User talk:Abecedare/Archive 21

Sockpuppet?

Your edit here stated possible sockpuppet. A "new user" has started restoring the same outdated and unreliable sources to the article, Portuguese conquest of Goa. Would you care to take a look? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Looks like Mughal Lohar. Pinging @SpacemanSpiff: to see if an SPI is required or if the account can be indeffed directly. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thank you! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a duck block should be fine but an SPI may be needed if he starts using another account -- I think in the past he's created multiple accounts in one go for sequential use, but I could be confusing that with someone else. Alamgir II and Third Battle of Panipat are giveaways as they are two of his favorite articles. Also, some sort of clean up behind the IPs is required too, as well as protection. I don't have time right now to do either, but I see that @Drmies: has blocked the account currently, so if any protections are needed either he or I could do it later. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• The third or fourth IP in that Goa article overlapped on another article with the now-blocked account, if I remember correctly. An SPI may well be worth it, if only to archive the IPs and their interests. Spiff, I'm making Tres Leches cake, and Mrs. Drmies whipped up some curry-flavored hummus. Come by for swimmies and snacks, if you like. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like I missed the lovely food Drmies but it appears that we're being served Mughlai cuisine by the sockmaster here. —SpacemanSpiff 06:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the entire list, but I'll have Korma for lunch, please. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If only I knew there was such a feast on offer, I would have been here sooner!

Btw, not reporting DurChalen123 at SPI for now since the master would have probably moved onto another account by now (which in the past SPI have have not helped locate). For the record, 182.182 (Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan) is a known Mughal Lohar IP range since at least 2011, so will be a DUCK case if they ever start reusing this account. Abecedare (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• @SpacemanSpiff and Drmies: Back as 182.182.87.195. Should we continue playing whack-a-mole, or is there a better solution to this LTA? Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, sure. Murder. Jimbo's traveling hit squad. Semi-protection all over the place. Edit filters. In short, probably not. Spiff, are these edits bad? The best thing is always to improve articles irreparably, but this is well outside of my field... Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

On the first: alas. On the second question: A couple of months back I had looked at and dicussed the edits of a bunch of the Mughal Lohar socks (before I had realized that they were socks) and found that the user's edits are despite appearances:

• Usually WP:OR supplemented with random gbook/web refs added to make them look legitimate; some of the OR has persisted so long that we now find circular refs on the topic; and
• invariably tilted to make the Mughal kings look benevolent and great, and their rivals corrupt and weak. Of course, there are rival camp of editors intent on portraying Shivaji, Hemu or Rajput kings as the great HINDU saviors protecting India from the foreign Muslim scourge... which makes improving the Maratha-related articles a task that not even User:Sitush would attempt. :)

Guess WP:RBI it is. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but a fair bit of protection should also be done except the two above as they can be used to id the socks. Most of these pages don't get any edits except for ML or Sridhar Babu anyway. —SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: To give an example of the two issues: This edit includes text copied from the Pindari page (the copying is obvious since even the refname "autogenerated340" was copied), but while that wikipedia page says, They were composed of different tribes who congregated solely for purposes of plunder., the new text citing the same source is, They were composed of different villagers who congregated solely for purposes of plunder, rape, arson and are known to have committed communal acts of genocide where I have underlined the added text, which is not in the original 1879 source (which shouldn't be used as a reference in the first place!) Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Just filed an SPI and then noticed your block of the user (any reason it is for edit-warring and for a week, instead of for socking and indef?). In any case, y'all are welcome to comment there. Btw, see this edit by user. It's not just a duck quacking, but babelfish translating the quack as "Hi! I am Mughal Lohar" :-) Abecedare (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted that same edit over there while you posted here. It's a duck by me, but just wanted to get confirmation from someone else since it's been ages since I've done blocks on/protections due to this farm. —SpacemanSpiff 23:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• He's back, I've reverted some articles, blocked the newest IP and protected a few. If you or Kansas Bear can take a look at the rest, it'd be good. —SpacemanSpiff 12:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You got all of the 182.182.45.212 (talk · contribs) and 182.182.68.247 (talk · contribs) edits. Were there any other IPs used today? Abecedare (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Not today, but there could've been yesterday or the day before. I've kept Alamgir open as that's a common point of entry, and should help in identifying. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Checking the contributions for the 182.181.0.0/16 range shows that the prvious two IPs used were 182.182.29.136 (talk · contribs) and 182.182.87.195 (talk · contribs). The latter needs some reverting, which I'll attend to. Abecedare (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Done (left a couple non-controversial edits untouched). Btw, while I was on the fence before, this sequence of edits (which matched similar edits at other pages), have convinced me that 119.160.116.131 (talk · contribs) is also Mughal Lohar, using his mobile phone. Worth noting for spotting future socks. Abecedare (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is why it took me so long to do that article, I had to waste some time checking individual contributions from that IP to see if there was a pattern match. —SpacemanSpiff 14:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it is difficult to determine what version to even revert to since though an article edit-history may show numerous contributors, they all turn out to be Mughal Lohar socks. Case in point: Muqarrab Khan, where all substantive contributions are by the guy, and while the article cites some ostensibly reliable sources, as I have found previously with ML's edits, that means nothing. User:Sitush, care to take a look? Abecedare (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, can you take a look at Harappan language? There was some constant copyvio of a Current Science paper into the article and some repeated changes to sourced content of opposite of what the sources say. I've cleaned out the copyvio and blocked the editor, but I think it's an ignored article with no regular editors going there, and not in my reading area either. I've left the link to the paper on the talk page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted Harappan language. I have some only very high level knowledge of Indus language and script, and based on that the current version of the article does not raise any obvious redflags for me (which does not mean that it is correct or complete though). The Current Science paper on the other hand, though published in a normally RS periodical (though not specializing in this area), is very much fringe. The claim that the Indus script is linked to Dravidian scripts itself is a minority view, based essentially on geographical closeness, which has neither been verified nor definitively debunked (that is basically the case for all theories of Indus script), but Clyde Winters (who seems to mainly self-publish online and through Lulu) starts from there and adds heavy doses of Afrocentric pseudo-history to it. The paper is not worth citing, let alone basing the article on. Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to start with the Khan article. There appear to be several people who bore that name, all of them seemingly notable for single events. I've noticed this before but never made the ML connection. Perhaps with some digging there might be good cause to create List of Mughal commanders, which includes a field for their main claim to fame, and redirect a lot of articles to that. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Richards only mentions him briefly as a Golconda turned Mughal nobleman. Not sure if there is enough material to deserve an article. Not sure of a redirect target either. Is there any source that discusses Mughal commanders as a category? Else, I am afraid it will become another dumping ground for OR. Abecedare (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: PiedPiperofAgra321 duck or case for SPI? Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it, but no Alamgir, freshly created account though. My eyes are still hurting from the Tobias Conradi mess, so I'll take a better look in a day or so if you or the absent RegentsPark don't beat me to it.—SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I am being (perhaps overly) cautious in using my admin tools here since I once had a content discussion with two of the socks at Talk:Flag of the Mughal Empire, before I even knew of the existence of Mughal Lohar. But perhaps that is a too officious interpretation of WP:INVOLVED given that the issue is persistence sockpuppetry and not any particular content dispute, and overwhelmingly involves articles that I have never otherwise edited. Will give it some more thought, but in the meantime will lean on you and others admins who recognize the sockmasters patterns. Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Can you block Upsy777 (talk · contribs) and speedy Later Mughal-Maratha Wars (1728-1763)? Article was previously created by another sock 468SM (talk · contribs), and only been really edited by another IP sock. For the record, latest IP socks are 182.182.107.117 (talk · contribs) and 182.182.75.176 (talk · contribs) (already reverted; don't know if worth blocking). Abecedare (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And now at 182.182.116.202 (talk · contribs). Abecedare (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've protected a few more pages, and watchlisted Upsy777 for now. —SpacemanSpiff 04:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, back at 182.182.116.202 (talk · contribs) and 182.182.21.43 (talk · contribs); will revert next time I have a bit of ime, unless someone beats me to it. Abecedare (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Perfect timing on User:Hinono134. I was considering filing an SPI report (didn't want user chalking up 100s of more edits that would then need to be reverted). Saved me the effort. Now lets see if the user even uses the commons account they created on en.wiki. Abecedare (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've filed the SPI since there's at least two likely socks active. On a cursory look new protections didn't seem necessary, but we might have to evaluate it again I think. —SpacemanSpiff 05:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark: Block needed in sector Chince666. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and protected a few more articles based on frequency. I think the protections are having an impact as he's having to slow down on a lot of the stuff. —SpacemanSpiff 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and yup. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Marchoctober ANI

Damn! I got an edit conflict then saw you closed the discussion about Ricky's alleged ethnic slur. Here's what I was going to say (not that it matters, but if I just hit "cancel" I'll feel unfulfilled...)

