User talk:Abecedare/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sensitive issue

I prefer not to take on the responsibility of personally alerting Fowler&Fowler on their venture into politics, but I find it necessary to highlight that the recent additions made by them to the page of PM Modi, specifically regarding the 2002 and 2020 riots, are potentially defamatory. It is important to note that the highest court of India has acquitted PM Modi of all charges related to the 2002 Gujarat riots. It is worth considering the issues facing BBC for publishing similar content. Fayninja (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fayninja: All content added to wikipedia should follow its policies and guidelines. Consideration of how governments, courts, or other institutions may react to content that is otherwise in compliance is speculative, above our pay-grade, and a path to self-censorship. As a sanity check, I looked at the changes made to the article since June 10 (ie, since the last version edited by Vanamonde93 whose judgment on the topic I trust completely) and don't see any obvious copyright- or BLP-violations that would require administrative intervention. Of course, one can still debate whether the changes cite the best-available sources and represent the (vast) literature on the subject adequately, but that is routine content issue that should be addressed through talk-page discussion or dispute resolution. Abecedare (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for having a look. I was concerned since it involved a high-profile living person whose government reacted with emergency laws on the BBC doco. Fayninja (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fayninja: I forgot to note in the above reply that individual editors should be aware of the possibility of governments, political parties, or their supporters retaliating against them individually for their contributions to wikipedia. But Fowler&fowler is an experienced editor and is surely cognizant of that risk. Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
If they are located outside of India, it is relatively safe, as the leader of the main opposition party is on the verge of being imprisoned due to a verbal attack which could have been easily resolved with a public apology. The line separating freedom of speech, insult, verbal attack, and defamation is extremely delicate than ever. Fayninja (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fayninja: The maple trees outside my study window constitute no scene found in South Asia. Regardless, I have reverted the page to the last version of 11 June 2023 edited by admin user:Vanamonde93, barring two minor syntax-related fixes by others. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
You deserve this for proactively approaching CU, and proving that socks can hardly damage an article if admins like you are around! Ekdalian (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Ekladian. Abecedare (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Salute to such efficient, active and polite admin. We are also fortunate to learn a lot from you.Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Satnam2408. Glad to be of service. Pity it had to be in a discussion sparked by a sock. Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
It is unfortunate. But it's impossible to escape your eagle eyes. Satnam2408 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

New user removing sourced content

There's a new user, Shinakho removing sourced content from the Rape in Afghanistan article, so I suggest that that article be locked for editing except for extended protected confirmed editors (any other sanction is up to you).-1Firang (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang: you and Shinakho need to follow WP:BRD, ie discuss the difference on the article talkpage (where neither of you have posted) and use dispute resolution if needed. Continued back and forth reverts will only result in one or both of you being blocked etc. Abecedare (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I have no issues with edits its the wording he uses I will clarify it again if there is a issue then we will settle in the talk page Shinakho (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Baidya

