User talk:Abecedare

.

India

Thanks. I actually did not know that there was an Europa version. Otherwise, i would not have added a pic of Nano Europa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs)

Curious

Hi again, Abecedare. Lately I've been wondering something about a page I've worked extensively on. I'm not asking you to rate it (still expecting an assessment from Project Television), but at a quick glance, can I ask if you see anything especially wrong with the Naomi Clark article? -- James26 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable of the article's subject, but at a quick glance the article seems to be in good shape. Rather than relying on simply the wikiproject assessment (which are typically based on a quick read and don't provide detailed feedback), I'd suggest that you try out the peer review process, and/or nominate it for a good article review. That should provide you more structured feedback on areas where it can be expanded and improved and perhaps even help prepare it for furure featured article status. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow...I didn't expect to hear anything about GA or FA potential. I know it's unlikely to receive GA status, but I suppose I'll go ahead and try one of the things you mentioned. Thanks for your comments. -- James26 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More WP:RS jollies

The issue, outlined here, could be radioactive. (There could be some WP:OWN issues too, given this, which was about this, but I'm hoping not.) What do you think? rudra (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Hello. Just a small task: I want to move Disney Channel Romania and Moldova to Disney Channel Romania (which already exists) in order to save the history of the article. Currently, the content of Disney Channel Romania was moved from the other page, but not the history. Thank you—Sebitalk 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. I have restored the page to the title it had before the recent moves - if you or anyone else wishes to move it to another title, it would be best to dicsuss the issue on the talk page first. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The official name of the TV channel is Disney Channel Romania, although it can be received also in Republic of Moldova. Thank you—Sebitalk 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Karma in Hinduism

I agree with Rudra's edits relating Shani but many Hindus believe that planets are tied with past karma. What do you think? Raj2004 (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wise man, I seek your wisdom

Hello, I seek your wisdom as a wise administrator again.

I wrote something on Village Pump about reliable sources can be in error. It was about a CNN report quoting a Wall Street Journal report. However, they misquoted the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal's original story is on the internet.

Someone removed my section in VP. I think this could cause anger if it happened to someone else, can be vandalism, and is not a smart thing to do, particularly if the removed material is sensible and not libelous.

I wrote...

Please put back my VP comment. The purpose is to get a discussion on how to assess reliability and how to improve reliability. Because of this, I no longer automatically consider CNN to always be a RS anymore. I hope you did not remove it because of censorship as you are a journalist. That would be like a lawyer removing a comment relating to lawyer because she didn't like it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The response from the editor, who is a journalist, was...

You're welcome to return your comment to the miscellaneous page, just as I was welcome to remove it. That's how wikipedia works!... User:DavidWBrooks

It is my impression that I shouldn't remove others comments and that I could be blocked if I do. For example, recently you wrote this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=341541061 It would be wrong for me to remove it with DavidWBrooks' excuse "just as I was welcome to remove it. That's how wikipedia works!... "

I have no plans to reinsert my edit and allow the other editor to be happy in creating a conflict. Furthermore, Wikipedia would shrink by 50% if everyone had to put back their edit twice. Do you have any comment on DavidWBrooks' behaviour? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Suomi, I doubt it was your intention, but reading your VP(M) post alone, I couldn't decipher what link you were trying to draw in relation to wikipedia policies or practice - and thus your post did appear to treat the page as a forum. As you probably know such posts are justifiably removed from wikipedia pages. The only (minor) fault I can find in David's actions is that he could have dropped you a short note explaining why the post was removed, although I guess he thought the edit summary was sufficiently explanatory.

Now, it is is fair to discuss the fact that a source being reliable in general doesn't mean it always gets all details right. This is well known in real world, and by most experienced wikipedia editors; that's the reason WP:RSN starts off by saying,

"The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs.".

