User talk:Abecedare

.

File:Yudhisthira.jpg

Not sure about this, so seeking your opinion. How do we deal with CC images with creator's name on it like File:Yudhisthira.jpg? I have removed it for now, since it looks encyclopedic; Also another problem with the image is that, it could be anyone, and its advisable to settle with some museum's historic image. Any thoughts on this? Also, off late astrologers have started to make some awesome predictions --TheMandarin (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Though definitely good faithed, I see similar problems originating from the same creator, for ex File:Kasmira.jpg, without a valid RS on which it is based, its hard to establish the authenticity. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that images like File:Yudhisthira.jpg are inappropriate for wikipedia unless the watermark is removed (see, WP:WATERMARK) and the editor can point to some evidence that the depiction is faithful to some historic iconographic style (of course, having actual historic images is preferable). Ditto, for the map: it fails verifiability unless someone points to a map, or least a detailed textual description, of the geography. Wikipedia allows for some commonsensical leeway on what images are acceptable; for example, if I personally take a photograph of Sachin Tendulkar or Lotus temple, I would not be expected to provide a reliable source establishing that the images depicted the claimed person, or object. However, this does not apply to the type of images you cite, since there is no "obvious" method for us to verify their faithfulness, and the burden for doing so lies with the uploader.

I'll add a {{cn}} tag to the inclusion of the map on the Kasmira Kingdom, and it can be removed if no sources are forthcoming. Aside: if the images are not included in any article, it may not be worth bothering to get them deleted from wikipedia, but a source is necessary before they can be shown to wikipedia readers. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus969 edit warring at George Harrison again

Daedalus969 continues to revert to his preferred version, claiming that MoS says that the "first mention" of a country should be spelt out; however, this only applies to the article body, not the infobox, where brevity is preferrable. Radiopathy •talk• 02:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy has long edit warred over whether or not to include the full name of the country in the infobox, he claims the MOS doesn't apply to the infobox, other editors (including myself) disagree. Isn't Radiopathy under a 1RR restriction? These two edits [1] [2] today seem to show he's edit warring on that article, which ironically is what he accuses Daedalus969 of doing above. Dayewalker (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not edit warring when you do it? Radiopathy •talk• 13:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove my comments [3]. And what edit warring are you talking about? Dayewalker (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I have left my comments on Radiopathy's [4]. Let me know if you notice a repetition of the reported behavior. Abecedare (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussions here and here. Until a clear precedent or actual policy is set, any alteration to any Britain-related article by Daedalus969, Dayewalker or Koavf should be considered disruptive and should be dealt with appropriately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiopathy (talk • contribs)

You shouldn't be the one handing out orders when you are clearly involved in the matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy: I am glad that you are discussing the issue on the talk and project pages. That is the right way to get firm consensus on the style issue; edit-warring instead is simply ineffective. If you have any specific issue with Daedelus et al's edits, feel free to bring it up at ANI or the appropriate forum. If it is simply a matter of a few specific diffs I can provide you with my input, but if it involves a more nebulous or longer term issue, I may not be able to to examine it in detail at present and you'll be better off at the general fora.

Daedalus: To prevent distracting escalation, it would be best if Radiopathy and you don't respond to each other's comments or address the other, except when it is directly related to content. Abecedare (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So be it. So instead of saying anything to him, I'll just post to you this link, and go on about other things I've been doing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Koavf

Look at this and feel free to give an opinion. Radiopathy •talk• 04:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you were pointing to. I see that Koavf reverted your latest edit, which is not what I would encourage him to do, but since, unlike you, he is not under a 1RR restriction it doesn't merit a block. When you return to wikipedia at the end of current block ends, you are welcome to request the community at ANI to consider a 1RR or other restrictions on other involved editors (I haven't examined their editing history in sufficient detail to have an opinion on whether any such restriction is needed). In any case, Koavf's and other's editing do not in any way condone your violations and disruptions. Abecedare (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hemant Karkare

Hi. A WP:SPA has been adding conspiracy theories to that article again[5]. Just thought i'd let you know. Thanks for your attention.117.194.199.225 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the edit and letting me know. I too will keep an eye on the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism

Hi! I have known your work on Wikipedia since a very long time. I desperately need your views and involvement in this article. User:Sinneed and User:Profitoftruth have been undoing my edits (ignore the removal of the POV template that was put up in between a revert; I don't dispute that) for no good reason.

Please evaluate my edit and tell me where I have wronged? I have explained my stand on Talk:Sikh extremism. But User:Sinneed is adamant to remove the incident on Ujjal Dosanjh and if you go through the page history he displays signs of WP:OWNership of the article.

