User talk:SpacemanSpiff

Click here to leave me a message.

I'm currently evaluating my participation in the English Wikipedia and am therefore not likely to be very active or respond to messages in a timely manner. While editing Wikipedia is a hobby, it has become an increasingly frustrating one. I don't think my expectations of an encyclopaedia match with that of the community. There will always be issues with large projects such as this but at present there are a few points that highlight the chasm between the two lines of thought. Primarily, the creation of good encyclopaedic content seems to have taken a backseat. Secondly, the Foundation's attitude towards content development in the project, especially that of publicly taking sides in disputes etc, has in the process disrupted an already fragile ecosystem here. Over the past few months I haven't been as active as I was earlier, but every time I come back I see examples of why it's no longer enjoyable -- blocks of excellent editors, a resistance to handle POV pushing effectively and such.

Note: I've been quoted in certain places as having threatened to quit en.wiki because of an incident -- probably because of the note above in conjunction with my voicing an opinion on said incident; however, I'd just like to clarify that it is most definitely not the case, my frustration and evaluation of my participation predates that incident and is not in any way driven by it.

Article claiming these are real people, other sources call them deities

See Dhani Matang Dev, Mamaidev and other articles by the same editor. Then see [1] [2] - other searches with variant spelling also. Then [3] which says at the bottom "The above article is written on the basis of facts narrated in Barmati Panth religious discourses known as ‘Genan’." And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barmati Panth. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: I'll take a look in a couple of hours, but this particular one is unlikely to have much of academic literature as it wasn't a sect or religion for the "elite". I'll see what I can dig up though. @Abecedare: is back now, and perhaps this might get him back to editing in that space. —SpacemanSpiff 12:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, posted to him. Just found[4]. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of promotional edits, Talk:Islamic Call & Guidance Foundation. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick search, found this reference, which offers useful definitions/background information:

The Barmati Panthis - who often prefer to be called Maheshwaris because of their devotion to God Siv-today form a Hindu sect affiliated to the vast movement of Santism specific to Saurashtra and Kutch. They belong to the Meghwar Dalit caste of Kutch nnd Lower Sindh... The Brirmati Panthis worship their founder saint and his descendants as incarnations of God. They are Matangdev, Lurangdev, Mataidev, and Mamaidev.

So the subject is worthy of and amenable to encyclopedic coverage, although given the small amount of reliably sourced material we are likely to have at this point, it may be best to cover the terrain in one main article, with the others being redirects. I'll try to expand Barmati Panth based on the above source this weekend. Abecedare (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are serious copyvio issues with a number of this editor's articles - besides some of them being promotional. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio is par for the course in such areas that attract editors more "devoted" to the religion/sect/caste, and less devoted to wikipedia's persnickety requirements of V, RS, NPOV, Copyright, etc. I'll leave the copyvio handling (blocks, article/revision deletions etc) to Spiff and you, and your fancy tools. :) Abecedare (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I noticed that Dougweller had already located the source that I found. The essay title and most of its content refers to Panthis (ie followers of the sect) much more often that Panth (the sect itself), which explains why the above quoted part was missed by your search. Abecedare (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any comments on Beg Khan - I think this is confusion - it's two titles, surely? I've also taken some empty cats for deletion, others when the template is deleted. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 28. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beg Khan (both the title and the article) seems to be essentially a concatenation of the (ledes from) Baig and Khan, without any additional useful content. But instead of an AFD, it may be best/simplest to convert it to a a disambiguation page for persons using "Beg Khan" as part of their name/title. Let me try that and see if it meets any resistance... Abecedare (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this version. Can you check if it needs further clean-up especially with regards to the included templates and cats (during my wikibreak, I happily forgot all the minutiae regarding what cats are needed and/or allowed in dismabiguation pages :) ). Abecedare (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_{* In response to Abecedare's edit summary, this seems to be one of the better uses of my talk page as it involves article content and not socks, so I am rather thrilled! —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

Lol! I know what you mean. Thanks Abecedare, much better than just sending it to AfD. I'll try to figure out the little bits. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reema returns

Fancy nipping back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Reema_Welling? She's active again and it is blatant. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, that was quick. Are you wearing that hat with a blue flashing light on it? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on my watchlist before your post here, so I took care of business then. —SpacemanSpiff 20:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some similarity with Akshata Sen. I stopped doing an SPI for that as sleeper checks were declined -- there really is no point in cleaning this mess if you can't figure out who to clean up after. —SpacemanSpiff 20:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that sweeps are necessary even when the sock is obvious then I certainly agree when it comes to situations such as this one. My bet is that AGK is in a minority there.