Comment There is no merit to Marchoctober's claim that Ricky81682 issued an ethnic slur. His comments were a direct observation of the behavior being employed by other users, who were bent on promoting Telugu over any other language. Pradeeps369 wrote: People please give due credit to Telugu and stop being cheap and taking the credit for the work that has nothing to do with Tamil. That sounds like cultural pride to me. I made an observation similar to Ricky's: Give credit to whom? A language? An ethnicity? We don't give film credits to languages or ethnicities. Marchoctober also seems to be forum shopping for admins sympathetic to his arguments. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun on closing the ANI. Could you add your comment to the archived discussion since I had not directly address the charge of "ethnic slurs" at ANI (had done so at March's talkpage earlier, before I even knew of the ANI report, and reached the same conclusion as you)? It would be good to have it for the record. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

JoesphBarbaro

Hi Abecedare, re: my recent block of JoesphBarbaro and your recent talk page revocation, you might want to see this angry diatribe I just saw at Commons. If you care about the context, the user is a hothead who has a POV that The Tom & Jerry Show (2014 TV series) has ended. He got into a mini-editing war about this several weeks back, then he came to my talk page looking for advice. I explained that he should wait until one full year had elapsed with no new episodes airing, at which point, he could change |last_aired= in the infobox only to the literal date the series "last aired". (I emphasized with italics in my original post that he could only change the value in the the infobox.)

He waited, and made the changes, but he also changed the prose here and here to say the series was over. I reverted that second edit with the comment "You are about one revert away from being blocked. This has been explained to you in detail." I left a warning on his talk page. His reply on my talk page was very cavalier: "How foolish are you?" and "save the empty threats of blocking me." He taunted, "how could you didn't revert the same thing at the List of The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) episodes? Oh wait, let me guess..." So, I went to that article and removed the statement that the series had ended. He reverted that. So at that point he'd crossed the "one more revert" line with me. He backpedaled, but by then I'd already gotten the revert notification and was clicking the "block" buttons. I'm curious to know if you think I should have done something differently. Thanks, and sorry for the drama, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

While it would perhaps be preferable for someone who had not been a regular editor of The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) to have issued the block, the bottomline is that the block itself was certainly justified, esp. given the sincere effort you made to explain the issue to the user. I had the user's talk-page on my watchist due to this SPI report and responded only to their edit-summaries following the block. Their earlier posts to your talk-page and your commons-page however suggest that this was not just a instantaneous and exceptional reaction to being blocked, and if such a behavior resumes once the current block expires longer/indef blocks would be justified. I'll drop a note for User_talk:JoesphBarbaro so that they are clear about the stakes, and can decide if and how they want to contribute to wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback tremendously. Thanks. I'm not sure how I can administrate articles that I don't edit, save to only act on AIV/ANI/SPI matters. Unrelated, look, I'm a punk-ass swine admin. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, as WP:INVOLVED also says, simply making a few gnomish edits or reverting vandalism on an article, does not prevent you from using your admin tools on a page.

As for admin work: I noticed from your RFA that you already have experience at AIV and RFPP, so those may be good places to help out at. Over time, other editors will start approaching you on your talk-page, or pinging you for help with editors/articles you have dealt with before as an admin. Also your watchlist will start expanding with article and user pages that are often problem magnets. You'll soon see that the amount of "admin-work" available is only limited by ones time, interest, and capacity for aggravation... speaking of which I'd recommend applying WP:RBI and ignoring all insults thrown at you, since paying them any attention only encourages the trolls. Happy editing/adminning. Abecedare (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually

I think this edit was an attempt to be humorous by making it sound like the article itself was mansplaining to the reader. (Honestly, it made me giggle). Just thought I'd share since you reverted it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

True! Had read it as just another filler, and missed the joke. :) Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROPE

I saw your full protection to WP:ROPE. Given that a number of admins have been involved in the content dispute, perhaps you might consider reverting to the last stable version on August 7. This would avoid the potential perception from non-admins that another admin's edits are "preferred". Full disclosure: I made edits a few weeks back related to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Give them enough rope#Suicide.—Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I protected the version that was current when I saw the report at WP:RfPP and that version (or the essay itself) should not be seen as having my endorsement. Right now tempers are running a bit high about the topic and so I realize that any action is likely to be over-interpreted. But I hope that even the short editing-break will give interested parties enough time to discuss and arrive at a amicable compromise, over what after all is not a time-critical issue (in the real-world sense). Abecedare (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:PREFER: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Still, it's your prerogative if you don't think it is appropriate here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to refrain making any other edits to the page since that will most likely divert the debate from "what the essay should say over the longer term" to "what should the essay say TODAY?" Since the very aim of the protection was to make room for the former discussion, I don't think such a step would be helpful. I realize this a judgment call. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RfPP ping

The IPs are Nangaparbat and Mrpontiac1. Elockid was perhaps more active on this that I've been over the past two years. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Spaceman. Just noticed that there are two related SPIs open at the moment:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnightWarrior25

Can you or @Elockid: take a look? Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been away from this hornet's nest for close to two years now, I think I'll stay away from it a little longer. The articles were all unprotected because NP/MrP were found to be non-threats, so let it be like that. RegentsPark will probably remember how this came about as you weren't active then. —SpacemanSpiff 18:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ya, I missed the original, but looks like I'll get to see the sequel and learn all the series tropes. :) Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure looks like Nangparbat (location + edits). @Darkness Shines: would spot them right away but, in our collective wikiwisdom, we've chucked him out. --regentspark (comment) 19:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been around for most of the DS activity, I meant the earlier post YM "let's unprotect the hell out of this mess" bit. —SpacemanSpiff 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Elockid is not active. Neither is Hersfold. DS is banned. YM long gone. Spiff, that makes you the surviving resdient Nangpartbat expert! --regentspark (comment) 20:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Knew of DS's periodic blocks. Didn't realize he had been banned. A loss since I liked his article-space work that I had seen.

Btw, I think the Nangaparbat IP accused some of the editors/IPs he was battling of being DS socks (too lazy to locate the diff). If it is true, I wish DS would just walk away since I have always find such obsession with wikipedia sad and pitiful and DS seemed intelligent enough to find himself a more fruitful hobby. Abecedare (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Spaceman, I can see why you would want to keep away from this mess. Spending even fifteen minutes in the area finds obvious sock-trolls like SUMANTHARKI, ShivaParvati587 and Pakistani randi female and numerous IPs battling and taunting each other. All throwaway accounts for whom it is not even worth identifying the sockmaster. Any reason articles in the area were thought to be better off unprotected? Or was that intended sarcastically? Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here you go. That was the start of it. After that I stopped looking at that mess, it's just an incredible waste of time. DS, for all the other problems that editors had with him, did some good work on this front, but he and Elockid were pretty much waging a lonely battle. —SpacemanSpiff 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Filed an AN report. Hoping that attitudes have changed in the last 5 years, and AN/ANI participants have realized that sockpuppetry (and POV pushing for that matter) needs to be dealt with more quickly so that good faith editors have more space to do their work. On the other hand someone may yet complain that I didn't inform all the editors I listed in the AN report, or that Rumanfurki has made only one edit, I am failing WP:AGF, WP:BITE etc. Lets see. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't a goodh year for YM. First the semi protection brouhaha and then the bizarre arb proceedings. I guess YM did the right thing and just chucked it all up. More the worse for Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 03:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

... or perhaps he just couldn't bear my absence (starting Aug 2010) for more than three months :)

But seriously, loss of a great editor and clueful admin. Still hope he'll be back someday, along with F&f et al. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi I Need help!!

Hello- I was wondering if you would be able to help me delete a revision on a history page?

Please let me know!

My email is (Redacted)

I promise I am a real person who needs help!!

Thank you!

CelesteFairy (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@CelesteFairy: You can email me the name of the wikipedia page and the time/content of the edit using this form and I can take a look. Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Gojoseon

In case it's of interest, your protection was mentioned here. There was also a complaint at WP:AN3. Needless to say, I agree with your protection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the head up, Ed. Abecedare (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Help needed on Shakya article

Hello admin, the user Ogress is continuously is reverting by contributions without discussing or even looking at my evidences. Need your help to advise seasoned editors on that page to atleast see the evidences given by others and look from fresh perspective. Illuminaati (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Illuminaati: I see that the article has been fully protected and there is ongoing discussion on the article talkpage about the sections you added. By the way, I believe that you are a sock of User:Truth only 1. I am overlooking the block-evasion for now, but if your resume to disrupt the discussion and fail to listen to others' comments, I will block this avatar. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Report user

The user User:Maltin Kant has been warned many times about hoax articles and has not stopped. He should be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nrwirport: Maltin Kant has already been blocked by Lankiveil for copyright vio. In addition they seem to be a sock of Ezidishingali. I cannot tell if the articles they created are hoaxes since I don't know enough of subject-area, but will drop a note about all this on their userpage. Thanks for keeping an eye! Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Making Misuse Of Your Seniority on Wikipedia:

whatever edit I have done I have given reference to it i.e I have proved it. I will not edit the way you like it you are not owner of wikipedia that If you dont like it you will block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Problem Is of IQ Level I think ,Whatever Edits I did Were Truth and Official But Only Educated Person Knows To Be UnBiased and Truthful also Has Much More Knowledge.