Hello Abecedare, sorry to bother you! Our article on Baidya is truly a contentious one, and has been through a lot of disruptive editing/POV pushing all through these years. In fact, Nobita and their sockfarm tried everything possible in order to promote/glorify the caste, whose varna status is disputed. I noticed that the article is semi protected, but all similar articles are ECP. I am not sure whether it would be possible for you to increase the protection level to ECP now, when it is stable for some time! RegentsPark had protected the article, but RP will be back in July as per talk page messages! Please help in case it is possible; already a new user has arrived (see talk page); could be a potential sock, you never know! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: Will add the article to my watchlist and increase the protection level if the usual disruption resumes (just drop me a note if I miss something!). Not raising the protection immediately since the most recent disruption was an isolated edit almost two months back by an editor (Wakawaka gw5) who seem so be more focused on Kayastha-promotion. Abecedare (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare, will it be possible for you to increase the protection level to ECP, considering the fact that the new user is editing the article without consensus, even after detailed explanation on Talk:Baidya! Moreover, all the socks were aware that they need only few edits before they can edit the article on Baidya. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ekdalian: I reverted their edit and left a note on the article talkpage (before I saw your above message). Will keep an eye on the article to see if ECP, page-blocks etc are needed. Abecedare (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ekdalian: Raised the protection to ECP. Given the CU findings, it seems that this year almost all the edits to the page by non-extended confirmed editors were by Nobita socks! Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    Great! Yes, Nobita was aware of this, that's the reason the socks were exploiting this; I mean few edits would get them a license to edit the article! Thanks a lot. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare! I hope you are doing well. I haven't gone into the depth of Ekdalian's complaint here but I wish to add something. Please don't take it in context of my TBAN as its about a larger issue. I can see Ekdalian alleging a user of being a caste promoter. Aren't we too centric on this "caste promotion" thing? When it comes to caste articles, we put all our emphasis on WP:PROMOTION leaving a little room for other policies like WP:BRD and WP:CIVILITY. We have a set of users who add positive content about a caste. On the other hand, we have another set of users who tend to remove the positive content and add demeaning things about a caste; they also allege the former set of being "caste promoters". While we often consider the edits of the former set to be done in bad faith, we continue to assume good faith with the latter. Dympies (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies: While poor-sourcing, POV-pushing, CIR (esp. language) issues are arguably worse in caste-related editing areas than (most) other areas on wikipedia, what makes caste-topics particularly problematic is:
  1. A surfeit of SPAs focused on editing about (presumably) their caste; promoting it while putting down "rival" castes. Their singular focus makes them go to great lengths (bludgeoning, socking, harassment, gaming and deception, etc) to achieve their aim, and it prevents them from learning about wikipedia policies and norms through editing other articles in which they don't have such an emotional investment.
  2. A scarcity of knowledgeable editors who edit across a wide spectrum of caste-articles w/o any personal stake (a la Sitush)
Of course, both SPAs and generalist editors can be "wrong" but the errors from the first group tend to all point in one direction and they are often not open to RS/NPOV-based arguments because they, of course, truly believe that they know the *facts* about their own caste. And if the SPAs are given too much rope, it tends to exasperate and drive away the editors from the second group, further worsening the problem. That is the reason the community and arbcom have enacted the WP:GSCASTE and IPA WP:CTOP rules and admins in the area try to vigilant and somewhat strict.
Now to be clear, I don't think you fall into the first group of editors! You clearly are competent, and have wider interests than Rajput- or caste-related articles. That is the reason, I imposed such a narrow topic-ban, believe that you can edit other areas of wikipedia unproblematically, and hold out hope that someday the topic-ban may even be lifted. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Aryan330

Hello @Abecedare as even after continuously asking you are not responding me on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1163057724 Kindly respond I have resourched a lot for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan330 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: As I just posted on your talkpage, I'll let the editors involved in that discussion respond to your comment, if they wish, since I haven't looked into Laine or Kincaid yet. Or you can ask at WP:RSN about those sources but I would recommend reading up WP:RS and WP:HISTRS first because currently you seem to be rushing in without a complete understanding of how wikipedia evaluates sources. Abecedare (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare why you removed strength section and other information from Battle of Umberkhind?
Atleast give the editers time for some days!
Seems like you are one sided user who not viewing from neutral point of view. Aryan330 (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Aryan330: See my note on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Give time to editors? I told you to move the Article to draft space and you refused to do that. You refered a non reliable source. Till this day, this information was taken by everyone who read this page. None of the neutral sources are available for this article. Ajayraj890 (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ajayraj890: The Battle of Umberkhind article wouldn't have been eligible for draftification except through an WP:AFD discussion. For long-standing articles with such long-standing problems, the preferred approach is to add the appropriate tags (as you did) or to stub it to the parts that are actually verifiable (as MatthewVinitas did back in 2018). Then interested editors can take their time to expand the article by adding sourced content that meets wikipedia's standards. And, as you say, readers are not potentially misled in the meantime. Abecedare (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes. You are right. I have mentioned about a book in the talk page of Battle of Umberkhind. Check about that too. Ajayraj890 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Pavankhind

@Abecedare for the citation of Battle of Pavankhind,after researching for more than 6 hours I am ready to show you all references and to show a corrected demo battle template with more than 5 sources. Kindly reply as you said that you will cite them on templates correctly for me as I am new on Wikipedia that's why you would cite that perfect on template. Waiting for your reply to show that all. Thank you Aryan330 (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: Good. Not sure what "corrected demo battle template" is but, in any case, list out the citations at Talk:Battle of Pavan Khind#Add citations with as much bibliographic information as possible (don't bother with citation templates though; plain text is fine) and quotes relevant to the content that has been tagged. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Nobita456: new sock

Hi Abecedare.. would like to keep you & Bishonen informed that another sock of Nobita456, JudeB5 has been blocked; this comes immediately after Joaquinreal, the sock identified by you! Would request you to please rev-del the abuses at the bottom of User talk: JudeB5. On a lighter note, it seems that while we try to improve as many articles as possible, Nobita simply wants to set the record of owning maximum number of socks here! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: Nice catch! Revdelled the abuse from the talkpage; let me know if there's anything elsewhere. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Ekdalian (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

