User talk:Abecedare

Doubt

Respected sir, what is the meaning of sock. Can I know about it sir. You added a discussion in talk page of Regents Park sir. I didn't understand. Like there was another user with my name mks Harsha. You told Im not sock of other user. Can you explain me sir. I just want to know so that I can edit without creating vandalism. Thank you

Sri Harsha 14:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sri Harsha 191817: See WP:SOCK and the SPI report on why I suspect you to be one. You are welcome to respond at the SPI board. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Self-reporting careless violation

@Abecedare: As explained at Talk:2020 Delhi riots, I today removed a reference from the date parameter of the Infobox at 2020 Delhi riots because it failed to support riots continuing through 1 March 2020. I left the time interval template intact but added {citation needed}. Only belatedly did I realize that an Infobox is considered an element of the lead, and that my edit unintentionally breached the moratorium you imposed on making any further unilateral edits to the lede till April 15 2020. I did not mean to disregard your moratorium. Please review my edit and, if you believe it infringes the discretionary sanction, revert accordingly. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Thanks for reporting and explaining the edit. I haven't looked into the material and sources discussed at the related talkpage discussion but given that the edit was done in good faith and there doesn't seem to be an objection to it (yet), I think it's fine to let it stand in place and no "sanctions" are warranted.

I hope that everyone involved with the page understands though that this should not be taken as a license to test the limits of the DS and, in general, the best remedy to even an unintentional violation of DS (or, 1RR/3RR etc) is to self-revert. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ramayan and the bridge

This is familiar, I've had the impression that fans of Diriliş: Ertuğrul have tried to edit articles based on that apparently popular drama. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: We should perhaps be thankful that Game of Thrones wasn't set in any pre-existing historical/mythological era. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll drink to that!

Persistent Vandalism.

Hi there, the user YaRaabAlHind is still making a mess out of many pages even after you warned him once and I warned him later on. Take a look into his editorial history. Thanx. HinduKshatrana (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@HinduKshatrana: Both you and YaRaabAlHind have been edit-warring Pran Sukh Yadav, {{Social groups of Gujarat}} and other pages and need to stop before either of you are blocked or topic-banned. Use the article/template talk page to discuss the issues instead, along with sources that support the edit you wish to make. Unless reliable sources are available that establish the notability of Pran Sukh Yadav, the article is likely to be deleted. So instead of warring over the exact (unsourced!) content of the article, please try to find such sources and list them on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated the Prem Sukh Yadav article for deletion; feel free to produce and discuss sources that help establish the subject's notability at the AFD. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

PA

Would you also be so kind as to redact Sitush's PA against me [[1]] as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC) As well as he latest gem, though I am not sure who it is aimed at.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven While I don't condone Sitush's initial response to you or the accusation of stalking, it is also amply clear from your mass revert, seconding of a troll's complaint/gross personal attack instead of redacting it (you of course were welcome to complain directly on your own behalf after examining the content issues) etc that you are not familiar with the content and source issues in this topic-area or the editing-environment surrounding it. Please take some time to look into the background and do not needlessly escalate the issue by issuing templated warnings or filing pre-mature 3RR reports. Abecedare (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I asked for it to be explained. As I cannot read whatever language those insults weer in I had no idea what was being said (I thought that was clear from my comment about English). How can I understand what the issues are if the response to be asked what they are if to be told that No I will not explain? But your right, I should have just reverted again and let the user fly past 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way they undid at least four separate edits (as they removed material at least 4 times) over 1 24 hour period (in fact within the same day). It is only technically a 3RR violation (as some of the material might be very old).Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Lets keep the 3RR discussion on the board. The discussion being split over four pages (as it is, at present) is not easy to keep track of for the participants and others. Abecedare (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you ask the user to stop accusing me of stalking and other insults?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the history between the two of you (and don't plan to, at least at present) but can you clarify how you came across the Kayastha article? I ask, because your editing shows that you are not familiar with this whole topic-area, and thus could raise genuine concerns about WP:HOUNDING. Abecedare (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, though I will what about wp:agf? Its called ....I am going to have to be very careful as frankly right now I am in sarky mode... WP:NPOVN. Also its an odd kind of hounding as I do not recall interacting with them this year.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the NPOVN post. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The user would have been pointed to it if instead of escalating form the off they had civilly asked. But then that is the issue, you are saying we should deescalate, I did not escalate until a refusal to even engage. Yet it is me that has had to justify and defend themselves from unsound ad hominem in breach of civility (and AGF).Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

