Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:51, 7 July 2015

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

.

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

POV fork of Modi stuff

Public image of Narendra Modi seems like a truly glossed POV fork, given the highly controversial nature of the man. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitush (talk • contribs) 10:35, June 21, 2015

There can arguably be a legitimate article under that title, but the current article is, and is likely to remain, unencyclopedic fluff as I had commented at the talk page discussion that ha lead to its creation. That said, just not something to get too worked up about (unless there are gross BLP violations) since it is of little interest to anyone except diehard Modi fans/detractors. Abecedare (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Oriya -> Odia_Odia-2015-06-23T16:19:00.000Z">

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriya_language#Requested_move_17_June_2015. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48_Odia"> _Odia">

OK

I'll post a discussion on the talk page, which will be slow as I edit wikipedia on and off, but I think it's an important topic. With regards to academic coverage I think it's sufficient since most of the sections before me editing them were not supported by academic sources. I aim to distinguish India from Indian subcontinent just as the distinguishing of the European colonization of the Americas as opposed to just American the country.--Boxman88 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have looked through your reverts and I see my moves as justified. The sources also refer to them as Indian Subcontinent. Indian Subcontinent is a region which India is a part of. Unless there is a serious objection to my moves, I see no need for a discussion. If you wish for a discussion, please share your objections and reason behind them. India is distinguished from Indian subcontinent just as America the country is distinguished from the Americas, including North and South America.--Boxman88 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Boxman88: Please start a move request and make your case with sources at Talk:Colonial India, per WP:BRD. Simply re-doing a controversial move because you "see no need for a discussion" is just a waste of all our time. Abecedare (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK I'll do that, but it'll be a slow process since I am on-and-off on Misplaced PagesBoxman88 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No hurry. As I indicated on your talk page I am open to being convinced that there is better title than Colonial India for the article, but will need to see clear evidence that modern scholarship has stopped using the popular two word description and has settled on a suitable substitute (I frankly doubt European colonies of the Indian Subcontinent is the consensus choice, even if "Colonial India" is deprecated). Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in an ArbCom discussion

{{subst:arbcom notice| Talk Page Etiquette}} https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Talk_Page_Etiquette Soham321 (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

LinkedIn?

Hi Ab, Misplaced Pages is not LInkedIn, right? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Users get a lot of leeway of what they write abut themselves on their userpage, but I agree with you that this seems to be a bit much. Have tagged the page for deletion; that way we will get a second opinion from an independent reviewing admin. Abecedare (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This was a straight out violation of U5 and G11 and I've been seeing a lot of these this past week. But of course nothing to beat this article version, just read the references, that's where the juice is stored!—SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Took me a couple of minutes to simple parse the lead sentence. And the (hatted) section titles on the talkpage are gems too. How did you find this? Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Withdraw above comment. The sentences I mentioned are a trivial issue compared to the refs (as Spaceman had said, and I had read past)! This needs to be preserved somewhere:

CPIO, University of Allahabad RTI reference. no. RTI-140(1)/2014-15, dated 09—06-2014 responded through letter reference no. सा. प्र./अधि. शि./1487, dated 27-06-2014; RTI reference no. RTI-246(2)/2014-15, dated 01-08-2014 responded through letter reference no. सा. प्र./अधि. शि./2014/2001, dated 29-08-2014; RTI reference no. RTI-0138(1)/2014-15, dated 07-06-2014 responded through letter reference no. सा. प्र./अधि. शि./2014/1484, dated 27-06-2014, and also response of RTI reference no. RTI-015(1)/2014-15(online RTI no. 24168 dated 11-06-214) which was responded in the 4 July 2014 through letter reference no. सा. प्र./अधि. शि./2014/1483, dated 27-06-2014 gives information that the KBCAOS stated as K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies in the then ordinance of University of Allahabad is the only Unit of Atmospheric and Ocean Science exist in University of Allahabad and Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Science have no existence. Faculty members list stated that 5 faculty members selected through a proper selection committee in Atmospheric and Ocean Science are faculty members of K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies (KBCAOS), University of Allahabad

Abecedare (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That was my question too -- see here. But you missed the better part of the talk page as I removed a lot of it prior to hatting, see the linked convo for actual details! —SpacemanSpiff 18:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I cannot help laughing but, setting all wiki-issues aside, it is also really unfortunate that so much of the faculty time is wasted in real life on such silly bureaucratic issues rather than any productive academic teaching/research activities. Hard to say, without knowing the details, whether it is systemic issues or personality clashes in this case, but claims like ... K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies... is the only Unit of Atmospheric and Ocean Science exist in University of Allahabad and Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Science have no existence. are tragicomic. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Tragicomix will get the medicine for this.

