs to be dealt with more quickly so that good faith editors have more space to do their work. On the other hand someone may yet complain that I didn't inform all the editors I listed in the AN report, or that Rumanfurki has made only one edit, I am failing WP:AGF, WP:BITE etc. Lets see. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't a goodh year for YM. First the semi protection brouhaha and then the bizarre arb proceedings. I guess YM did the right thing and just chucked it all up. More the worse for Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 03:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

... or perhaps he just couldn't bear my absence (starting Aug 2010) for more than three months :)

But seriously, loss of a great editor and clueful admin. Still hope he'll be back someday, along with F&f et al. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

JoesphBarbaro

Hi Abecedare, re: my recent block of JoesphBarbaro and your recent talk page revocation, you might want to see this angry diatribe I just saw at Commons. If you care about the context, the user is a hothead who has a POV that The Tom & Jerry Show (2014 TV series) has ended. He got into a mini-editing war about this several weeks back, then he came to my talk page looking for advice. I explained that he should wait until one full year had elapsed with no new episodes airing, at which point, he could change |last_aired= in the infobox only to the literal date the series "last aired". (I emphasized with italics in my original post that he could only change the value in the the infobox.)

He waited, and made the changes, but he also changed the prose here and here to say the series was over. I reverted that second edit with the comment "You are about one revert away from being blocked. This has been explained to you in detail." I left a warning on his talk page. His reply on my talk page was very cavalier: "How foolish are you?" and "save the empty threats of blocking me." He taunted, "how could you didn't revert the same thing at the List of The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) episodes? Oh wait, let me guess..." So, I went to that article and removed the statement that the series had ended. He reverted that. So at that point he'd crossed the "one more revert" line with me. He backpedaled, but by then I'd already gotten the revert notification and was clicking the "block" buttons. I'm curious to know if you think I should have done something differently. Thanks, and sorry for the drama, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

While it would perhaps be preferable for someone who had not been a regular editor of The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) to have issued the block, the bottomline is that the block itself was certainly justified, esp. given the sincere effort you made to explain the issue to the user. I had the user's talk-page on my watchist due to this SPI report and responded only to their edit-summaries following the block. Their earlier posts to your talk-page and your commons-page however suggest that this was not just a instantaneous and exceptional reaction to being blocked, and if such a behavior resumes once the current block expires longer/indef blocks would be justified. I'll drop a note for User_talk:JoesphBarbaro so that they are clear about the stakes, and can decide if and how they want to contribute to wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback tremendously. Thanks. I'm not sure how I can administrate articles that I don't edit, save to only act on AIV/ANI/SPI matters. Unrelated, look, I'm a punk-ass swine admin. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, as WP:INVOLVED also says, simply making a few gnomish edits or reverting vandalism on an article, does not prevent you from using your admin tools on a page.

As for admin work: I noticed from your RFA that you already have experience at AIV and RFPP, so those may be good places to help out at. Over time, other editors will start approaching you on your talk-page, or pinging you for help with editors/articles you have dealt with before as an admin. Also your watchlist will start expanding with article and user pages that are often problem magnets. You'll soon see that the amount of "admin-work" available is only limited by ones time, interest, and capacity for aggravation... speaking of which I'd recommend applying WP:RBI and ignoring all insults thrown at you, since paying them any attention only encourages the trolls. Happy editing/adminning. Abecedare (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually

I think this edit was an attempt to be humorous by making it sound like the article itself was mansplaining to the reader. (Honestly, it made me giggle). Just thought I'd share since you reverted it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

True! Had read it as just another filler, and missed the joke. :) Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROPE

I saw your full protection to WP:ROPE. Given that a number of admins have been involved in the content dispute, perhaps you might consider reverting to the last stable version on August 7. This would avoid the potential perception from non-admins that another admin's edits are "preferred". Full disclosure: I made edits a few weeks back related to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Give them enough rope#Suicide.—Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I protected the version that was current when I saw the report at WP:RfPP and that version (or the essay itself) should not be seen as having my endorsement. Right now tempers are running a bit high about the topic and so I realize that any action is likely to be over-interpreted. But I hope that even the short editing-break will give interested parties enough time to discuss and arrive at a amicable compromise, over what after all is not a time-critical issue (in the real-world sense). Abecedare (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:PREFER: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Still, it's your prerogative if you don't think it is appropriate here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to refrain making any other edits to the page since that will most likely divert the debate from "what the essay should say over the longer term" to "what should the essay say TODAY?" Since the very aim of the protection was to make room for the former discussion, I don't think such a step would be helpful. I realize this a judgment call. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi I Need help!!

Hello- I was wondering if you would be able to help me delete a revision on a history page?

Please let me know!

My email is (Redacted)

I promise I am a real person who needs help!!

Thank you!