If you have a concrete suggestion how to recognize or deal with errors in otherwise reliable sources, I would suggest that you lay it down plainly and give the WSJ article only as an example, instead of seemingly asking editors to discuss the WSJ error itself. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk)

Thank you for your wise answer. You should try to sleep. If my watch is set for London, turn it upside down and the watch reads the time in India. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise! It works the other way around too. ;-) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that the watches never work properly in India. :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rajiv Malhotra

Another task for a wise admin! Can you review if this article has sufficient secondary sources and if you have any concerns highlight them on the talk ? Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the article left me wondering why this person is notable enough for a wikipedia article, since all the claims in the article are pretty non-specific (it indicates that he is a "telecommunication entrepreneur" but doesn't list any companies he founded; it says that Infinity foundation "promotes" Indic studies, without saying how - does it fund research grants, publish books, set up a research institute or library ... ? ). In short, is Malhotra, notable as a philanthropist, as a entrepreneur, or an author ? If his claim to notability is the founding of the Infinity foundation, it may be better to have an article on that (assuming it satisfies WP:ORG). Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, only now it hit me why the name was familiar - the article somehow avoids any mention of his activism and the Sulekha column, which is perhaps the root of his name recognition! I'm afraid that while the current article is simply non-informative, it is likely to become a coatrack in the future for all the associated controversies and debates. Instead of a pseudo-biographical article focussing ona person, I think we'd be better off summarizing the debated issues squarely, perhaps in Hinduism in the United States article. Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have purposefully avoided mentioning about the activism ( see talk for comments from me and also from Rudra where he talks about 2002 timeline ), but that is the most notable part and poses challenges in presenting neutrally. I got plenty of info on activism from the books cited, but initially wanted to keep the article simple and stupid. Probably first I will write it in a sandbox, review and then we can add, but even after that this will be a hot spot for trolls from both sides and I find this discouraging. I think that its easy to establish WP:ORG. There is info related to grants etc., thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your motivation but you may have ended up throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this case. :-) Agree that these articles are draining to write, review, or maintain since every sentence has to be fought over and truly neutral editors are rarely as motivated as the POV warriors. Should be careful that not all our time is spent on these debates, since that's a recipe for burnout. Thankfully, wikipedia (and real life!) has many more pleasant distractions. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, agree with the baby part and to add to this we have BLP. Yes the endless debates are sort of tiring, but sometimes--as you have seen in other articles--one has no choice, esp when other friendly, polite editor(s) are having extremely friendly, polite, civil discussions and trying downplay everything, even legitimate scholarly views as Hindutva / religiously motivated. Coming to the point, what you highlighted above is available in Race, Nation, & Empire in American History Initially from the publisher (ReadHowYouWant.com ) I though this was some WP:SPS, but later found out that its from a reputable publisher. This book summarises the issues and also establishes WP:ORG.Will add it and try to move on, unless there are polite, refereshing, friendly debates started. Thanks for your time. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it meets WP:ORG now and I have added a line on activism. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