On a more important point, can you guys take a look at Nashik and Kumbh Mela every now and then, I found copyvios in them and am now working with this MIT Kumbathon group who are spending their holidays contributing to the Kumbh Mela related pages on here. They are just starting out and I've given them some basic pointers, and once they've done some basic content I can direct them to other stuff and getting articles ready for DYK, I believe they could work on some of the fort articles. There's a long section on my TP titled MIT Kumbathon. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Nice work guiding the group Spaceman!

A few months back there was another live editathon at MIT focused on Dalit related content that was so poorly organized that it had User:Sitush and me tearing our hair out; most of edits made during the event had to reverted; and, I don't believe any of the participants became active editors. That group was so poorly advised (one of the organizers had recommended - paraphrasing - "If you want to write about subject X, Google for the term and see the what turns up", without any indication of being aware of WP:RS; and this to an audience who have access to academic libraries and databases!) that it is nice to see the proper approach, which hopefully will yield better results. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Different MIT, but the principle holds. This group is enthusiastic, and I think they have an emphasis on quantity, so it's easier to let them focus on one article now and then get them working on some of the others. A lot of the others are in bad shape, so any help would be welcome. —SpacemanSpiff 18:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Added some suggestions for the group on your talkpage. Hope I didn't jump the queue or plan of action you had in mind; also, really hard to avoid wiki-jargon like undue and userspace. Took the lazy way out for the moment. :) Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Any help is welcome. If you have a list of articles that they could create, it'd be incredibly helpful. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the editors' inexperience I think 2015 Kumbha Mela would be ambitious enough for now. Can put it up for DYK and even try to get it up on mainpage for one of the important festival dates (will be a push). Btw, it is tempting to jump in Nashik with MOS/Due-related corrections, but resisting it under the "give a man a fish..."/WP:BITE principles. Abecedare (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just looking to address copyvios, blp vios etc if any on that page. Again, I gave them two refs as examples and now there's over use of those two. But this is at least not as bad as most of the other areas I'm dealing with. —SpacemanSpiff 06:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Weird

Hi Abe. Have a look at diff. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable about the subject to comment on the content issue itself, but the diff you point to is another sign of tendentious editing by the user. And what makes it worse, is that the confrontational attitude and IDHTing is completely needless and non-productive since, as at the Adi Shankara page the other participants are more than ready to discuss the substance of the contributions and sources.

In any case, the pinging won't make a material difference since, as you noted B9 and another user are long blocked, and while I am not familiar with everyone else that was pinged, John Carter is a sensible and knowledgeable editor in religion-related articles; so his participation will only help. My suggestion is to simply ignore the editor's behavioral issues (which would be a time-sink to address, and unlikely to be changed through polite feedback), and just see if their content suggestions have something of value, which would improve the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette arbitration case has been declined

This is a courtesy notice to advise that the "Talk Page Etiquette" arbitration case, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined by the committee on account of the fact that it appears to have been withdrawn. Further information is available at the above link. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