In my edit of page of India and Economy of India I had given Facts and Also Given Reference.But then also my edits removed I am warned. Some one saying the page is related to India not Maharashtra. Maharashtra is part of India but also in this Pages Gujarat and Other States Praised but when I put Some fact about Maharashtra this things very difficult for them to Digest. My edits Were also targeted because they were not related to what this Senior people Like and related to their Region of Interest. The problem is that I added a fact on Maharashtra Contribution to India Gdp proved it by giving a reference as page on Goverment on India site but There are many AntiMaharashtra People.

Proof Of How user named Rsrikant is biased see edit history Of page of Ulhasnagar with sindhi language script in lead was Ignored by Rsrikant but he Warned Me of Marathi Script in Lead.This Page was ignored for long time which show How double Standard he is which was finally edited by me and he says he is Maharashtrian. No one is Maharashtrian by name but by action and belief ,I think his mind is Poisioned with AntiMaharashtra agenda.

You will find Many Pages with False Information given by editing but this Biased people keep quit.

I will Not Tolerate this Injustice at all.In my I have Never Bend in front of Any one and always Supported Truth .

I Know the world today is not good but I have full Confidence that Truth will always win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, here is why your edits on the two pages were reverted:

• Your initial edit to India was reverted by me as "unsourced and undue", and while your subsequent edit fixed the former problem the issue of "unnecessary detail" remained since (a) there is no end to adding such superlatives ("X is the largest state; Y the smallest", "Z is largest producer of cotton", "W has the highest electricity production" etc) and (b) state-GDP being a product of of both the state size and state's per capita income, is a particularly non-illuminating number when cited without sufficient context. (I am ignoring the grammatical issues with your edits since these could be easily fixed, and didn't need reversion)
• On Economy of India your various additions were misplaced, unsourced, wrong or at least unclear (since richest can mean highest state-GDP, or highest per capita GDP), or arguably undue. If you had taken the issue to the article talk-page and discussed the issue in a a civil manner, some useful material could have been salvaged and the article improved as a result. However you have chosen to spam multiple user-pages, and aggressively throw around unfounded charges. Your choice, but you'll find that this approach is not very productive.

If at some point you decide that you wish to edit more effectively, feel free to start a civil conversation. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Ugog Nizdast, Rsrikanth05, and Prasannarane61993: so that the avove conversation is not duplicated on numerous talk pages. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

when I had edited the Page of India And Economy of India I had Provided Reference:http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-of-indian-states.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging @SpacemanSpiff: here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm now being accused [for the nth time] of double standards and being biased on the Please Stop section of their talk page. Great. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: If the editor disrupts an article, inform/advice/warn them (as has already been done multiple times by multiple editors) and then apply WP:RBI. If they are simply lashing out on user talkpages (esp. their own) just ignore the unfounded charges; no one is going to take any of that seriously. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you removed "Blunders" section from Nehru's article ????????

I provided enough amount of sources,If you need more I can provide more sources related to what I wrote in the section. Try to be in middle. Please try to understand don't try to attach yourself with the political parties or people. If you still more things to specify my written things I can provide more sources. There are tons of sources on what I wrote. That too,the section which I wrote was in short. I can make it more large and explainable. It was not at all "a poorly sourced POV section". I even provided newspaper article links like of TimesOfIndia ,TheHindu.If you want to say that "it is a POV section" it also means that newspaper like TheTimesOfIndia,TheHindu are POV newspapers.I can provide more sources from that newspapers about each and everything which I wrote in that section. The source links which I provided doesn't even specifies that it is a POV secton, it speaks the truth . You should take a look at sources which I provided.They are fully genuine,newspaper articles,famous books' refered sources. I can provide more .Haxxorsid (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Haxxorsid: There were numerous problems with the section I reverted, and the one you re-added starting with the sources. See WP:HISTRS for the type of sources we need for such an article; simply googling for "Nehru blunders" and sticking in the random websites is not ok. Similarly, random youtube videos such as this one that you added to another page, is also not acceptable.

Sourcing aside, you should also read WP:NPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and (relevant to some recent edits) WP:BLP before you continue editing in this area. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Need You support

Your neutral observation will be greatly appreciated and I request you to understand the information, I am requesting that the film industry column be included in the article to get rid of ambiguity, this will be an amicable solution to all parties(for an ongoing RFC), everyone will be satisfied and the issue will be resolved, if there is fair representation of information, there is a fight about which language a particular movie is, as language was unable to make things clear such an issue originated in first place, but the users are adamant not to include that information or column, as according to them there is no clear distinction information about defining of film industry, their concerns sound to be fair, so my solution I propose only if there are sources about the film industry information then that information may be included. Thats what I want to say and convey, I hope it can be possible, if you think thats a fair request, please participate on the talk page and present your neutral observation reading the whole topic, and present your opinion whether I am wrong or others are wrong, your opinion will be very useful.Marchoctober (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Include_additional_column_of_Film_industry
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Second_break
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Why_include_all_versions_in_language-specific_collections_and_other_questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchoctober (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Marchoctober: It would be best to discuss this issue with the other editors of the article and reach a consensus. I am only involved, in the absence of NeilN, in an administrative capacity to try and prevent edit-warring or talk-page disruption. If you want more eyes, you can post a neutrally worded message on the Indian cinema task force talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Marchoctober

Hi A, would you mind looking at the comments on Marchoctober's talk page and consider weighing in. The editor clearly isn't interested in anything I have to say (I can understand that) although I believe my comments are sound because the comment strike-throughs were not constructive and were inappropriate. Also, I'm not suggesting sockpuppetry in my comments, I'm only noting that someone is whispering bad advice to this guy, and that ain't good. I'm not asking for sanctions, just maybe some friendly advice for him. I think maybe he's not aware that I'm an experienced editor who knows what normal talk page behavior looks like, and that his strikethroughs and claims of ethnic slurs are not appropriate. And if you're not interested in trudging through this swamp, I completely understand. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that your friendly advice didn't do the work. Commented on the user's page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also uncovered canvassing and coaching, but I'll let NeilN deal with that since I've wasted enough of your time. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, although User:NeilN really deserves to be blocked for the disruption caused by his damn vacation. :) Abecedare (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh! I could take care of this for you just blame it on my over-eagerness as a new admin. What's the expression? "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission?" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Maharashtra divisions

Turns out that IP was actually right, I couldn't verify the existence of Nanded division which is just a redirect. The main gov site makes no mention. Be well, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP and you are right. It's just a proposal at this stage. Thanks for catching that! Abecedare (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Help Akshardham Environment Violation Section

Hello,

If you have time would you please take a look at this article: [1] and this discussion [2] and provide your input. There is a cited content dispute I am having [3] and I feel you can help with some clarification for this topic. I looked up editors who have worked on Hinduism topics and found you.

Thank you

Swamiblue (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Swamiblue: Will take a look and comment at the article talk page once I've had the time to read through the cited sources and discussion. For future reference, a good venue for asking for external input is the Hinduism project noticeboard (or, the Indian project noticeboard depending upon the topic). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Abecedare. I will post this in the Hinduism project noticeboard to get more attention because I knew having that many citations for an issue that is well documented should not be left out. I was getting bullied there because they want to portray their building in a way that ignore all factual issues that came with it. I disagree that a separate criticism section shouldn't be there because the building is well known. Even our Wiki criticism section [4] states, "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location."

Similar topics have criticism and controversy sections. Please see [5] and [6]

I would really appreciate your input as the discussion continues. Thank you

Swamiblue (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are ubiquitous on wikipedia and in almost all cases a sign of poor organization and writing. I have yet to see an actual encyclopedia article with such a stand-alone section. That said, my main reason for suggesting that the content be rewritten before being added back to the article is that the sentences being added are ungrammatical and poorly written; don't provide enough context about the issues; and due to ref-bombing. I see that you have started an RFC on the topic, which might invite more eyes and helping hands. I'll try to help with the copy-editing but its likely to be only towards the end of the week. Abecedare (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I ref bombed it was because I wanted to have as many citations as possible because there are those users that have conflict of interest and even though it is due, they do not want this information on 'their' temple especially right now since many people are looking them up in regards to their newest construction project. I think a separate but small critism section is warrented based on the previous ministors comments and actual content of the citations but regardless, I appreciate you input Abecedare as it is difficult as those users have pretty much patrolled their religious groups pages. Swamiblue (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I guessed the reason for the "refbombing". That is often a (good faith) result of editorial disputes, but is not helpful to the reader. When I, as a reader, see more than two refs attached to a statement on wikipedia I think "Oh, someone is soapboxing or people disagree on this. Take with a huge pinch of salt". As I stated on the article talk-page I will try and spend some time on this this weekend. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey! Thank you so much for your message on user Bongan's page. I am not well versed with all the features of Wikipedia or their policies, but I did know that I was being wrongly accused did not know how to report such instances or whom to contact. I don't want to sound defensive or bitter, or turn that event into some battle [which he did, for then we went about undoing my previous edits without any cause], but my concern was that a genuine edit was being undone and that I was being threatened, which could lead to my account being suspended for no fault of mine. Thank you for helping me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronakshah1990 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ronakshah1990: No problem. Such errors and minor tiffs are part of editing on wikipedia.