CelesteFairy (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@CelesteFairy: You can email me the name of the wikipedia page and the time/content of the edit using this form and I can take a look. Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Gojoseon

In case it's of interest, your protection was mentioned here. There was also a complaint at WP:AN3. Needless to say, I agree with your protection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the head up, Ed. Abecedare (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Help needed on Shakya article

Hello admin, the user Ogress is continuously is reverting by contributions without discussing or even looking at my evidences. Need your help to advise seasoned editors on that page to atleast see the evidences given by others and look from fresh perspective. Illuminaati (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Illuminaati: I see that the article has been fully protected and there is ongoing discussion on the article talkpage about the sections you added. By the way, I believe that you are a sock of User:Truth only 1. I am overlooking the block-evasion for now, but if your resume to disrupt the discussion and fail to listen to others' comments, I will block this avatar. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Report user

The user User:Maltin Kant has been warned many times about hoax articles and has not stopped. He should be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nrwirport: Maltin Kant has already been blocked by Lankiveil for copyright vio. In addition they seem to be a sock of Ezidishingali. I cannot tell if the articles they created are hoaxes since I don't know enough of subject-area, but will drop a note about all this on their userpage. Thanks for keeping an eye! Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Making Misuse Of Your Seniority on Wikipedia:

whatever edit I have done I have given reference to it i.e I have proved it. I will not edit the way you like it you are not owner of wikipedia that If you dont like it you will block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Problem Is of IQ Level I think ,Whatever Edits I did Were Truth and Official But Only Educated Person Knows To Be UnBiased and Truthful also Has Much More Knowledge.

In my edit of page of India and Economy of India I had given Facts and Also Given Reference.But then also my edits removed I am warned. Some one saying the page is related to India not Maharashtra. Maharashtra is part of India but also in this Pages Gujarat and Other States Praised but when I put Some fact about Maharashtra this things very difficult for them to Digest. My edits Were also targeted because they were not related to what this Senior people Like and related to their Region of Interest. The problem is that I added a fact on Maharashtra Contribution to India Gdp proved it by giving a reference as page on Goverment on India site but There are many AntiMaharashtra People.

Proof Of How user named Rsrikant is biased see edit history Of page of Ulhasnagar with sindhi language script in lead was Ignored by Rsrikant but he Warned Me of Marathi Script in Lead.This Page was ignored for long time which show How double Standard he is which was finally edited by me and he says he is Maharashtrian. No one is Maharashtrian by name but by action and belief ,I think his mind is Poisioned with AntiMaharashtra agenda.

You will find Many Pages with False Information given by editing but this Biased people keep quit.

I will Not Tolerate this Injustice at all.In my I have Never Bend in front of Any one and always Supported Truth .

I Know the world today is not good but I have full Confidence that Truth will always win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, here is why your edits on the two pages were reverted:

• Your initial edit to India was reverted by me as "unsourced and undue", and while your subsequent edit fixed the former problem the issue of "unnecessary detail" remained since (a) there is no end to adding such superlatives ("X is the largest state; Y the smallest", "Z is largest producer of cotton", "W has the highest electricity production" etc) and (b) state-GDP being a product of of both the state size and state's per capita income, is a particularly non-illuminating number when cited without sufficient context. (I am ignoring the grammatical issues with your edits since these could be easily fixed, and didn't need reversion)
• On Economy of India your various additions were misplaced, unsourced, wrong or at least unclear (since richest can mean highest state-GDP, or highest per capita GDP), or arguably undue. If you had taken the issue to the article talk-page and discussed the issue in a a civil manner, some useful material could have been salvaged and the article improved as a result. However you have chosen to spam multiple user-pages, and aggressively throw around unfounded charges. Your choice, but you'll find that this approach is not very productive.

If at some point you decide that you wish to edit more effectively, feel free to start a civil conversation. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Ugog Nizdast, Rsrikanth05, and Prasannarane61993: so that the avove conversation is not duplicated on numerous talk pages. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

when I had edited the Page of India And Economy of India I had Provided Reference:http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-of-indian-states.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging @SpacemanSpiff: here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm now being accused [for the nth time] of double standards and being biased on the Please Stop section of their talk page. Great. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: If the editor disrupts an article, inform/advice/warn them (as has already been done multiple times by multiple editors) and then apply WP:RBI. If they are simply lashing out on user talkpages (esp. their own) just ignore the unfounded charges; no one is going to take any of that seriously. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you removed "Blunders" section from Nehru's article ????????

