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)

Radiopathy 1RR

Hello I am only posting this on your talk because I just came from User talk:Radiopathy, where I saw you had posted: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Radiopathy_reported_by_User:Koavf_.28Result:_.29. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I left only a reminder warning since the edits were a bit stale, but it would be useful for another admin to review the situation (especially in light of the ANI thread, which I hadn't seen earlier). Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The AN/I thread is a totally unrelated issue - that's quite a stretch. My complaints are legitimate: User:Koavf is under a community sanction for disruptive, bordering on destructive, editing, and has been blocked 22 times, mostly for - guess what? - edit warring. It is impossible to have a civil exchange with Justin, so I've given up. He taunted me enough times over two days that I had no other choice than to post at AN/I. Apparently, for better or worse, the admins just let us air our grievances without comment. Radiopathy •talk• 07:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could supply some evidence to back up those accusations of yours.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can read the exchange at the AN/I thread. You could also read the community sanction for yourself and look at Koavf's block log to verify that I'm not making this up, After that, you could also unlink "WP:NPA" from the word "accusations" in your previous post. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 08:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Going to remain linked. Your linking to the ANI thread does nothing. You accuse him of spite editing, and then provide no evidence. Just because you think it is in spite doesn't mean it is. Above, you accuse him of taunting you. I see no such diffs. It remains linked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And in case it wasn't obvious, it is linked as an unsubstantiated accusation is a personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Koavf again, again

User:Koavf continues to edit war and "UK troll" at Hollie Steel. Note that we've been given "instructions" on how he wants the article to appear. Notice also that I've put the issue out for consensus. I've reverted Koavf's change pending consensus. Radiopathy •talk• 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He's not the only one edit warring. You were told above by this admin to cease, yet you continue? At 3rr, you said the situation was resolved, but it obviously is not as you continue to edit war.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, you have enough time to edit war, and call this user a troll, and yet, you do not respond to my inquiries above?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy, see my note at Talk:Hollie Steel

Daedalus, please disengage from Radiopathy once you have reported any violations by the user to an admin or an admin board. The back-and-forthe between Radiopathy and you is not productive. Abecedare (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mail,

You have some more.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You got one from me, too. Radiopathy •talk• 03:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are privacy concerns, you both can post here directly instead of using email. An open process is always preferable. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In case he comes back(he's 'retired' about 3 times now), don't you think you should reset the restriction, as he violated it, and 3rr again?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets take it one step at a time. It's best to let passions cool, and then reconsider the issue of his restrictions only once the block expires and the editor can participate in the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Radiopathy

Hello Abecedare. Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... that was not such a useful template. My issue is not with his block, but the length of time. Could we just change this to 24 hours? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to an unblock or shortening because, the user was told at 2:16 UTC and again at 2:46 UTC by two different editors that the edits were not vandalism - and made at least 5 more reverts after that. So the unblock reason is patently false.
As for the length of the block - the user has a long history of edit-warring and was placed at a 1RR restriction last Oct. (IIRC), but has violated it at least half a dozen times since then. The last occasion was 2 days back, when I once more only cautioned the user. Note that the user is in the habit of blanking any warnings and notes from their talkpage (and often adding a {{retired}} tag) so one has to look at their talk page history to reconstruct the complete history; see for example this and this version of the talk page. The user has already served 24 hours, 55 hours and 1 week blocks without any change in behavior (one of those blocks was shortened by me as a show of good faith once the user threatened to retire, but the user broke 3RR once more even before the original block would have expired). Let me know if you need diffs for any of the particular claims. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's reasonable. I wasn't aware of that history, but thought I'd bring my concerns to you. Do you want me to decline? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I would decline, but I'll have no objections if you decide otherwise.

Just dug up two more links: recent thread at 3RR board, and a recent ANI thread. Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Although you have told me to disengage unless reporting, I feel the following should be said at his talk page, in response to his latest reply:

• here(02:16, February 21, 2010 UTC), you are warned at AIV that those edits were not vandalism and were a content dispute. This is the first time you were warned by this admin. The time you refer was the second.
• You reply at AIV, disagreeing with them.(02:40, February 21, 2010 UTC)
• Another revert after the warning and your response as linked above(02:42, February 21, 2010 UTC)
• another revert(02:52, February 21, 2010 UTC)
• another revert(03:00, February 21, 2010 UTC)
• another revert(03:03, February 21, 2010 UTC)