And while I realize that you have been receiving a lot of advice and "links to policies" lately, here are two that should be easy and useful to follow:

• When you leave a comment at an user or article talk page, sign your post by appending four tildas (~~~~) at the end.
• Use edit-summaries more regularly, so that the reasoning behind the edit is clear to the casual observer.

Let me know if you have any questions. And nice work proofreading and copyediting wikipedia articles. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thank you! Henceforth, I shall sign my comments on talk pages and add a summary for edits. I may trouble you again in the future for some doubts. I'm not all too familiar with this language, which I'm assuming is HTML.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronakshah199 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ronakshah1990: The language is Wiki markup, and here is a convenient cheatsheet. At your leisure, browse though the talk-page guidelines too. You'll get the hang of all this as you edit more and use the various features. Abecedare (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_cities_in_India_by_population#Census_reference

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_cities_in_India_by_population#Census_reference. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Archieve

So how to archive this page?--Vin09 (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vin09: Just enter the URL into the "Save page now" at archive.org/web/, press enter. An archival copy will be produced and shown, and you can copy the URL of the copy into the archive-url field of say the {{Cite-web}} template. The archived version of the above pdf can be found here).

WP:WEBCITE has instructions for archiving the page at another online repository. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

JoesphBarbaro

Hi Abecedare, would you please look at this discussion? I'll avoid editorializing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Frankly, a block would be justified but here is what I would suggest as an experiment: lets leave the person alone for a while (yes, I know you didn't start the conversation or do anything to provoke it), not even respond to their diatribes, and see if they can move past and act reasonably. They have had enough opportunity to vent (on your talkpage, and your and mine common's page) and hopefully by now it is all out of the system. Abecedare (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I'm game. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, I wouldn't have made the above suggestion if the abuse were directed at a new or sensitive (read: normal) editor. I am assuming that for you, like me, the namecalling is immaterial and its just the disruption that is a bother. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the user's perspective is whacked, so I'm fighting a natural inclination to want to set them straight on the facts, but with no indication that facts are being processed, stalling them out may be the only way to go. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Any significant issues with the editor's subsequent mainspace edits? (I don't have enough subject expertise to judge at a quick glance) If not, we can continue the hands-off approach, and just keep an eye out for any future blow-ups so that they can be nipped in the bud. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nah, he seems to have calmed down (ignore post at bottom). He's removed some content about reruns at various TV articles ostensibly after hearing my opinion that reruns aren't particularly noteworthy. He may run into some resistance about that. But otherwise things seem normal. Thanks for checking in. What a mensch. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban ( Bhumihar )

Hello Abecedare . You have banned me from the article Bhumihar , perhaps upon an administrators input . I don't wish to get personal but the problem here is centered around some senior editor's sense of ego and vanity which i am not bound to appreciate in the least . I know i cannot do anything much against such senior and experienced administrator's recommendation and it's not my endeavor either.

The one and only thing that i wish to state here in defence is that the last edit i made to the article Bhumihar was partially accepted. The bigger flaw in the same information ( from the same source ) , which is a ' PLAIN LIE ' ( i repose my faith in your sincerity and efforts to verify this if you may ) had been pointed out too but perhaps could not find favour with somebody's personal point of view .

Some authors misreport and give wrong information ( the bone of contention here is well documented , official British census data upon which nobody can or should speculate). It is a historic record which anybody can verify with at minimal effort.

If the statement 'Some Russians deny that the Apollo 11 landed on the moon and they claim the exercise was carried out in the Nevada desert to fool the world' can merit a mention in the article Apollo 11 as claimed by some author, then a similar approach in the name of balancing the article or covering all opinions or leaving it to the judgment of the readers to figure it out stands equally vindicated in the article Bhumihar if not in all wiki articles.

I don't know if you have the time, energy or the interest to go through the details of the last edit i made but its still a sincere request that you plz appreciate the dispute in detail if you may.

Jeffery Witsoe is not the Bible on Bhumihars or the castes system of India. He too was/is a human being and can make mistakes. Jeffery Witsoe is 'quoting' some vague British Census about the date or number or year of which he says not a word. Is it a policy violation to ask for the removal of a vague reference ? Moreover the reference Jeffery Witsoe made there was factually wrong ( plz bother to verify with British Census Reports for India). I made several requests on the talk page ( all of which went unanswered until i made 'the edit' which was partially accepted). I even requested sitush to refer it to third parties before he called for a ban.

I did not make any edit to Bhumihar after sitush warned me . Wiki articles must remain open to discussions and suggestions irrespective of how senior an administrator who thinks otherwise is . If somebody points out an error he should not be hounded and punished instead of verifying the facts a bit.

I would be much obliged if you refer the ban to Administrators Noticeboard if you may.

Regards rahila 17:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw sitush's last contribution at Bhumihar talk page a few moments ago. Calling me Bhumihar POV pusher and making references to 'stray' individuals at wiki.

It's an effort in the ' right direction' . Such attention if diverted to the article could be more worthy.

User:Chrishitch:rahila 18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)

@Chrishitch: This is not the right venue to restart the content dispute and the response above demonstrates your misunderstanding of fundamental wikipedia content policies (namely WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:POV), not getting the point, and personalization of the debate (centered around some senior editor's sense of ego and vanity) that led to the topic ban. Fwiw, I did review the lengthy talk-page discussion and the cited sources, but I don't believe I'll be able to convince you about the content issues where so many previous editors and attempts have failed. If you wish, you can appeal the topic ban at the administrative noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have appealed against the ban as suggested. Thanks for the effort. rahila 20:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you help?

Need Help. Thanks in Advance. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dineshkumar Ponnusamy: I see that the draft has been moved to Draft:Palam Kalyanasundaram,where it will be reviewed for basic compliance with wikipedia policies, and moved to mainspace when ready. I also see that User:ONUnicorn and User:DESiegel have already given some very useful advice about the draft at the help desk; listen to them!

The only tip I'll add for now is that you should cull out the poor quality sources (such as yourstory.com, achhikhabre.com, quora, thebetterindia.com, www.bringchange.in, iseeindia.com), and focus on the better quality sources such as The Hindu and DNA India (also the St. Stephens link can be replaced by direct link to The Hindu article itself. The subject himself is probably notable enough to have a wikipedia article, although final determination will depend upon what can be reliably sourced after the generic web-encomiums have been removed. If you have any questions in the meantime, feel free to ask. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have done some work on topics regarding India, but my knowledge of the reputations of publications there is limited (there are many of them, and I have made no particular study of the matter). The advice to focus on high quality sources is normally good -- if a draft can be supported by high-quality sources, it is much better to do so. I know that The Hindu has a very high reputation. If you are unsure if a particular source is reliable for a particular statement, you can as at the reliable sources noticeboard. However, they don't answer general questions such as "Is publication X reliable?" Instead they will address 'Is publication X reliable for statement Y in article (or draft) Z?" Context matters. Sticking to sources of very high reputation will mostly avoid the need for this kind of cite-by-cite inquiry. Is there other specific help that you need? DES ^(talk) 22:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC) @Dineshkumar Ponnusamy: DES ^(talk) 22:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply anjust and help @Abecedare and DES. Will do the required changes. Thanks again. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have edited few stuffs and removed unwanted or poor quality sources. Could you please have a look at the article now @Abecedare and DESiegel:? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk • contribs) 06:06, August 27, 2015

@Dineshkumar Ponnusamy: The draft is much better than the last time I saw it, although it can be further improved in terms of clarity, reundancy, and especially tone. For example, prefix the mention of Palam, in the lead with "social welfare organisation Palam" since otherwise it's just a name without any context. The "donated his entire salary" bit is mentioned twice in the first four sentences. Remove "unsung man of millennium", which is an unattributed opinion; better to instead describe what the person actually did and let the readers form their own opinions. The draft also can use a copyedit.

However, none of the above issues are dealbreakers IMO. I'll wait for the draft to be reviewed by someone experienced in the AFC process and moved to mainspace, and I can then help with any such issues that still remain. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare! --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor utcursch

It is to mention here that Move review Rasgulla and the following edit attempts are different issues.