PMFJI, but it will be difficult to treat the subject(s) properly. The vast majority of relevant material will "fail" the usual canons of reliable sourcing should anyone wikilawyer the matter (i.e. steadfastly refuse to WP:UCS.) The basic reason for this - and the root issue - is that the scholarship of established academics - i.e. exactly the ones who most securely have WP's WP:RS rules on their side - is being questioned and challenged. This challenge could not be prosecuted in the standard WP:RS loci - peer-reviewed academic journals - for obvious reasons. WP coverage is thus obliged to wait for someone suitably qualified academically to write about it in a book that might squeak past WP:RS. (As of now, this kind of literature is just beginning to appear.) Further, these academics have successfully preempted the (meagre) media coverage and suborned inveigled impressionable journalists into represent the issue as one of death-threat-fulminating yahoos, yobs and otherwise benighted malcontents assaulting the hallowed principles of academic freedom... or something like that. So news coverage is off the mark too. Finally, it isn't a subject for Hinduism in the United States either, because, again, the root issue is pseudoscholarship (thus, Theorization (and Consequent Pedagogy) of Hinduism in American Universities is more like it), but on WP you can't say that "scholars" in the WP definition are not scholars. Truth gives way to verifiability, and that's why Rajiv Malhotra will eventually be Afd'd. rudra (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify why Hinduism in the United States is not the correct place: that article is mainly about Hindus in the US, and where it isn't that, it's about the reception of Hinduism among the American people (in private and/or public capacities). This is normal, because the article is, properly, about the living reality of Hinduism, manifested in its adherents, in the US. It is not about pseudoscholarly, fashionable, faddish theorizing about Hinduism in "Religious Studies" departments of some American schools, and should not be, because the root issue to be covered is not Hinduism. It's bad scholarship (which happens to have glommed onto Hinduism as the favored toy/accessory for intellectual masturbation.) rudra (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Malhotra's purported "critique" of such, however, is a facet of and a reflection on Hinduism in America. — goethean ॐ 16:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hinduism in America figures only as a potential victim, when academic hubris spills out into the real world. Such as at the Walters Museum. rudra (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That can go without saying --- ideologues always represent purportedly victimized groups...and the more manipulative the ideologue, the stronger the sense of victimization which is necessary. As for the museum which you refer to, the exhibit would be puzzling and odd to me, probably in poor taste, but victimizing? That's difficult for me to sympathize with, perhaps because I lack the necessary sense of resentment towards the world. — goethean ॐ 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

I need to do a wikiproject report for signpost. Are you willing to be interviewed for one on India? I'll focus on project resources and pov pushers. I'll ask others as well (if you say yes). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tempting, but I'll give it a pass for now since my time on wikipedia is likely to fluctuate in the next few weeks and I am "resolved" to stay off meta-discussions for a bit (you can see how well that resolution is working though ;-) ). Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jat people

Do you think a semi-pp would be in order? Dab did a lot of cleanup to remove OR. since then multiple IPs have come back and added back in. Sikh-history and I have been trying to maintain it, but reverting so many times is a bit difficult. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The 16 references appended to the first sentence speak volumes. I have protected it for 3 months - hopefully some of the anon and fly-by users will start using the talkpage. I don't intend to edit the page myself but will be happy to warn/block/protect if disruption continues (just ping me here). Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't intend to really edit it either, just restricting it to reliably sourced content. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound silly, but the editing of the Jat page has gone back and forth far too long. By looking at the other sections of the Jat page, or doing any outside reading of Jats, it's pretty clear that they are of Indo-Scythian descent. They are Indo-Aryan, yes, but descended from Indo-Scythian tribes who did eventually mix with the Indo-Aryans who arrived in India much earlier. There recently was an Indian researcher who was attempting to go to Ukraine to study the origin of Jats, but was denied funding because of unbelieving Indians. There seems to be some Indian obsession with calling oneself Aryan (maybe not just Indian - Hitler was guilty of this too) - I can say this from experience - I'm a Jat who grew up being exposed to the Indo-Aryan proud heritage stuff - once we started picking up academic books about this topic, other Jats were loathe to accept that Jats descended from elsewhere - some didn't want to accept that it isn't just a sub-caste. PR-0927 7:47 P.M. February 3 2010 (EST)

Feel free to discuss this on the article talkpage with accompanying sources. Abecedare (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wise one

DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk · contribs) has been creating a lot of AfDs, but not listing them on the AfD log, I asked nicely, then clearly; I was told he wasn't going to do it, then I asked to follow process or not nominate AfDs, and was told to do my paid job, and I gave a final warning and was asked who my boss is. Now the editor is back to nominating more AfDs without listing them on the logs. Since you're my boss, I figured I'd check with you if this is enough reason to block or it should go to ANI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Will keep an eye and block if he continues. He has received more than enough entreaties and warnings by now. Abecedare (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it helped. The new ones are on the log now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate when block threats are needed to ensure compliance with wikipedia polices and practices, but preventing such disruption is the sole reason for MediaWiki software providing blocking and protection tools. Some of the noms. by the user are ill-considered too, but I guess (hope) that will improve with experience. Abecedare (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, sad that block notices are needed for such issues. As far as the noms, given the recent precedent set by more experienced users, I'm not sure I'd blame the newer ones. —SpacemanSpiff 03:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but by that standard anything is justifiable ;-)