Thank you for your time. I have not said this yet. I also feel that if I point this out, he'll just blank it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daedelus, I think that we are all aware now :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the consensus at ANI enough for the indef 1rr restriction?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe so, but an uninvolved admin will review the discussion, close the thread, and enact any restrictions. I expect someone will stop by in the next 24 hours or so; there is no immediate hurry since Radiopathy is anyways blocked for a few more days. Abecedare (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

a help

Hi, this Photo has been uploaded to commons from english wikipedia by user sundar and points to this as the source. The original uploader's (Kumar Rajendran) details, edit summary and copyright declaration were lost when it was transferred to commons. During GA review of an article, where i used the pic, the reviewer raised questions about who actually owns the copy right. The original uploaded file (with edit summary and copyright declaration) is here. Can you retrieve the information and add it to the commons image?.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The deleted page only contains the template {{PD-self}}. I suspect this means that the photograph belongs to KumarRajendran's family album, since I am pretty sure he is not the photographer. That unfortunately may mean that he is not the copyright-holder (or, at least, that it would be impossible to prove that he is) and thus cannot release it in public domain; a pity since practically speaking the image is unlikely to cause any actual harm on wikipedia.

By the way, a fair use argument for the photograph can perhaps be made for use at M. G. Ramachandran where the 1967 shooting is discussed in some detail. Abecedare (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh Ok. thanks for the help. I will ask him about who actually took the photograph.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sankaracharya sources

What are some good sources for the Sankaracharyas? Wikidas has nominated a few for deletion, and I can't think of many search strings to find the right sources. —SpacemanSpiff 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know any off-hand. The recent ones should have newspaper media articles, but the older ones may be a problem - I am pretty certain sources will exist, but they won't be of the type that are collected in US/UK libraries, and so won't show up on Google Books. Will try and search later today though. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

These are pre-1900 Sankaracharyas, e.g. Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati VII is verified on the Kanchi website [1], but I'm not sure that sources would use the VII and can't figure what's about him vs the others with the same name. And then the article itself talks about VI and not VII!—SpacemanSpiff 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That will have innumerable alternate transliterations! Will try to find sources later today, since my intuition is that all Shankaracharyas of the main mathas are likely to be notable. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

An interesting paper (by an amateur Indologist, yes, but with impeccable credentials, and endorsed by a premier Indology website. Worth following up on, IMHO.) rudra (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Any genealogy/succession list from official Kanchi madam publications should be taken with a pinch of salt. The madam has been accused of fabricating genealogies to trace its lineage back to Adi Shankara. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rudra: Thanks for the link. I haven't ever looked at this topic, so look forward to reading the pdf for my own curiosity.
Sodabottle: Definitely a concern, especially for the early Shankracharyas. The description at kamakoti has to be treated pretty much a matter of faith, rather than a historical account. (e.g, they place Adi Shankara in 6th c BC).
Spaceman: Haven't found anything useful yet besides the kamakoti site. Not much use in having a separate article if all we can say is "... was the 66th Shanakaracharya of the Kanchi Matha". Will keep looking, although search is complicated by the fact that the 68th Shankaracharya who served from 1907-1994 (!) was also named Chandrasekarendra Saraswati. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was my biggest problem (which is why I came to you ;)). BTW, there are also a couple of Sringeri Sankaracharyas at AfD with speedy delete !votes against them. I'll try to search a bit more in Tamil. I do have a book by 68, let me see if I can locate it and if there's some mention of 66 in that. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

May not be directly relevant, but looks like a good source on the topic (see chapter 5 in particular): A Tradition of Teachers: Sankara and Jagadgurus Today. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The kamakoti site is a disaster area, salt by the bucket-load recommended. There doesn't seem to be any attestation of the Kanchi mutt before the 18th CE or so, yet they claim a parampara that goes back a gazillion (2500?) years, with tithis for each and every one of the sankaracaryas: IOW, a tour de force of creative bullshit. (Vidya Sundaresan again, with a useful lead, an Illustrated Weekly of India article of 1987 that may be worth tracking down). rudra (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, an even worse tangle of late. It seems the Times of India has produced a coffee-table glossy buying into the myths, and much to the satisfaction of some partisans. WP:RS and POV issues on the horizon... what fun. rudra (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Kanchi has always been a bit troublesome in many different manners, but shouldn't Sringeri be easier as it is one of the original four? There are two Sringeri Sankaracharyas at AfD too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem here may be that Sringeri has kept a low profile. The less noise you make, the harder you are to find in "reliable sources", WP-style. rudra (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I just checked on those AfDs. What a nuisance, going through a formal AfD process for what should have been no-brainer redirects of stubs with no future. The real issue may be whether the list of Jagadgurus should be a section in the Peetham page or a separate page for convenience. rudra (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And more. It seems that some 30 odd Sringeri Jagadgurus have been stubbed (see Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham), the Chandrasekharas were just the tip of an iceberg. It makes the list on the Jagadguru page look very impressive ("wow, so many blue links!"), indeed :-) This is actually a cleanup project, methinks. rudra (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) The TOI self-publicity is a hoot: "The book is a good mix of text and photographs, making it pleasing to read through even while experiencing spiritual upliftment." ... prose fit for a wikipedia article and I'm sure we'll be seeing it here soon. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wise administrator, this time I come with no question to ask