As per suggestions of JamesBWatson 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC) and Human3015 04:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC) on my Talk page talk I have made following revision attempts with the 1st edit summary "Redefined - Rasgulla, Rosogolla, Indian diaspora Bangladesh" follows:

→ "Rasgulla" & "Mauritius" → Snthakur 1st revision → "Rasgulla(hi)[7] or, Rosogolla(bn)[8][9]" & "Bangladesh"

→ utcursch undid above, and edits Rasagola → "Rasgulla, also known as Rosogolla (in Bengali) or Rasagola (in Odiya)" & "Bangladesh" (it was acceptable to me)

→ utcursch again undid above, and removes Bangladesh → "Rasgulla in Hindi, known as Rosogolla in Bengali or Rasagola in Odiya" & "South Asian"

→ utcursch again removes Rosogolla, Rasagola including Bangladesh, creates a section "Name'→ The dessert is known as Rosogolla or Roshogolla in Bengali and Rasagola in Odiya .....

However, utcursch's act of removing Rosogolla (in Bengali) or Rasagola (in Odiya)" & "Bangladesh" is an arbitrary act and not with consensus either with JamesBWatson and Human3015 and Snthakur

Therefore there was an obvious concern with disruptive editor utcursch for the above content issue.

Please suggest so as to what shall I do now?

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In connection with the above message, you may like to see my recent posts at User talk:Snthakur, including my notice informing Snthakur of a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thanks for the notice. Fwiw, I agree with the block; and a topic ban would be warranted if the disruption resumes. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your disruptive editing and edit warring.

Please stop your disruptive editing and edit warring on Hindu and Sardarji joke pages. I have given reasons for my modifications. Please discuss on talk pages.

Js82 (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please also don't post messages on my talk page, with your scare warnings. Not needed.

Js82 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user 78.159.147.70 again

Hi can you help? User 78.159.147.70 is engaging in disruptive editing again, adding questionable content to this article. His sources do not mention the article subject at all, the user seems to be adding politics and biased views not related to the article. He even wrote on my talk page accusing me of vandalism. Thanks, 207.245.236.155 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That and a couple of other IPs the user was using, have been blocked for a month, and John Bitove, Sr. has been semi-protected for a while. I realize that that will prevent you from editing the article too; sorry about that but I encourage you to get an account or use {{edit semi-protected}} on the article talk page, if you want to make any specific edit. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"Same old crap"

Hi Abe, our friend that you blocked the other day is back at doing the "same old crap" (in the words of the editor that reverted him) [7]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:KahnJohn27 has moved to the talkpage after the revert by user:Ohnoitsjamie; so this should be fine as long as they don't edit-war before establishing consensus for the change. User:DeCausa's comment and a brief look at the article history (in particular, the Aug 17 edits; I haven't looked further back) indicate that this may not have been a one-off but may be a part of a slow edit-war/disruptive editing. If this is the case, it may be worth filing an ANI report compliling the evidence, although I'd suggest that this only be done if the disruption continues. Abecedare (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @Abecedare: So you two are here to bully me and impose your opinion again. First thing first I've already provided the reasons cor my reverts. Now since this doesn't have anything to do with you and you're just trying to use your dirty tricks, one more tims you misbehave with me and I'm going to complain about you. And please keep this off my talk page. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: You are welcome to file a complaint about the earlier block or about the recent warnings. Extra eyes never hurt. As long as you don't resume edit-warring or disruptive editing at Arabian mythology or other articles I have no reason to get involved since this is not an area I edit in generally, and am only acting in administrative capacity. Abecedare (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: You clearly don't understand at all why I reverted the edits. Not only that while you accuse me of edit-warring you ignore people like Kautilya3 and DeCause who were also involved in edit-warring. It seems you have a biased and unclear view. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

One you blocked previously

You did this a month ago. Right on the dot, they're back with silly edits. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Left a note. Any more of this and will extend block. Abecedare (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For taking care of that troll. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. Now its doubled. :) Abecedare (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Trolling IPs

Hey, could User:168.1.75.51 be blocked too? Though I'm mildly amused to see what other scintillating bits of wisdom they might come up with. Maybe a range block of 168.1.75.xx might be in order? Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 04:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Slakr blocked the 168.1.75.0/26 range. That should take care of it, but ping us if the editor re-appears elsewhere. Abecedare (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I make these spelling errors all the time :-)

Hello A. Thanks for your checking on things at the SPI. I noticed that there is a letter missing in your post here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C and.2For patrolling admin comments. There is an "h" missing from the work bot(h). I only mention it as, sometime in the future, someone might wonder "what bot was the person operating?" I didn't want to fix it on my own in case the edit would cause offense or confusion. Cheers and thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:MarnetteD. Btw, you misspelled "You" as "I" in the section heading. ;) Abecedare (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

HeeHee. Always a problem when the red squiggly spell check line doesn't appear while I am typing :-) OTOH all of our usernames cause them to make these posts look like a river full of red dye number 2. Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 21:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Which could be more reliable any Official website or Offcial Documents related to that ?

Hey I am bit new to wikipedia. I tried to re structure headings and Words used on telangana , to make it more relavant to Actual phrases used in official documentation of governament of India. But looks like usage of own words have more importance . So is that ok to change wordings without changing the meaning ? or is it better to give the same words using in Actual official documents. Please let me know , Can Articles look biased ? or only in single perception > I am trying to understand on what basis one changes can be wrong ?

Thank you Narin.K 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@K.n.narin: There are two separate issues here:

• Sources: Firstly, as an encyclopedia we prefer using secondary sources over primary. So we would in fact prefer to cite how scholars, academics, reporters etc describe the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 rather than try to interpret and cite the act itself (exceptions being direct quotes, used sparingly etc.). But this is not really central to the dispute you are having, which mainly concerns...
• Language: In general we paraphrase content from sources we cite, ie use our own words while summarizing the sources accurately and neutrally. For example, the opening sentence of the APRA could have said that the act:

1. "...bifurcated the Andhra Pradesh state into..."
2. "...divided the state of Andhra Pradesh into..."
3. "...carved out the state of Telangana from..."
4. etc

All these choices would have been acceptable as accurate summaries of the act (irrespective of whether we cited the act itself, or picked a secondary source), but most native speakers IMO would have pick the first option (that comes down to editorial judgment). FYI "bifurcation" has no pejorative meaning in this context, and as I pointed out at Talk:Telangana, the reorganization website itself says that the Act was for bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh). Further discussion about the particular articles can be continued at either article talk-pages. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you For the information , not just regarding the Telangana page . this was a good example though .

Narin.K 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.n.narin (talk • contribs)

Merger of Rishabha (Hinduism)

I saw that the dscussion has already taken place. What was the final decision? Can it be reconsidered? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Will re-review the merge proposals and post at the article talkpage(s) in few hours. Abecedare (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Abecedare. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#.5BProject_WIN.5D_Ideas_and_Opinions.
Message added 15:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Another flag

Any thoughts re: the authenticity of this flag? It looks like it might be derived from a text description. I find it difficult to believe that we have any idea of what the Yadava flag looked like, or even if one existed. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realise that the image had been uploaded so recently. I've asked at User_talk:History_of_Persia#Yadava. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh you doubting Thomases. Next you'll be questioning the encyclopedicity of this and demanding that the horses be connected to the chariot they pull. :) Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

search tool

As Google News does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly, I have found the search tools of WP:INDAFD to be quite helpful in finding sources. Hope it helps you in the future, as it has helped me of late Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Tito had told me of the tool and I have it bookmarked. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The page on Odia literature is strangely silent on the Pre-Sarala age

When I tried to increase the content of the page titled Odia Literature by adding the para on "pre-Sarala age", there was a strange case of omission by Wikipedia. I don't understand how wikipedia can be silent on an important phase of Odia literature. They said it was violating copyrights. Now I have used my own language but gave the source as a citation. These are historical facts and part of a literary tradition which is out there in the public domain. Please don't omit these indiscriminately. Wikipedia as a source of information cant not be silent on a significant period of Odia literature. When someone tries to correct it please cooperate...If you still feel its violating some aspects of copyrights rule, then you read any authentic Odia literature book or avail any information source and fill the vacuum in the this very page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biswabiscuit (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, with blatant copyvio we cannot simply edit over it; it has to be cleaned by an administrator. If you know anyone who can do it, I'd recommend reaching out, because it can take WEEKS (we are in a dire shortage). Ogress 20:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Biswabiscuit and Ogress: Biswa's first edits to the Odia literature page were cut-n-paste copyvios from [8] here] and here (the latter looks like content copied from wikipedia, but I haven't confirmed that and in any case it is a unreliable source). Their later edits were improved with some attempt at paraphrasing the source but it still fell somewhere between a close paraphrase and copyright violation, and was rightly reverted. I'll ping SpacemanSpiff for a second opinion on whether either of these set of edits need to be revdelled.