More seriously: I am not sure what to think/assume in this case. At least one of the articles the user nominated for AFD was created by him (Basappa A. Uralegaddi), and most of his nominations are theoretically justifiable (although I suspect many of the Indian author/professor bios will end up being deleted simply because they do not have as prominent an online presence as their US counterparts). Even the kerfuffle regarding the AFD process may have been caused by a misunderstanding of the role of "admins". At this point it may be best to simply assume good faith, unless we have reason not to. Abecedare (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. But this user is doing AfD nominations without reading guidelines. shouldnt he prevented from further nominations?--Sodabottle (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He has moved on to adding {{expand}} and {{notability}} tags, which is at least less disruptive and doesn't need immediate response. What we have here is, I think, a well meaning editor who is unfortunately not familiar with wikipedia policies, practices, and jargon (which is fine), and seems to be unwilling to read the policies and heed the constructive input he has been receiving (which is problematic). Lets see if the disruption resumes or escalates over the next few days, and respond accordingly. In the meantime we should try and ensure that no valuable articles or content is lost dues to our oversight. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I did see that, he was warned nicely by CactusWriter (talk · contribs) who also reverted some of the ridiculous tags. It's getting to be rather disruptive, but I'll ignore for now and do a mass cleanup after everyone else does their bit and he gets bored. He's apparently used other accounts in the past, and he used a previous one Donotask-donottell (talk · contribs) after rename. One prior account of his was Localsales (talk · contribs) according to a post he made. Just doesn't seem to get WP policies and admits to it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Flag of India and Darjeeling

Update? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will review Darjeeling from scratch in the next day, and add my comments at the FARC. Don't know if I'll have time for a comprehensive review of Flag of India, but I'll at least take a look and comment if it's an obvious keep or delist. Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That is my style

I don’t keep after reading or understanding them. Don’t feel sad. Respectfully it has nothing to do with you or anyone who leaves message in my talk page. (I'm not a wiki administrator - I don’t need all those. And I don’t want to store them on my talk page). I do work on wiki as and when I get time. I’m trying to go away from wiki editing. I hate bureaucracy the one I see on wiki – their rules how notability is defined etc. I see lots of bias over there – just my opinion.). --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Asiagh is back as Sihag

Want to take a look at it for G4? Looks like it to me, the only thing missing is the Jutland bit. Editor is also getting all the OR to the Jat people article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

G4ed and warned user for page recreations and slow edit-warring at Jat people. Will block if the disruption continues. Abecedare (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, I wouldn't have caught it if not for the EW. I also retargeted Sehwag to Viru where it was a longstanding redirect until Dec'09. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For future record: seems to be using IPs 117.242.108.63 (talk · contribs), 117.242.108.244 (talk · contribs), 117.242.108.88 (talk · contribs) etc.

(I was going to create the Sehwah -> Viru redirect myself after dealing with the immediate mess ;-) ) Abecedare (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Sihag

Sir, I urge you to delete my account Aryanjat on wikipedia because I'm highly unsatisfied with the admins,,,mods here. I'm new to wiki and was trying to build new articles,and edit existing ones with my concern but whenever I edit or crete new page,,someone or the other revert it or delete it,,,sad thing is this that I was editing and creating pages with valid references...and even after providing references all that was done. So,plz.,with due respect,delete my account on wiki as this is my last visit. Thank you for injustice!! (Aryanjat (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)) Aryanjat (talk) 02:09 IST, 6 February 2010 (UTC)