{re|Slatersteven}} use Google translate. It's Urdu, not Hindu, and some of it has been explained on the talk page. I've had to waste time rev/deleting edit summaries, text, even usernames all attacking Sitush today. You replied to a post signed " Shitooz" attacking Sitush, wasn't that a clue? I've deleted the NPOVN post by the way, we don't allow socks to edit. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes some of it was explained, after I had already posted, in response to me. And no Shitooz was not much of a clue, as A. I very rarely take much notice of user names as I try to argue against points, not people and B. Shitooz could well just be a rude username and C. I could not tell who the damn thing was signed by as it was inconstant and all over the place (and as far as I can tell unsigned).Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I believe this to be a series of unfortunate events caused by editors not knowing where the other was coming from. Sitush apparently not knowing about the NPOVN post that brought you in; and you not knowing of the (exemplary) clean-up they have been doing in this area plagued with content and conduct issues and the harassment they have faced from, most recently, abusive sock-accounts blocking whom has kept multiple admins busy. The environment was ripe for what would in general be "misdemeanours" (your mass revert; their rude reaction) to cause the unfortunate blow up.

In any case, I hope that now that you both are better aware of the background facts and have had time to cool down, you (again, both) will be able to move past this kerfuffle. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I was not uncivil to them until they escalated, that will always be the case with me, wp:cir may sometimes be an issue with me (for various reasons), but then I will ask for it to be explained. The next time (if our paths cross again) I will be civil to them, it is up to them how they respond. I will now draw a line under this now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

SPI

This is easier then trying to find whatever socks have been harassing certain users.

[[2]]

I do not like being deliberately dragged into other peoples petty vindictiveness.Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. RegentsPark beat me to the block (obviously they can read pidgin English faster than I can!). Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Pidgin English my arse, [[3]].Slatersteven (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead moratorium

This doesn't seem outre to me but you may want to keep a watch on the slow lead changes. --regentspark (comment) 21:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup. After a few quite days the article has seen increased action today. Hopefully, this reminder and a short block of the worst offender will encourage everyone to discuss and then edit. Fingers crossed for now. Abecedare (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

On 30 March 2020, administrator Abecedare posted an admin-note at Talk:2020 Delhi riots imposing a moratorium on making any further unilateral edits to the lede till April 15 2020; until then, any changes to the lede from the current version should first be proposed and discussed on the talkpage and a clear consensus for the change established.

It is now more than a week since the moratorium expired on April 15.

I am therefore bewildered by this section headed Lead moratorium, where admin RegentsPark has zeroed in on my edit of 23 April 2020 at 16:45, to advise Abecedare "to keep a watch on the slow lead changes" at 2020 Delhi riots.

Please, what is going on? There is no Lead moratorium. Editors are free to edit the lead just as they would any other part of the article space. I should not be singled out this way in a conversation between administrators behind my back. NedFausa (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

And now I find that RegentsPark has added his own discretionary sanction that reads: Till April 15, 2020, editors are not permitted to make any edits to the article lede without prior discussion and consensus on the talk page. That is, of course, nonsense. Today is April 24, 2020. NedFausa (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out NedFausa. Fixed. --regentspark (comment) 23:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: The earlier moratorium on editing the lede w/o consensus did indeed expire on April 15, and thus your April 23 edit did not contravene that expired sanction. There was, as I said above, evidence of incipient edit-warring on the page involving multiple editors, which prompted me to leave a 1RR reminder on the article talkpage.

Unfortunately the reminder didn't stop the problems and the back-and forth edits to the lede today including yours while the discussion on the subject was ongoing and no consensus had been established is likely what prompted RegentsPark to re-impose the moratorium on editing the lede without consensus. Unfortunate but sensible, IMO. Abecedare (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

In your 30 March 2020 admin-note, you stated that you were imposing a moratorium because continuing arguments and (slow) edit-warring over the lede is (a) creating a battleground atmosphere, and (b) preventing the development of the rest of the article. Your moratorium defused the battleground, but there is no evidence that it led to development of the rest of the article. These moratoria freeze the lead in place and discourage editors from involving themselves in what seems like a rigged game. NedFausa (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Here are changes to the article during the period of the earlier moratorium. Are these 'enough' or would more/fewer changes to the article body have been made in the absence of the moratorium? I don't know but I don't see how preventing editors from edit-warring over the lede would discourage them from contributing to the article overall. And while admins can, to a certain extent, prevent disruptive editing, they cannot force editors (who are all volunteers, after all) to devote their time to constructively edit any particular article or part of an article. They can only enable and encourage, which is what IMO RP's discretionary sanction does. Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the edits shown in your diff are trivial, such as changing curly quotes to straight quotes or making regular spaces into nonbreaking spaces. Overall, this basically proves my point that the article was not significantly improved during your moratorium. NedFausa (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You know who would be a good judge of that? Your friend Fowler ("Hope you and fam. are doing well..."). Ask him whether or not the main text (i.e., other than the lead) was significantly improved during your moratorium. NedFausa (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