I provided enough amount of sources,If you need more I can provide more sources related to what I wrote in the section. Try to be in middle. Please try to understand don't try to attach yourself with the political parties or people. If you still more things to specify my written things I can provide more sources. There are tons of sources on what I wrote. That too,the section which I wrote was in short. I can make it more large and explainable. It was not at all "a poorly sourced POV section". I even provided newspaper article links like of TimesOfIndia ,TheHindu.If you want to say that "it is a POV section" it also means that newspaper like TheTimesOfIndia,TheHindu are POV newspapers.I can provide more sources from that newspapers about each and everything which I wrote in that section. The source links which I provided doesn't even specifies that it is a POV secton, it speaks the truth . You should take a look at sources which I provided.They are fully genuine,newspaper articles,famous books' refered sources. I can provide more .Haxxorsid (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Haxxorsid: There were numerous problems with the section I reverted, and the one you re-added starting with the sources. See WP:HISTRS for the type of sources we need for such an article; simply googling for "Nehru blunders" and sticking in the random websites is not ok. Similarly, random youtube videos such as this one that you added to another page, is also not acceptable.

Sourcing aside, you should also read WP:NPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and (relevant to some recent edits) WP:BLP before you continue editing in this area. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you help?

Need Help. Thanks in Advance. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dineshkumar Ponnusamy: I see that the draft has been moved to Draft:Palam Kalyanasundaram,where it will be reviewed for basic compliance with wikipedia policies, and moved to mainspace when ready. I also see that User:ONUnicorn and User:DESiegel have already given some very useful advice about the draft at the help desk; listen to them!

The only tip I'll add for now is that you should cull out the poor quality sources (such as yourstory.com, achhikhabre.com, quora, thebetterindia.com, www.bringchange.in, iseeindia.com), and focus on the better quality sources such as The Hindu and DNA India (also the St. Stephens link can be replaced by direct link to The Hindu article itself. The subject himself is probably notable enough to have a wikipedia article, although final determination will depend upon what can be reliably sourced after the generic web-encomiums have been removed. If you have any questions in the meantime, feel free to ask. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have done some work on topics regarding India, but my knowledge of the reputations of publications there is limited (there are many of them, and I have made no particular study of the matter). The advice to focus on high quality sources is normally good -- if a draft can be supported by high-quality sources, it is much better to do so. I know that The Hindu has a very high reputation. If you are unsure if a particular source is reliable for a particular statement, you can as at the reliable sources noticeboard. However, they don't answer general questions such as "Is publication X reliable?" Instead they will address 'Is publication X reliable for statement Y in article (or draft) Z?" Context matters. Sticking to sources of very high reputation will mostly avoid the need for this kind of cite-by-cite inquiry. Is there other specific help that you need? DES ^(talk) 22:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC) @Dineshkumar Ponnusamy: DES ^(talk) 22:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply and help @Abecedare and DES. Will do the required changes. Thanks again. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Need You support

Your neutral observation will be greatly appreciated and I request you to understand the information, I am requesting that the film industry column be included in the article to get rid of ambiguity, this will be an amicable solution to all parties(for an ongoing RFC), everyone will be satisfied and the issue will be resolved, if there is fair representation of information, there is a fight about which language a particular movie is, as language was unable to make things clear such an issue originated in first place, but the users are adamant not to include that information or column, as according to them there is no clear distinction information about defining of film industry, their concerns sound to be fair, so my solution I propose only if there are sources about the film industry information then that information may be included. Thats what I want to say and convey, I hope it can be possible, if you think thats a fair request, please participate on the talk page and present your neutral observation reading the whole topic, and present your opinion whether I am wrong or others are wrong, your opinion will be very useful.Marchoctober (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Include_additional_column_of_Film_industry
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Second_break
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Why_include_all_versions_in_language-specific_collections_and_other_questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchoctober (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Marchoctober: It would be best to discuss this issue with the other editors of the article and reach a consensus. I am only involved, in the absence of NeilN, in an administrative capacity to try and prevent edit-warring or talk-page disruption. If you want more eyes, you can post a neutrally worded message on the Indian cinema task force talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Marchoctober

Hi A, would you mind looking at the comments on Marchoctober's talk page and consider weighing in. The editor clearly isn't interested in anything I have to say (I can understand that) although I believe my comments are sound because the comment strike-throughs were not constructive and were inappropriate. Also, I'm not suggesting sockpuppetry in my comments, I'm only noting that someone is whispering bad advice to this guy, and that ain't good. I'm not asking for sanctions, just maybe some friendly advice for him. I think maybe he's not aware that I'm an experienced editor who knows what normal talk page behavior looks like, and that his strikethroughs and claims of ethnic slurs are not appropriate. And if you're not interested in trudging through this swamp, I completely understand. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that your friendly advice didn't do the work. Commented on the user's page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also uncovered canvassing and coaching, but I'll let NeilN deal with that since I've wasted enough of your time. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, although User:NeilN really deserves to be blocked for the disruption caused by his damn vacation. :) Abecedare (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)