Regards, --59.182.35.235 (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My internet connection is flaky today, but I'll try to take a look at the dispute in the next 5-6 hours (unless the internet problem persists; have my fingers crossed!). In the meantime I'd recommend that you and others not edit-war over the edit, since that is a very ineffective strategy to get ones edits to stick. More later. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My 2c: it is legitimate to mention the 1985 attacks and (less persuasively) the 2010 threats against Ujjal Dosanjh, but it should be done concisely. No need to go into the exact injuries and number of stitches he received; all that can be included in the Ujjal Dosanjh page. As it stands, the space devoted to the (relatively minor) Dosanjh incidents is equal to/greater than the Kanishka bombing, which is plain ridiculous. The article on the whole is in horrible shape:

1. It suffers gravely from recentism. How else can one explain the undue length of the 1990s and 2000s section relative to the short shrift given to the 1980s, which were the heydays of Sikh extremism in service of the Khalistan movement.
2. No mention of Indira Gandhi assassination (while we are discussing mere Facebook threats against a Candadian MP)!
3. The article is not only poorly focused, but also it's scope is ill-defined. I would argue that only those violent acts undertaken in the name of protecting/advancing Sikh religion or Sikh people should qualify as Sikh extremism. Merely being a Sikh is not enough (imagine, for example, regarding almost every violent criminal in US/Europe as a Christian extremism - wouldn't fly for a second). Thus IMO Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh etc are not within the scope of the page.

Sorry for going beyond your original query - but it is disappointing to see poorly developed articles on wikipedia, even though its length suggests that considerable effort has been devoted to its writing. (I'll copy part of my comments to the article talkpage; hopefully involved editors will give them some consideration). Abecedare (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Its always nice to have your views! You are right, the article is in bad shape and disorganized. Now I don't feel like touching it!! All I wanted was some expert opinion on its talk page to direct editors - on how to improve it by pointing out the flaws. Regards, --59.182.21.93 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't intend to drive editors away from the article. Look at this way: the poor quality of an article means that there are many obvious ways to improve it, and one need not have an in-depth knowledge of the subject in order to make substantial contributions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No its not because of you. I just dont want to get in the muddle.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947‎

Does this make sense? --RegentsPark (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Will check sources and get back (may be a few hours; connection keeps timing out). Abecedare (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick opinion: The Azad Kashmir bit at least looks like unjustified POV pushing. Firstly Kashmir, under Hari Singh, had formally acceded to India before the war, and so could not be a distinct participant in the war. Secondly, afaik Azad Kashmir itself came into existence in 1949 after the war ended, the UN dealing was over etc. Thirdly, it can be argued that since Azad Kashmir is not widely recognized as a sovereign entity, it cannot be a independent warring party anyway - but this point is moot as far as the 1947 war is concerned.

Still need to verify the casualty figures... Abecedare (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It didn't sound likely that Azad Kashmir would be an independent belligerent, even had it existed at that time, but always helps to get a (good!) second opinion.--RegentsPark (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Some revisions to my quick comment above:

• The war started around Oct 21, while Kashmir acceded to India on Oct 26th. So it can be regarded as a independent participant for those few days (whether this is worth mentioning in the infobox is another question).
• I take back my third point about only sovereign entities being regarded as warring parties, because there are several exceptions. For example, Bangladesh Liberation War lists Mukti Bahini (and it would be quite silly to regard that as a purely Indo-Pak war); Sri Lankan Civil War lists LTTE and IPKF; 1948 Arab–Israeli War lists a few non-state actors etc. So if the "tribal forces" that rose against Hari Singh's/Indian army had a unified and recognized identity, their inclusion in the infobox could be justified. However, most sources I have seen refer to them simply by amorphous descriptors, such as "tribals", "Pathan tribesmen" etc. and Azad Kashmir seems to be post hoc nomenclature. So I'd still argue for keeping Azad Kashmir out of the infobox, but my argument has developed from before.
• Onwar.com is just a single-person hobbyist website (see Q4 in the FAQ). I could not find any information about the author/editor/publisher Ralph Zuljan that would indicate that he is a recognized expert in military history, let alone a specialist in South Asian wars, and the source should not be regarded as reliable on wikipedia. (It is revealing that User:Who ever I am2 revised the Indian casualty figures from 1104 to 3000 based upon this website, but ignored the higher casualty figures of 5,000 that the site claims for Pakistan. Perhaps regular editors in the Indo-Pak are will recognize the sock-master.). Don't know if and what is the consensus estimate for the Indian and Pakistani casualties, but it is safe to revert the edit for now.

Abecedare (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edits of the editor in question, I suspect a POV warrior of note. I'm no expert on socks, but if you have any idea which drawer to look in ....! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, certainly a sock, but not being very active in the Indo-Pak area I cannot be confident of the master (I know User:Nangparbat for one shares similar POV). User:YellowMonkey, User:Nishkid or User:Elockid have greater experience in sock-hunting in this area, and of course, Spaceman is a walking-talking sock database. Abecedare (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop a note on ym and spiff's pages. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

hello question

i was curiosu when it comes to the India article, or an article in general, is there one person who is in charge of that artciile and / or is there one person in charge of an article in general? Suppose an article cant be editited anymore, who decides, and who has the power to edit the article then? If it cant be editited anymore? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No editors are accorded special privileges in deciding an article's content. But that does not mean that we do not discriminate on the basis of content or contributions. And if an editor repeatedly makes the same point, long after it has been explained why it is incorrect or irrelevant, their posts are likely to be eventually ignored or even expunged. That is what is happening with your contributions to Talk:India, given your long history of "ancient Aryan" POV pushing and disruption at the page. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)