BLP

Hi, this appears to be a BLP vio - usual Hindutva trope of internalized colonial mentality among Hindus who do not conform to the ideology (here, J. Mehta) etc. The user makes about a dozen spurious edits every year; so, RP's warning might be of relevance. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Good revert. The BLP is borderline (not that I don't see what you mean) but they are certainly treating the talkpage as a forum. Given the previous warnings by RP et al, I almost blocked them as WP:NOTHERE. But their other talkpage edits earlier this year seem at least intended to effect some change in the respective articles. So will drop them another reminder for now. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:LASTCHANCE, I guess. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Automatic edit filters have identified problematic content in your translation

Hi,

I have been translating the page for Cliff Stanford into Spanish and got this message.

"Automatic edit filters have identified problematic content in your translation"

Please can you help? Many thanks.

Tstanford1987 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tstanford1987: If you were translating the Cliff Stanford article into Spanish and trying to post it at es:Cliff Stanford, then the problem you had can only be resolved by asking about it on the Spanish Wikipedia. The admins there should be able to tell you which edit filter was triggered and what changes are needed to the article to bypass the problem. Abecedare (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick response!
Tony
Tstanford1987 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Tstanford1987 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the new user, NC

Hi Abecedare, I would like to thank you for your vigilance and comments on the talk page of user NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE! Since he seems to be adamant that I know nothing (personal attacks on article talk page), only admins know the rules; therefore in order to get those valuable sources from the user, I told them to at least share the sources with you! Hope you understood the reason behind such a silly statement! Thanks, again. Ekdalian (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries. :) Abecedare (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Ekdalian you know everything but still did not remove the raj era source from Kayastha article even after I pointed out. Why? is it because the source is saying something which you liked? You even told me to provide post raj era academic sources! Is it neutral behavior from an expereanced editor like you? NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE: Please assume good faith and avoid such passive-aggression. The content/sources can be discussed on the article talkpage(s) or with the help of dispute resolution. Abecedare (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Bengali Kayastha

Hi Abecedare.. thanks for the full protection! As an uninvolved admin, please note that I was only reverting to the last consensus version! We already had a detailed discussion last year regarding this (section 'Banu' in article talk page), and the conclusion was in favour of the inclusion of the statement from the source by Banu, since it was earlier approved by Sitush!! You may please check this concluding note by LukeEmily here, according to which only Sitush or TB can remove the part, otherwise they need to take it to WP:INB; LukeEmily left this note precisely in order to avoid edit warring in future! Satnam & CW are edit warring in spite of being aware of this consensus! I would like to point out that the version fully protected now is not the last stable version! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

NC has finally been blocked! Thanks Ekdalian (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ekdalian: It is very much possible that I protected the wrong version; didn't want to endorse any particular "version" but wanted to stop the edit-war since that's a quick way for good editors to get into trouble. Hopefully, with the sock out of the way (for now!) the remaining editors can resolve the underlying dispute. Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ekdalian:, yes, my intent was only to prevent future edit wars and point out the implicit agreement by Sitush. I suspect some caste rivalry is going on in these two communities or perhaps more communities in Bengal. @CharlesWain:, said here  : Has the conflict started after TB revamped the Baidya article? If it's so, I guess the reason might be that the contents, tone and flow of these two articles hugely differ, despite both being non-brahmin upper-castes of Bengal.. I have not gone through the history of edit wars in much detail so I cannot comment on this opinion. I saw some similar rivalry between Ahirs and Rajputs pages at one point although not at this level. I have only acquiesced i.e accepted Sitush's version reluctantly. I write "acquiesced"(agreed passively) because I was surprised that Sitush did not object to a race based theory on a caste article. Or maybe he is not interpreting it as a racial theory? Maybe it is better to ask Sitush or TB for their opinion. Tb definitely has some concerns about Banu. My suspicion is that they are also tired of the caste wars and TB actually suggested protecting all caste pages for Bengal. I have already said on the talk page last year, everything I had. My recommendation would be to discuss the issue with the other editors and find a middle ground. The Aryan race and Dravidian race theories are debunked as Aryan race page says.LukeEmily (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I missed Ekdalian's comment about me here. Hey Abecedare, I know about the previous discussion. I have never denied it. I mentioned in the talk of Bengali Kayastha about the reason behind the revert. There was no complete consensus on this topic as you can see in the history of the discussion. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't take part in earlier discussions/edits, but was checking talk page discussions and editing history recently. My opinion is based on that. LukeEmily, I have seen you made a to-do list there, which is yet to be realized. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Manipur violence.