Sen seemed to be creating hoaxes etc, whereas Reema's problem is mostly promo and notability. But tell me, how do you remember all these gems from 2 years ago and more? You must have an amazing memory - I couldn't even remember Reema's name from earlier this year until I checked my watchlist for an archived SPI. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this reema her i have got to know that someone is miss using name as my account is blocked since Jan 2013... i am not able to edit... nor create account i have no issues as at that point of time i was new to wikipedia... now that sweetsamaria2 is blamming me for the same i have no other id... so i would i like to suggest that as sweetsamaria2 has called me and abused me so i have taken certain action her.. so please u, sitush are right person to guide me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.41.232 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you are not able to create an account or edit is because of your past behavior here. You have consistently engaged in disruptive behavior. If something as changed you'll need to request an unblock from your original account explaining why you will not engage in the same behavior and how you will edit differently. —SpacemanSpiff 13:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good morning as i was new to Wikipedia i didn't knew many thing i thought that people are bully as we face few problem in the page before i never new that sitush and u or any other were in administration... so it was like we planned to take legal action so later on we came to know from concerned person that u guys are in admin... but then i was busy with work... later i got to know about it... the time you wrote Reema returns it actually sound like mummy returns... please guide and help me... for the same... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.41.32 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user:beypeople

Mr. Spiff please not delete my pages i am give most of references like Moazzam Mirza page, pleace... Please , no delete„ please Mr. spiff... ~~User:Beypeople 11:37AM (UTC), Sun 29 September 2013~~

Our articles have to pass our notability guidelines and should be verifiable through reliable sources, the blogs etc that you keep adding don't satisfy that. I would suggest that you take a break from creating or editing articles and read through our policies. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man!... but Our 1only ref for watercolor site in Moazzam Mirzas bio... But short bio... So why reject this link....~~User:Beypeople 12:25PM (UTC), 30 September 2013~~

Shraddha Kapoor age issues!

Thank You, for you message. The two references i added was from national newspapers, and was recently interviewed by Shraddha Kapoor, Her age indicates 24-year old, don't you think it's quite a creditable sources.

Archana Ramdonee 19:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a source for age, not for her birthday. They are two separate things. You can say that in September 2013 she was 24 years old as part of a sentence, but you can't say that she was born on dd-mmm-yyyy based on that because you found a non-RS source that asserted her birthday was such. —SpacemanSpiff 19:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shraddha Kapoor - Date of Birth

This is the actress's Official Page on Twitter - https://twitter.com/ShraddhaKapoor

I cannot imagine a more credible source than the actress herself! She received all her Birthday wishes on March 2. Furthermore, the age of the actress as confirmed by The Times of India (the largest newspaper in the world), India Today (leading national magazine), Cosmopolitan (global brand) and leading national news channels NDTV, CNN-IBN & ZeeNews, among countless other sources, is 24. I used fresh references that aren't even a day old.

--Xmisstree (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another who is this?

Bookishness: Jumping into Partition of India and warning other editors of arbcom sanctions, within a day of account creation. Abecedare (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Crème3.14159, but apparently unrelated per technical evidence (currently). If he has issued the arbcom sanctions warning, I'm assuming he's been warned too? —SpacemanSpiff 02:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Op-ed: Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership

Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more

News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities

Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia

Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war

WikiProject report: U2 Too

Nirmal Baba

Don't know how & when this article got on my watchlist, but recently it has been a target from POV pushers on either extremes, makings edits like this vs this. So can you and some of your page-watchers add the article to your watchlists, and/or semi-protect it? Btw, I am not interested enough in the subject to have read and verified the current version of the article, so if someone undertakes to do that, that would be a bonus! Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, one of the extremes qualifies as BLP vios, so I'm protecting. The other extreme reeks of COI/NPOV issues. While I'm watchlisting, I'm not going to be available much over the next 10-12 days as we have guests, so I'm alerting @Dougweller: as he is very fond of such articles. —SpacemanSpiff 04:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic much? Anyway, on my watchlist. Which somehow led me to Payagpur - is my new lead right? I removed the bit about its king as badly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, it is one of few such articles that I haven't seen your thumbprint on before I visited, so you can't blame me :) —SpacemanSpiff 16:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletion of Image ShivamPatil.jpg from the page "Shivam Patil "

Why was the image removed by you from that specific article ? It was not a copyright violation . Check this - http://www.flickr.com/photos/92400734@N04/10132111193/

A mail has been sent to Wiki regarding the grant of permission . I can even produce evidence of the mail being sent .

And what makes you think that it is persistent sock puppetry ?

Also see this link -https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ShivamPatil.jpg

A message has been displayed saying that " This image was originally posted to Flickr by PrakharGupta_Lucknow at http://flickr.com/photos/92400734@N04/10132111193. It was reviewed on 7 October 2013 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. "

According to wiki rules of uploading a flicker image under cc-by 2.0 is accepted . Please do not nominate for deletion from commons. It is not a copyright violation. Please review my request .

Regards Hungama.com (RevengeTimeComes (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad if you leave a reply and help me out . Please . Regards . (RevengeTimeComes (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

You deserve this for your consistent great work on significant contribution to articles related to India :)

Regards .

Hungama.com (RevengTimeComes) RevengeTimeComes (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock

Hi SpacemanSpiff, just so you know, here's another sock. Thanks - this kind of thing must feel a bit discouraging sometimes, but your work is very much appreciated. --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is a real mess as there's a copyvio aspect which is how I got to blocking the early socks. —SpacemanSpiff 16:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]