This time I come with an observation, not a question. Some administrator are very wise, like you. Some are not very wise, at all. Some of these unwise ones frequent WP:ANI. Not all the admininstrators who post there lack wisdom, though.

There have been proposals for desysop. Rather than be punitive, I come to you with a positive idea.

What if there were very strict behavioural criteria written up? If one passes them, then they would receive a special certification good for a certain period of time, maybe 6 months, maybe 1 year. The criteria can be discussed. It could be utmost professionalism, politeness, knowledge, good editorial contributions and/or not engaging in any conflict of interest.

What do you think of the general idea? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Bollywood

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)

I don't know if it'll work but perhaps someone should step in and conduct a straw poll to see what support there is for "English only", "English/Devanagari", and "English/Devanagari/Nastaliq". There has been a lot of talk and I'm not sure if an RfC will clarify things or just make them murkier. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Manusmṛti

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored.

Here is pointwise reply to your comments

Afoul of neutral POV,- Disagree

[As per NPOV policy content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.]

Manusmriti’s most controversial part is discrimination against Women and Shudra, is a significant view (references given on main article).It is been burnt and condemned by different historians and social reformers all over Indai, It is considered source of gender and caste oppression in India which still exist. References published by reliable sources(including preview of online books by famous authors/historians) Section created under controversies and criticism , which indicates good faith in putting this most important controversial part.

NOT including this section or significant view as a part of controversy & repeated deletion of this section/view indicates bias towards showing good an Ad like page, which violates NPOV.

No original research policy not followed: Disagree

It is not an original research. Criticism mentioned can be find out in almost all books written on Manusmariti/Ancient Indian Society, womens, (some references given on main article).

No reliable sourcing:Disagree

References of online Books by famous authors/historians given,books can be read online.

Inappropriate use of primary sources:Disagrree

Only 1 primary source(website) has been mentioned, Other references are published books from famous authors/historians references available on main page.

In the same article if you go back and check some edits about (14:58, 21 December 2005) under section Criticism of Manu Smriti, you will find the same points , now deleted by you, already there. Some people (they are not wikipedians) want to write an Advertisement page on Manusmriti (like a series on Hinduism already mentioned), hiding most controversial parts/views.

Wiki reader shall be given an opportunity to know all about Manusmriti including controversial views Such type of excuses for deletion of content produce biased Ad page not a wiki page. --Jugal (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem adding discussion about Manusmriti's views on women and lower castes. But the way you are going about (by quote-mining the primary text i.e., Manusmriti itself, and randomly adding the first few hits found on a google book search for "manusmriti burnt") is not the way to write an encyclopedic article. We can discuss the finer points on the article talk page if you wish. Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You deleted text again. All type of references given , you some time showing either primary sources or burning , thats why u missing other references.--Jugal (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure what you meant in your last comment. Anyway, if you wish to discuss specific issues about the article content, it may be best to do so on the article talkpage. Also, the best way to contribute to the article would be to look at what various books/articles dedicated to the subject (you can find some listed in the Reference section) say about Manusmriti and then summarize their content. Simply mining google books to find support for what one already wants to include is not a good way to write an encyclopedic or balanced article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Propaganda Machine, Whatever Manu wrote became history, along with all criticism raised by people thorugh all means & Shudra, women.You can not revert or undo History , but i do not know how many people are going to beleive this wiki article only.What about other sources.Wiki loses its credibility because of people like you.India already lost everything because of ur ancecstors and became a 3rd world ctr. --Jugal (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This user working as Propaganda Machine on Hinduism , preparing Ad like did in Manusmarti article

By using another account same user reverting edits , removing views , reliable references.You can varify by last two edits 18:27, 25 February 2010, 18:27, 25 February 2010, .These edits made by same user by two diffrent account(see talk page on both user) --Jugal (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dharmasastra: A Literary History

According to the biblio at Manusmriti (and a number of other pages) this is a book by Patrick Olivelle.