CIR/Not Here

Could you take a look at this and see if a CIR/not here block is required. --regentspark (comment) 21:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. A CIR issue although I have marked it as DE out of politeness, and left them a note that they can be unblocked if they show an understanding of the policies they are violating. Abecedare (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Breach of topic ban

NicholasHui (talk · contribs) has started editing ice hockey pages despite his topic ban not being lifted. He also indicated that he will continue to edit either logged in or logged out in this discussion. In addition, it looks like that he started to WP:HARASS two users in here and here. Where to report this behavior? – Sabbatino (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. Real unfortunate that the problems resumed. Abecedare (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I will notify you if I see any similar activity coming from any IP's located in Vancouver, Canada and its neighboring cities. Yowashi (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Article Request

write an article about Indian Blogger Jayasurya Mayilsamy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.51.240.147 (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking but the blogger does need meet wikipedia's notability guidelines and thus an article on wikipedia will not be appropriate. Abecedare (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Am I doing something wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whywhenwhohow

The above user deleted my edits in 6 pages. He stated that it was NOT NEWS OR NO MEDICAL ADVICE. I have had made sure there were legit references to my contributions. Please guide me.

Can you see his edits? If not then here's one of the pages that was changed (View Edit History)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezafibrate

TheNavedKhan (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@TheNavedKhan: Your edits are well-intended but are running afoul of some special rules governing medical articles on wikipedia. See WP:MEDRS for the details but the gist of it is that the sourcing for medical claims has to be of particularly high quality and even findings of published studies/clinical trials is looked at with suspicion until review articles and textbooks start accepting them. So it is not surprising that the addition of a couple of pre-print saying that some drugs "are worth considering" for COVID-19 treatment is being reverted.

Now, the application of WP:MEDRS to the Covid-19 situation is complicated since the latter has scrambled the speed and standard publication guidelines of medical journals in the real-world and it is possible that the rules on wikipedia have been (or will be) tweaked to take that reality into account. While I doubt wikipedia guidelines will be changed enough to allow the inclusion of content that you added, you will be able to get better guidance about the applicable rules if you ask at WT:COVID-19. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hearing loss

Can you please semi protect the page hearing loss? I'm sick of the vandalism it gets. Can you please take care of that for me? Bear420 (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bear420: The article hasn't seen sufficient recent disruption to justify semi-protection. I see though that your recent edits to the article have been reverted by other users. If you are concerned about those reversions, I'd suggest that you open a discussion on Talk:Hearing loss stating what changes you propose to make and citing the sources that support those additions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding reverted edits being made by user: YaRaabAlHind on the page Zamindars of Bihar

Hello, This above user page is again and again reverting page article on "Zamindars of Bihar". Please put this above user in Block List or put an extended-confirmation protect right on the article page User.

You can also check the "View History".

The statement being made by me on the talkpage is as follows: "The Bhumihar and Rajputs hold approximately 73 percent of the total land area in Bihar with little other enterprise, land ownership in State shows the dominance and power structure of these two caste." I am also giving proof the aforesaid statement being made by me on it's talkpage.ItWiki97 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)ItWiki97

@ItWiki97: I have full-protected the page for a week and temporarily moved the disputed content to the article talkpage, so that both of you have an incentive to discuss and resolve the dispute. See my note at Talk:Zamindars of Bihar#Disputed content. I'll also ping Sitush and Kautilya3 to see if they can help in mediating the content issue that led to the edit-warring over this edit. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Abecedare Hey, can I ask you one question....? Do You Belong from Brahmin Caste ? As it seems that Sitush and Kautilya3 belong from Brahmin Community. So it may happen that because of Jealousy towards others may make them to do something unusual like deleting some evidence by any means, (or) putting words or doing something unusual which may show Bhumihar Brahmin and Rajputs Zamindars of Bihar in low or bad light. So Please, let me choose myself any third party or another administrators. And also don't be unbiased towards other Communities like Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs. ItWiki97 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)ItWiki97

@ItWiki97: I pinged Sitush and Kautilya3 because they are well-acquainted with wikipedia policies, knowledgeable about caste issues and sources, and have a demonstrated ability to edit neutrally in this area. Of course, you are welcome to get further input on the content-issue at WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN etc, or throught the dispute resolution processes but avoid on- or off-wiki-canvassing. And feel free to ask any other admin to review my actions, if it helps assure you that you or your POV are not being railroaded here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Please tell me if you are from a Brahmin Caste ? I think Sitush and Kautilya3 will not be helpfull as they will or may disregard this fact that majority of Zamindars of Bihar belonged from Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs Castes and not from any Brahmin castes.

Cheers :). Also, I will see if any edits made by you or any two of them shows any other community in low light.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ItWiki97 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't discuss anything related to my real-life identity on wikipedia. Also, be aware that speculating and commenting on editors' ethnic, religious or caste-background, instead of evuluating their edits and sources, invariably gets one into trouble. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)