Bengalis Article Vandalism

Hi Abecedare,

An extreme level of vandalism going on in the Bengalis article. Please semi-protect this article as soon as possible. An ip-sock puppet is constantly removing information without any discussion whatsoever. It would be better if you put "Misplaced Pages pending changes tag" where every change can monitored. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kkm010: Looks like it is just one IP, 103.11.50.115 (talk · contribs), who has been deleting the content. I have left them a message asking them to discuss the issue they have the content. Will block/protect if they continue, but hopefully they will use the talkpage instead. Will keep an eye on the article, but drop me a message if I miss some disruption. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure Abecedare, I will keep an eye this ip, if such disruption goes on like this, then we have to take some action straightaway. Anyway you also keep an eye on this article. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for writing to me. There is already a separate article “Bangladeshi People”. Why do cannot Indian Bengalis have a page of their own? I hope you realize that the article as it now stands at Misplaced Pages shows bias for an extreme political view held in Bangladesh. You will notice that it has been a perennial issue and highlighted numerous times in the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.11.50.115 (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have started a talk-page discussion on the subject, which is great! However you should avoid unnecessary bold-text (which comes across as shouting), and also not make wild charges ("motivated gangs of Islamist Bangladeshis", "hijacked by politically motivated individuals") about other editors. That is neither acceptable on wikipedia, nor a productive method of discussion on- or off-wiki. Please see wikipedia policies on assuming good faith, and being civil.

I encourage you to read up on wikipedia's core policies and also get an account, which will make communication easier. You are welcome to continue editing with or without registering, as long as you don't resume edit-warring and are more mindful of proper communication etiquette in future comments. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Help with a couple of India articles?

Hello, Abecedare! Might you want to take a look at the articles Bharadwaj Puram and Allahpur? There is a situation there that needs to be handled by someone who knows India. The two articles seem to be about the same place. The article Bharadwaj Puram had been nominated for A10 speedy deletion as a duplicate of Allahpur. I declined speedy deletion, because they are not duplicates, and because although Allahpur is the better and older article, Bharadwaj Puram seems to be a better title for the article. In fact I couldn't figure out where the name "Allahpur" came from, it isn't mentioned in the text. I don't know the area so I can't tell if Allahpur is another name for Bharadwaj Puram, and I could not find Allahpur in a search.

My hunch is that we should delete the article "Bharadwaj Puram" and move the "Allahpur" article to that title. It's also possible that some of the unique information in the Bharadwaj Puram article should be copied into the other article before moving. Or maybe we should keep both articles. Or maybe keep Allahpur and merge/redirect Bharadwaj Puram. I just don't know enough about the situation to do it myself. Do you want to give it a try? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The Allahpur article was started with Allahapur as the subject; slowly the lead sentence morphed into claiming that it was also known Bharadwaj puram; and, recently an editor simply deleted any reference Allahpur. If I may speculate, there appears to be local rivalry between the Bharadwaj community and Muslim residents over naming rights.

In my search, Allahapur appears to be more common in news articles and in addresses listed in Google books; see

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

and there is some indication that Bharadwaj Puram is a sub-locality of Allahpur (eg, see address listed here or here). Keep in mind though that none of these sources are really talking about Allahpur or Bharadwaj Puram in any detail, and are not really citable in the article itself. In any case, I'd recommend redirecting Bharadwaj Puram to Allahpur and restoring the latter to (say) this version (perhaps with some additional details added from the current Bharadwaj Puram article). If that sounds ok to you, can propose this at Talk:Allahpur and see if any of the interested editors have any objections, or sources to contribute. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for all the research. Sounds complicated - not to say a potential ethnic minefield. Would you change the lead to say something like "Allahpur (Hindi:अल्लाहपुर), also known as Bharadwaj Puram, is a locality/township of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. " ? We can't very well redirect from Bharadwaj Puram if the target doesn't mention it. Or what would you think about simply restoring the Allahabad article as you suggest, and then leaving the two articles alone - since the relationship between the two names/areas is not clear? --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not comfortable with the "also known as Bharadwaj Puram" bit since I am not certain whether Bharadwaj Puram is an alternate name of, or just a part of, Allahpur. Leaving the Bharadwaj Puram article alone also makes sense (personally I am not a fan of completely unsourced articles, but the wikipedia convention of accepting unsourced geographical articles as long as the location's existence is verifiable is well-established, and don't mean to argue with that here). Will implement this and drop a note at the article talkpage about the above discussion, for future reference. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

With the lack of any verified information, this is probably the best we can do at this point. Thanks, I appreciate your help - I was in over my head on this one! --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Carvaka article

@Abecedare: I am puzzled with @Mohanbhan reverts and assertions on the Carvaka article. He has also changed my text in one of my edits on the talk page here. Your intervention and guidance there would help. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)