• This seems to corroborate existence (at some point in/after 2008), not of a book, but of an article in a book.
• However even the Library of Congress draws a blank on that book.
• Google Books draws a blank.
• Google Scholar draws a blank.
• And Google Search has succumbed to wikiality.
• Meanwhile, the reference was introduced by this edit.
• And roughly at the same time it was in this page creation by another editor, who has/had a short but interesting edit history.

Which, to say the least, is odd. How did more than one editor back in late 2008 know of and cite a book/article/whatever by a well-known scholar that seems untraceable since? rudra (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Let me look around to get an idea for myself if this is just a made up citation, or an incomplete citation. Will get back in a few minutes. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think I know what happened: Firstly, unless I am gravely mistaken, User:Jcwent is on the up-and-up. During that time when he was editing there was a course project of UW-Madison students taking a class on Hindu Law (IIRC), who were being guided by their professor in editing wikipedia pages. I had interacted with a few of them (see this), and they did a good bit in making a few wikipedia articles in the area encyclopedic. I can imagine that the students had access to a pre-print version of the Cambridge Handbook of Law and Hinduism, ed. T. Lubin and D. Davis, which has either still not been published, or was published under a different title. Of course if the book remains unpublished, we may need to remove it, but I'd tend to trust material added by that group of editors. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for solving the mystery:-) The problem is that without knowing the reference, copy-edits become problematic, as it isn't possible to check what exactly the reference says and does not say. This is mainly in the context of Manusmriti, which is in poor shape (even without the current assault on it by a True Believer). The Hindu law article, OTOH, is quite good (the C rating is inscrutable). rudra (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Donald R. Davis, Jr. was probably the class instructor, and a co-editor of the book (along with Timothy Lubin. It seems to have been retitled, Law and Hinduism: An Introduction and still seems to be in the process of being published. I haven't checked to see what exactly it is being used to cite in the Manusmriti article, but we should try to find an alternate citation if possible, or just cull the content if the claim seems dubious. Agree on the article poor; haven't worked on it before, and only took a look when I saw the mass quotes in it. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another ref to the book's potential existence. The CUP site doesn't have anything on it (not even forthcoming, no T. Lubin among authors). This is mildly annoying: clearly there is a book, we just don't know its title or its publisher! rudra (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

regarding 8800 verse claim in "jaya"

thanks for giving that source,i think now rudra may give a neutral veiw

• Here,The question is not to take any reference from any secondry sources,but it is to take a reference from reliable and authentic source,the source here mentioned by rudra is very old and not so much appresiable.you can easly see that author used a old critical version of mahabharata in 1967,because at that time not so much research had been done on mahabharata.if you see new version published after doing a lot of research by bhandarkar institute poona on behalf of which old version Gupta and Ramachandran gave that statement.bhandarker institute removed that verse because it was not present in the most of manuscripts they found.i think you are well aware of bhandarkar institute poona,because most of world scholar use this version as a mahabharata reference.

• it will be preferable to use new research or article to show that claim,because no reknowned scholars like michael witzel have given such type of statement.so i will prefer you to use a secondry source from authentic and reknowned scholars,However i You want to keep this claim further in mahabharata article,then mention it seperately,because it contradicts with the statement that is given in 2nd paragraph of wikipeda mahabharat article,where it is claimed as 24000 verse as a intial version

--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)

It's a bit more complicated than that, and weasel words like "some" are not an answer anyway (see WP:WEASEL). As I wrote on the Talk:Mahabharata page, there are three issues that need to be untangled. Right now it looks like that the 8800 number is in (serious) doubt. This is distinct from whether there was a "Jaya" version at all (of unknown size), and from how many redactions have been detected in the text by scholars. rudra (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Replied on article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat this right now (since the discussion has been constructive) but I do think our IP friend has had at least one account recently ;-) rudra (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My curiosity is piqued (surely not Mkbdce (talk · contribs) ?!) but I agree that the discussion, though a bit wordy, is constructive (unlike at Manusmriti) and so there is not much point worrying about account identities. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Abecedare! i finally got source which contradicts 8800 verse claim,see Brockington contradicts it in his article