Also note that the Odisha Review published by the Odisha government (and often filled with articles by state govt. employees extolling the state, Odia language etc) has previously been discussed at India project noticeboard and it was found to be an unreliable/poor-quality source. So I would recommend using better sources for the article, which given the subject, shouldn't be that hard to find. This however is best discussed on the article talk-page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted and purged from the history and noted at the CCI logs. If something gets back in after being reverted, even mildly paraphrased but close enough to the original then a rev del is recommended, but typically if there aren't any intervening edits that have to be attributed, it's always good to purge. —SpacemanSpiff 17:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I had a brain-freeze, and thought that Ogress had already reverted the re-addition and was asking whether the edits needed to be deleted from the article history. Hadn't noticed that the {{Copyviocore}} tag had been added. Thanks for taking care of it; I could have managed the rest (if I had noticed the issue!), but didn't know of the CCI logs. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Paranoid feeling

I think you've yelled at me and helped me sometime in the past so I thought your judgement might help out here. I'm in some sort of a dispute with a new user (Thad caldwell) on a Serena Williams "Battle of the Sexes" section. The new editor has been editing since July 11 2015 with every edit seemingly Serena Williams related. Not surprising since Serena has a chance at a Grand Slam. New editors come out of the woodwork. But we also have editor 97.82.223.215 making the same sort of edits overlapping in the "Comeback Queen" and "Karsten Braasch exhibition" conversations on the Talk:Serena_Williams#Karsten_Braasch_exhibition Serena Williams talk page. And just now, a first post user (TexanGal86) has injected herself into the Karsten Braasch conversation siding with Mr Caldwell. It's Very suspicious to me. Mr Caldwell started a DRN in the dispute asking for third party help (which has seemingly been denied), so I don't want to confront him about the possibility of multiple sockpuppeting. Could you or another administrator take a look and give thoughts as to if or how to proceed? Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid but it seemed fishy to me and I might be too biased to trust my own feelings. I'm not even sure about editor Jh122 editing the same talk page items and then disappearing from wikipedia. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You're certainly paranoid. If you (Fyunck) go to your own user page and look for a message I sent you a couple of months ago while seeking your help you'll see that I clearly stated that 97.82.223.215 is my IP address and was showing up simply because I was having issues with my signature at the time (something that can be verified by looking at my user page). You'll probably see it again as I sometimes forget to log in (I admit that I'm a clutz). I was in no way trying to mislead anyone otherwise I wouldn't have asked for help with my signature or told you about it. I just saw that TexanGal86 commented via talk and I responded to her asking for her thoughts. I do not know who she is (assuming it's actually a she) as I have not interacted with her before. Perhaps you should try contacting them via chat. Also, as for my edits, you should also go back to the talk page where you'll find my admission that it's my goal to get Williams' page up to par so that it could be nominated as a "featured page". I don't spend all day on Wikipedia as you do so my time is limited to helping improve one article. There's no mystery here. I've been upfront from day one and I do not appreciate you spreading baseless accusations about me without at least coming to me first. One of the rules I see over and over is that as editors we should give each other the benefit of the doubt. You've done everything but when it comes to me. I have reached out to you on your user talk page directly asking for your help and advice and never received a response. It's almost as if you want to believe everyone is an enemy despite the fact that a hand has been extended toward you. We disagree on a matter, that's all, it doesn't have to become more. It's not that serious.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting how you found this. Stalking me now? Now I'm even more paranoid. Nevertheless it's why I brought it here quietly... I didn't trust my own judgement on the issue. I knew I could be wrong. I thought someone with much better insight at wikipedia would be able to sort it out. Especially the new poster on the talk page. That's it. I didn't know where else to talk about it without it becoming a big deal. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) and Thad caldwell: Guys, this is routine content discussion that, as sometimes tends to happen, has spiraled into something more heated and personal. Just step back and refocus on the underlying issue, ie, the question of how much weight should be given to Serena and Venus's informal match against Karsten Braasch. And as with most content disputes on wikipedia, the soltion is to look at the sources! It has been 17 years since the match, and during that time Serena has been the subject of innumerable in-depth profiles and, I presume, even some book length bios. See what those sources have to say about the match, and how much space they devote to it, and use that to decide what how wikipedia should handle the subject. Once the sources have been surveyed, if there is still disagreement about the issue, you can try out other dispute resolution procedures, but I believe this should be easy to settle amicably. Let me know if I can help in any way. Abecedare (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your views please

Hi Abecedare,

I have put my thought here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ganesh_Chaturthi#Separate_articles_required Please comment on the talk page of article.... Yogee23 (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Commented. Thanks for the notice. Abecedare (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Another Buddhakahika sock

Just blocked Sant Mat Proponent, another sock and deleted. Almost two months old, and predates the other one I deleted articles of recently. The same articles under different titles. —SpacemanSpiff 09:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware of Special:Nuke? The previous sock is the only time I ever got an oppurtunity to use it (when I ec'ed with you). Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of it, would be useful for socks like this one, but I'd be hesitant to use it on others like the Conradi set especially because it would nuke the moved pages too. —SpacemanSpiff 16:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I'm a bit tied up, but there's been a lot of Koli people related spamming and BLP vios, I'd left the user a UW-caste warning yesterday, but I'm a bit tied up today and possibly tomorrow and can't monitor. Could you please?—SpacemanSpiff 17:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it just Premkoli99, or are there any other editors involved? I see that they added "Koli family" to another page w/o any source/explanation/edit-summary, even after your warning. I'll reinforce that a topic-ban/block is imminent if this continues. Calling upon our resident expert to check if any of the unsourced edits are sourcable/justifiable or shuld be just reverted. Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Poor Koli-related edits have been going on for months, usually in spates of activity. I've often wondered whether there is some socking/meating going on. Generally speaking, I've had to revert them. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mahaursaab, quacking? —SpacemanSpiff 13:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Duh. I'll block and tag. Any idea of what to do with the articles (re-)created? They are poorly sourced etc, but not sure if they fall under any speedy categories. Abecedare (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

G5 is applicable. Given that there's no sourcing for what the major theme is, I'm guessing that's what we ought to do. —SpacemanSpiff 16:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Jonnypapaji also, blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 16:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't realize that G5 applied to simply blocked users too. Abecedare (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I was looking through User:Premkoli99's edits to see what needed reversion and clean-up, but got stuck as soon as I reached Mudiraju, because I can't find a version I can revert to. All edits I spot-checked over the lat 9 months were unsourced/OR, and I couldn't even decide whether the were "correct" and should be {{cn}} tagged, or dubious additions that need to be deleted. Help! Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush:: Also should Thakore be deleted, redirected or the Thakera page moved back to that title? Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC on 2002 Gujarat Riots

Thanks for your feedback. It all started with adding navigation side-bar. In order to find middle-path, I have 2 concrete and clear proposal in RfC:-

   Change#1 Agree with Pre-existing Consensus:- Godhra train burning is already categorized as Violence against Hindus. So let's add navigation side-bar in "Godhra train burning" sub-section of this article.
   Change#2:- Do not add entire article to "Violence against Hindus" series;Instead, Just add "Attack on Hindus" subsection to it.

I can start RfC again but i don't think it will go anywhere. Please revisit #1 and #2 points of RfC Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Unbiasedpov: Lets not restart the debate here. For future reference please read through WP:RFC and WP:TPG to understand, (1) why the original question should not have been repeatedly changed in the way you did, especially once others had already opined on the issue, and; (2) how the statement of the RFC question needs to be brief, clear and neutral. Abecedare (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You're Great LovisaAlvin (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

LovisaAlvin (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Good

I appreciate your helping approach to Yogee23. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But not sure if the message got through, as they went ahead and repeated essentially the same edits. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ganesh Chaturthi

Hi Abecedare,

I am bit upset the way you have reverted all my edits. If you feel that there are some issues, you can also help us to rewrite rather than reverting. I know that there are lot of issues in the article and there is a requirement of coolaberative efforts to improve the article. Kindly join the hands to improve the same....Yogee23 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Diplomacy required

I tried to be nice to Akshaypratapsinghjadaun in my explanation on their talk page of my reverts to the Jadaun article. Nonetheless, they have reverted me. This might be one more suited to your style of diplomacy, although given that their username incorporates the caste name I suspect I know what the long-term outcome will be. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, they have now self-reverted. Perhaps they did not see my talk page note at first. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I couldn't have improved on your message and I'mm glad it worked! Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ajativada

Hi Abecedare. Could you block Ajativada for IP's? It's the favorite target of a blocked user, User:Aoclery, who's now using IP 70.69.229.215. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I left them an additional note. Since its just one editor with a static IP, if they continue the slow edit-war they can be blocked, without affecting other unregistered editors ability to edit the page constructively. In case I miss it, let me know if there are any more disruptive edits to the article by this or other editors. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but the editor in question, User:Aoclery already has been blocked indef, and now continues using an IP... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right of course; AGF can only be stretched so far. Sorry I missed the block-evasion despite your linking to the original account above (and the IPs block log); hazards of multi-tasking. I have blocked the IP for 6 months. The editor seems to be using a static IP so I didn't semi-protect the article itself; am open to doing so if they reappear under another IP. Just let me know.