No mentions of fake news that spread which lead to barbaric crime against two women who were paraded naked. Although the internet was suspended fake news kept on spreading. This needs a mention in your Wikipedia page. Kindly for the sake of knowledge correct it as editing is locked. Violence is mentioned but the reason is not, rather internet suspension is considered wrong here, it's biased. 103.183.33.3 (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

NC/Nobita created another sock....

called me 'Ekdalian uncle' (assuming my age, considering my 10+ years presence in Wikipedia) and apologized for their abuses; also tried to apologize on Doug Weller's talk page for the same reason! I just wanted to share this unexpected behaviour (from someone like Nobita) with you & Bishonen! LOL! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Fayninja

Hello, this is Fayninja speaking. I created those accounts with the intention of distancing myself from my main account, Fayninja. However, I found it challenging to completely abandon the Fayninja identity, as we previously discussed on my talk page, in order to avoid harassment and tracking. My initial plan was to switch accounts approximately once a year after gaining a sufficient number of users who would monitor my contributions. It's important to note that I have never used these additional accounts for abusive purposes, pushing a particular point of view, manipulating votes, or engaging in edit wars. Regarding Fowler, you advised me not to interact with them, but I had no choice but to confront the situation when I noticed them using BJP/Hindu nationalism as a derogatory term on talk pages[1][2] and somehow, get them to change their behavior, as their attacks were going unchallenged by administrators, I want to clarify that I have never used my alternate accounts to make edits on articles; instead, I enjoy participating in debates on talk pages. If Fayninja remains blocked, I understand that you may proceed to block this account as well, and I will then leave Wikipedia, assuming that it has become too toxic and oppressive of critics for me to continue contributing. @Doug Weller, may be interested. Ahomraj (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not take part in the recent Mahatma Gandhi edit war and its related discussion because I believe in not engaging without proper sources to back up my claims. My comment, however, focused on combating the use of Hindutva as a slur[3], and a means to gain sympathy, as was seen in the recent Arbitration case involving Fowler. I actually supported Fowler's stance in the edit war/discussion because the provided sources were credible and aligned with my bias, which Abhishek also acknowledged.[4] Ahomraj (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
'I have never used these additional accounts for abusive purposes'? I beg to differ: this is gaslighting, intimidation and harassment, and it's completely unacceptable under any circumstances. Your block stands, and you are not permitted to create new accounts or edit as an IP - if new accounts are discovered, they will be blocked on sight. Girth Summit (blether) 08:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding pending issues