As an aside: it would be good if the Guru Vachaka Kovai quote can be verified w/o relying on the blogspot page, and cited to a better secondary source. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The editor in question is part of the deal, I guess. I've removed the whole quote per WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jollof rice again

Not sure what to do about this. The earlier editor has reinserted what I think are not reliable sources and a disputed location in the Infobox[9] with the edit summary "Vanguard and the guardian are RS. The RSN discussion concludes that both sides of the argument should be present in the article, not your side! No Wiki guideline states that disputed claims can't be added to infobox. Stop trying to edit-war". In fact RSN didn't discuss Vanguard, whose article was written by a management specialist, and is not the board to decide content in this way. And he's removed the "side" that says West Africa. The infobox now only stated Senegambia with a 'disputed' tage with no explanation. Of course Senegambia was an artificial construction that only exited for a short time, but I guess that doesn't matter to him. The Guardian article[10] which is used to support Senegambia actually doesn't, just says " in West Africa, where I am from, it is jollof rice". The author of that short piece might be an RS.[11] The third source[12] seems to be a food blogger at BellaNaija who says "The dish was invented by the “Wolof” people – an ancient tribe that was spread across Senegal, Gambia and Mauritania. It is called “Thieboudienne” in Senegal and “Benachim (One pot)” in Gambia but the “Wolof” tribe reside in Senegal today so Senegal is the Jollof rice Inventor." which IMHO makes no sense. Shall I go back to RSN? The editor in question doesn't seem likely to budge. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the editor for now. Will take a deeper look at the article itself to see if it can be further improved using McCann etc in a few hours when I have better web access. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• This editor is just keen on being disruptive; implying that Vanguard and The Guardian are food bloggers? It has already been discussed that "West Africa" is too ambiguous and there's no other reliable source that states that the food originated from another place in West Africa outside Senegambia, therefore we have absolutely no reason to remain ambiguous. Yes Senegambia probably didn't exist when the food came about....but "West Africa" is infact a much later term with no official recognition (or former recognition) of the area as an entity. Perhaps we can add "Jollof Empire" or "Wollof people" in the origin section? That would be the most accurate term. Regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jamie Tubers: The bottomline is that we follow the best scholarly sources in the area, and when we have sources like McCann's book and ones published by OUP available, we don't "balance" them by lightweight sources such as newspaper columns written by persons with no known expertise in the area. That is the standard approach followed by all encyclopedias and is wikipedia policy. So your considering West Africa "too ambiguous" is not something we can give any weight to.

I see that you have reverted my edit. Instead of re-reverting, I intend to edit the article in a few hours to summarize the various origin theories as attested by historians and scholars (I came across the issue at WP:RSN and have no personal preference for any theory or regional bias). I recommend that you spend the effort to find other scholarly sources on the subject, and if you find some supporting the Senegambia claim, they can be cited too. If instead, you continue to edit-war and push your POV, you will get sanctioned. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I hope you realize that calling food a "west african dish" isn't the samething as implying West Africa as its origin? The former can also just simply means that it is eaten in West Africa. So far every reliable source, including "scholarly" sources we've come across specifically agree that the food originated from Wolof people of the Jolof empire, I believe that should be the origin in the article - Jolof Empire. What do you think?

Even James C. McCann states in his book that the food originates from Senegambia, and dispersed by Mali nomads! But just to put an end to constant editwarring on the article, I believe Jollof Empire, it is.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Got busy on Sunday. Will work on the article today. Abecedare (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are topic banned from 2002 Gujarat riots -- Appeal

Hi User:Abecedare, I have made the appeal at WP:AE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Unbiasedpov

Please help me proceed with the appeal. Thanks. Unbiasedpov (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have posted my reasoning at the AE page, and other admins will review the issue over the next few days. 21:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

IAST

Dharmadhyaksha moved a ton of pages back to their old names, including some to ones that are just totally incorrect, neither fish nor fowl, because he doesn't apparently like diacritics. I can't handle this situation and I frankly think he's just doing it for WP:POINT. Paisaci and Salakapurusa are just IAST with the diacritics stripped, which is wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start. I'm taking a Wikibreak or leaving because I just can't deal with this kind of behavior. He has no idea what he's doing and it's driving me nuts while he points fingers at me for editing. I can take a lot of things but ignorance feigning as righteousness is like a thumb in my eye. Ogress 08:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bad manners to talk behind back. And the host is part of the on going discussion at INB. Why do you need to take the matter out separately on his talk page? They have a name for it! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, both of you are great editors. It saddens us to see you fighting. Can't you kiss and make up? I don't see any ill-intent on either side. I am opening talk page discussions on Paisaci and Salakapurusa. Let us go there for further discussion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Kautilya. The issues should be resolvable by a case-by-case discussion and survey of sources, or by policy change. Either ways this is not a big enough deal to loose sleep over, and definitely not worth losing a valuable editor.

I see that there have has been a lot of traffic at the WT:INB discussion too. I'll add my comments there once I have read through it, if I have anything new to say. Cheers, and remember this is supposed to be a hobby! Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Due to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Undiscussed moves of articles' growth into a know-nothing mob, I feel little choice but to retire as it's clear I am not wanted. Ogress 18:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress:, I think the discussion at INB is mostly good faith differences over a relatively minor issue (because article content matters much more than the article name). You have been on wikipedia long enough to know that such discussion often invite heated comments; some uninformed arguments; ideological grandstanding; polarized opinions; and lot of talking past each other and by that standard this discussion has been relatively sane with some good points being made amidst the clutter (although it surely doesn't appear that way to you, who have been at the receiving end some rude comments). C'est la vie and this storm too will settle. So please take a short wikibreak if you need it, but I hope to see you back soon! Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Experiencing revert war on Proportional representation

Hi Abecedare, I am wondering if you or someone you know is interested in politics would be able to help mediate on the content dispute between these users. I have attempted some basic mediation without much effect. Any help or links to other Admins/Mediators would be greatly appreciated, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if any of my page-watchers are active in this area so WT:POLITICS may be a better venue for getting some other outside eyes on the content itself (I see that BalCoder (talk · contribs) already has a related posts there). However, let me know if any admin intervention is needed to help encourage discussion over edit-warring. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I have protected the article o stop the edit-war. Both the involved editors appear to be editing in good faith/out of conviction, and it would be a pity to have such editors blocked. Let see if they can reach a consensus with your and other outside editors' input. Abecedare (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and intervention, hopefully this will encourage productive debating, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare, I welcome and appreciate the feedback and contributions from other editors. This is why I have, in good faith, sought and continue to seek a WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk:Proportional representation page. However, there is one specific editor who has chosen to arbitrarily reverted any and all of the content I have posted, regardless of how noncontroversial it is. Updates to the article in regards to which nations currently use PR have been reverted. For instance, Russia switched from List PR to MMP in 2014. This sourced update was reverted without explanation. In particular, minor edits Help:Minor edit that I have made that only pertain to spelling and grammar errors and the addition of Wiki-links Help:Link to the appropriate articles have also been reverted without explanation. The principal point of contention is User:BalCoder's belief that mixed electoral systems do not exist. I recently added a table explaining the three electoral systems as: Proportional Representation Systems, Mixed Member Systems, and Plurality/Majority Systems

Proportional Representation Systems	Mixed Member Systems	Plurality/Majority Systems
Single Transferable Vote	Mixed Member Proportional	First Past the Post
Party List Proportional Representation (closed/open/local)	Alternative Vote Plus	Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting
	Additional Member System	Block Vote
	Majority Bonus System	Limited Vote
		Supplementary Vote
		Two-Round System
		Borda Count

These systems already existed in the Proportional Representation article prior to my contributions. I have also added a plethora of sources substantiating this information.

References

I am grateful that the article has been frozen due to a content dispute. However, I would appreciate it if the content was frozen as the most recent version as the large reversions that User:BalCoder made were not targeted towards specific content changes. This would allow editors the time to read the article and form a consensus on the most recent information. Thank you for your assistance in the mediation process. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: This is not the best venue to discuss the content issue, and I am not the right audience since my role is limited to encouraging and facilitating discussion between content contributors such as yourself, BalCoder and Drcrazy102. I sympathize with your complaint that minor non-controversial edits may also have been lost in the process of reverting edits that were disputed. That unfortunately happens often enough on wikipedia and if we get stuck on those (valid) complaints, the whole discussion becomes a series of gripes and counter-gripes and no progress can be made.

So here is my suggestion: forget about past reverts, comments, arguments etc, and instead propose one change you would like to make to the current article, (say) in the form of "I want to add the following table to the article, and the sources for this tabulation are ...". That allows all editors to examine the concrete issue and reach a consensus to include the table, modify it, or keep it out. Once that is settled the discussion can move to the next proposal. It is a slow process but the only feasible way for making actual progress. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose edit war

Hello! This is Swastik. I'm myself a bengali & I can guarantee you that Subhas Chandra Bose didn't die of any plane on August 18, 1945, either. It is nowhere written about a plane crash in Taiwan on this date! Some people even saw Netaji till 1970. There was a huge conspiracy by Nehru, who wanted to be the PM of India. So he locked Subhash Chandra Bose in a lockup in Siberia, Russia. There was an Indian ambassador who knew this, but was warned by Jawaharlal Nehru that if he told this to anyone, first of all, he would be killed. So, please don't mention any particular date, in which he is rumoured to be died.

If u want further details, click on these links: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWASTIK 25 (talk • contribs) 13:08, September 19, 2015‎

@SWASTIK 25: I have commented on the article talkpage, where the issue is best discussed. I see though that you have continued to edit-war on the page despite earlier warnings. Recommend that you self-revert; if you continue, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Relax, my friend! I am just keeping the article Subhas Chandra Bose dispute free. I have also commented on article talkpage. Let it remain as it is, till the proper & relevant informations about this issue are revealed. Swastik (talk)

References

Spam IP block

I noticed you have just blocked the IP 220.227.9.3. I'd like to let you know that 68.171.98.242 is adding the exact same link in the same fashion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Athomeinkobe:. The IPs are going through Category:Articles with dead external links and replacing them with self-published articles on Kartikeya Sharma, to possibly increase the latter's google ranks. Let me know if you catch any others. Abecedare (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. They happened to make a change to a semi-protected article, which is how I came across it. Then I saw the one you blocked had edited an article in my watchlist, which is how I came to notify you. I'll let you know if I spot any more. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This found a couple more cases. Will need to be checked occasionally and/or added to the spam blacklist. Abecedare (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a handy little tool, thanks! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Jain warriors

Surprisingly, a much more serious Jain warrior didn't show up on my radar screen till today. He apparently never engages in talk page discussions. Only writes long OR messages in edit summaries. And, as far as he is concerned, Jain texts are apparently the only reliable sources! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Chandragupta Maurya article needs to be reworked to have less "labeling" and more description and (attributed) analysis. And 19th c. sources like Rice, Thomas etc need to be replaced by more modern write-ups by say Romila Thapar, Grigory Bongard-Levin etc. Btw, we need to be careful that we don't end up simply "mirroring" the POV pushers points, for example, you surely know better than what you said here. Jainism and Hinduism are not the only options; we can and should follow Tractatus, Proposition 7 instead.

Aside: Looking at Ashvawiki's recent edits, I saw that he removed this section, which I recognize by its style to be the workings of User:Buddhakahika (aka User:Maleabroad), a notorious sock-puppeteer and POV pusher (to be clear: Ashwiki's justification for the removal is of course wrong). So there may be at least something positive gained from all this mess. :) Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Tractus, Proposition 7? I will remember that! I will leave our friend in your hands. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look at Chandragupta Maurya in a short while. If you wish to handle the religion (esp. Hinduism) in Maurya Empire section, James L. Fitzgerald has a succinct overview here. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Great job with redoing the lead! We have a lot to learn from you. I will work on the religion section when I get a chance. It is quite an interesting period for religion. I should know, having called myself "Kautilya" :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Continue: Akshardham Violation and other questions

Hello again,

You have been the most helpful to me so far. I look forward to working with your and calming down a bit and becoming a better editor. Continuing our discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_21#Help_Akshardham_Environment_Violation_Section. It would really help if you can go over the sources. I see that you responded and I really appreciate you taking the time out to read all the books. I knew I wasn't crazy.

Also I wanted to delete these two pages but I don't know how?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swamiblue/TWA/Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swamiblue/TWA/Earth/2

I tried doing a article nomination for deletion and it didn't work.

If you have time, I would really appreciate it if you could look at and respond to

This discussion at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#Acharaya_for_BAPS_and_addition_of_the_term_Schism_to_article

based on this edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&type=revision&diff=682632663&oldid=682353832

and less importantly,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendence:_My_Spiritual_Experiences_with_Pramukh_Swamiji

Swamiblue (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Swamiblue, I deleted the two pages for you. In the future, if you want to delete pages in your own userspace - other than your Talk page - edit the page and add a tag pursuant to the instructions at WP:CSD#U1. An administrator will then come along and delete it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @ Bbb23 Swamiblue (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bbb23.

@Swamiblue:, for now I'll restrict myself to the Akshardham article, since I am already over-commited on wikipedia. You can try calling for a third opinion or askig at WP:NPOV noticeboard for help with the other articles.

Btw, I would recommend that you take the discretionary sanctions notice you received recently, seriously. I haven't looked at it in any detail, but even a brief perusal of the recent AN complaint shows that if the claimed facts are accurate, you are pretty lucky not to have been topic banned or indef. blocked till now. And any socking, BLP violation, edit-warring, personal attacks etc from here-on will get you there in a hurry. So take a more measured and calmer approach to your editing and let not the merits of a proposal be drowned out by the way it is presented or fought over. It is clear that you have strong feeling about the Swaminarayan movement (as do some other editors involved), and that is fine only as long as it does not effect your ability to edit neutrally and collaboratively. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay User:Abecedare. I appreciate your feedback. I has previous issues with socking but I stopped and really had put myself together. Thats why I am a source driven editor but that seems like I just need to work on my editing abilities and being civil. Your feedback on the akshardham topic will be really helpful because no one else seems to be taking the time out to read the books and I know that is time consuming but I am not making stuff up. I will try to address everything on that noticeboard and keep reading. Swamiblue (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Abecedare, just wanted to ask about that follow up analysis you mentioned here. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Premkoli99

Is Premkoli99 (talk · contribs) now editing as an IP? Eg: 106.76.135.244 (talk · contribs) and 1.187.178.151 (talk · contribs). The geolocates are not even close but their obsession with things Koli and some intersection of edits makes me wonder. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And who is Fxpremji? They're cropping up quite a lot also with intersects and they really do not have much clue. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean [13]. An SPA for sure. If you can recall anyone else with an inordinate interest in Muthulaiyars (probably mangled by me) then we can see who (if anyone) quacking. --regentspark (comment) 19:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, Premkoli99 had an interest. We already know they socked and the two accounts share a string of characters. I probably should take it to SPI but I'm not in the mood. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

First IP looks like a duck. Second not so sure but I don't follow caste stuff and don't know the associations between different caste names like you do. Fxpremji looks different but with a single minded focus. I don't think they'll edit till later (night in India) so I'll let the wiser Abecedare deal with this.--regentspark (comment) 20:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Same mobile ISP, so pretty sure they are the same user and likely to be IP socks of Premkoli99 (talk · contribs). Too late to block, but we should keep an eye out for more related edits from "Idea cellular" IPs. And @RegentsPark: speaking of different caste names, enjoy this discussion in which I display my, ahem, erudition on the subject. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Karna

Do you remember working on this article a year ago? Alas its back to its crappy form again! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: Yup. Persistent SPAs who don't differentiate between writing an encyclopedic article and writing a CliffsNotes paraphrase of primary sources. I had given up on the article as a lost cause and unwatched the page, but if you have the energy/interest to rescue it, I'll chip in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No! Am not gonna bother either. Btw, while you were away you were mentioned at User_talk:Sitush#School_lists and if it interests you do join in User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#Wikipedia:Notability_.28awards.29. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

RS doubt

Hi Abecedare, had a doubt related to RS, this is used as reference in Vastu_shastra#History. The reference sounds fantastically dubious (read the para beginning with "The excavations of ..."). "Papers Presented at the First All India Symposium on Vāstu", do they qualify as primary and looking at the quality of the material, it does not seem reliable. What is your opinion? --TheMandarin (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Diwali greetings

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Page deletion

Hi there,

I have a page attributed to me on Wikipedia. I did not author it but it has been contributed by people who know me through a trade organisation that supports entrepreneurs. It is has been listed for deletion under Wiki's self promotion policy. As a donor to Wiki to keep it free and advert free I totally support its non advertising stance - but was wondering what the difference was on my page - and that of other female entrepreneurs such as Deborah Meaden or Lara Morgan for example? Could you advise please? Many thanks. Kl964 (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hope you're well

Hey. Just wanted to say that I look forward to your return here and hope you're doing fine if you're in a WikiBreak. Best wishes. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Abecedare. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Planning_a_few_initiatives.
Message added 23:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Abecedare/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that User:Abecedare/sandbox, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
• It is a rejected submission at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and it has not been edited in over six months. (See section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. G2. Test pages: "It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

xyz

While it is true that you will, without a doubt, sail through RFA unopposed yet another time, I don’t think you should wait for that long. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and what is it with you and going inactive six months after a successful RfA, every time? —SpacemanSpiff 16:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Abecedare. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back

It is indeed nice to see you active once more. Have a nice day. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

Hindu iconography
... you were recipient no. 635 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Abecedare.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Abecedare. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

]

Happy New Year, Abecedare!

Happy New Year!

Abecedare,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein

Hi. Almost ten years ago, in 2008, you salted that article, but I feel that he has grown in notability since. In fact, his The Connected Universe (with Patrick Stewart) is now an article. Do I have your permission to unsalt and give editors a chance with it? Thanks. El_C 02:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Absolutely. Worth a try. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy that! El_C 18:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)