Hello @Abecedare,

It has been a while since our last discussion on Indian Independence Movement page (Talk: Namdhari Movement as first resistance post-1857 administrative unification of India). You started impressively with your reasoning on a few sources and the overall referencing issues with my edits. But of late, I have found that you are evading any conversation. I expected logical explanation from you, and be assured, that I would not work in violation of Wikipedia policies. You have said that my replies have been 'lengthy', this appears kinda unprofessional, since your responses on other discussion weren't very short either. Moreover, I had listed my points numerically. The last question to you on WP:DUE of other actors of IIM was not a lengthy question. But you haven't replied on it. It appears you don't have an explanation on that. Meanwhile, if don't mind, can you please inform your background education. That will help me in mapping your arguments, since you have not interacted much on the 'talk' page of IIM lately. Let's see if we can together resolve this issue amicably and logically. Please suggest how to move forward. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947: I stopped responding at the IIM talkpage because your lengthy comments/questions didn't address the due concerns others and I had raised and you had started dismissing my factual assertions such as about what a signed article in EB means with "That's your subjective opinion on that". Under these circumstances, I don't believe my repeating the same point will necessarily convince you but just to give it another try:
Per WP:DUE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:HISTRS, etc, in order to determine whether and to what extent a topic should be included in a history article, we need to look at how much space the best available secondary and tertiary sources about the article's subject devote to that particular topic. When the article is Indian Independence Movement on which there is tons of scholarly literature, these sources are likely to be history texts focused on Indian history/British Raj/IIM written by scholars working in the area, which have been been published by academic/university presses in the last few decades and positively reviewed by other experts.
So if you wish to argue for the inclusion of, say, the role of Namdharis or Ram Singh in the Indian Independence Movement article, these are the type of sources you'll need to look for. If you disagree with the standard I have outlined above, I would recommend running it by any editor who your trust or asking about it at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:NPOVN. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare: My assertion of 'subjective opinion' was regarding the weightage issues. If its wikipedia policy to not include EB articles 'Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica' , then I can't say. But similar statements made in Dictionary of Martyrs Vol. 1 (which is compiled by qualified historians) also serve as reference. Kindly guide which books do you specifically mean. I have consulted 'India's struggle for Independence, written by Bipan Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee, Aditya Mukherjee, Sucheta Mahajan and KN Panikar. Incidentally, this manuscript has no reference for Bhumij, Manki, Chero, Titumir, Ho, Pazhassi, Nichyar, Polygar, Paik to name a few, though all of these find place in the IIMR page. Should these entries be deleted then? This is the query that I referred to you in my last reply on Talk: IIM page. I think it would help if you specifically name the texts that you're referring to in WP:HISTRS.
Since there has been quite some talk on this, you may choose skipping answering the above. I am new to Wikipedia and don't have know any editors. I found logic in your earlier assertions, but lately couldn't understand your point. You had once sugested taking these details to Wiki: Guru Ram Singh Kuka and Wiki: Namdhari. I agree with your suggestion to take the IIM discussion on another space at appropriate time.
For the time being, going by your suggestion of improving the specific pages Wiki: Guru Ram Singh Kuka and Wiki: Namdhari, I would request if you could clear some non-history doubts:
  1. I saw in Edit History of the said pages, that the prefix 'Guru' was removed by some editors citing Wiki policies. As you might be fully aware, Guru Ram Singh is source of inspiration to Namdhari community. Given that this is a well-known term and just like we have 'Mahatma' Gandhi, where 'Mahatma' is clearly an honorific, do you think it is problematic to use 'Guru' prefix?
  2. Can the sources 'Dictionary of Martyrs', 'Kuka movement: Fauja Singh Bajwa' and others be used to improve the information there?
  3. There is wrong information with respect to dates and other details. Would you kindly guide in improving these, if these are wrongly reverted by certain editors?
Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Quick replies:

Peasant resistance also developed in other parts of the country. Mappila outbreaks were endemic in Malabar. Vasudev Balwant Phadke, an educated clerk, raised a Ramosi peasant force of about 50 in Maharashtra during 1879, and organized social banditry on a significant scale. The Kuka Revolt in Punjab was led by Baba Ram Singh and had elements of a messianic movement. It was crushed when 49 of the rebels were blown up by a cannon in 1872. High land revenue assessment led to a series of peasant riots in the plains of Assam during 1893–94. Scores were killed in brutal firings and bayonet charges.

— India's Struggle for Independence 1857-1947 Chapter 3: Peasant Movements and Uprisings After 1857 (Bipan Chandra)
i.e in a 800+ pages book on IIM with a 17 pages chapter on peasant movements, two sentences are devoted to Baba Ram Singh as one of four examples of peasant resistance in "other parts" of the country. You now see why mentioning him and the Namdhari movement in Indian independence movement is undue?
  • This type of analysis will also be applicable to several other persons/movements already mentioned in the article. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Efforts to clean up the article would be appreciated as long as they are not pointy or disruptive.
  • Discussion about Ram Singh Kuka and Namdhari are best done on the respective article talkpages but two quick points:
    • As I said previously, Fauja Singh is one of several viewpoints potentially worth mentioning in these articles, although given that his work is almost 60 years old, it would be better to rely on recent scholarship that builds on his early work.
    • To determine whether "Guru" should be considered as an inseparable part of Ram Singh's name rather than an honorific, see how modern scholarly sources refer to him.
Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Not intending to prolong this discussion, but given the current tone and content of the IIMR article (as you mentioned WP:OTHERCONTENT), for Kuka movement, at least 2 lines were devoted. For a large number of personalities in the IIM article, not even a single word was given therein. But as you mentioned that Bipan Chandra et al has issues with POV (I agree with this), let's rest this discussion here. Although if you notice the weight that "Non-cooperation" has received in the bar chart that you referred to, the statements intended to be added regarding Kuka movement were an 'addition of information' to this topic of non-cooperation only. Dictionary of Martyrs reference also dealt with this point. May be Wiki: Non-cooperation Movement is a better option, since its ideological precursors in space-time, viz., Kuka movement and Swadeshi movement, have not been implicated sufficiently.
Scholarly sources use prefix "Guru" and since related to cultural sensitivities, without linking to other ideologies, this should be done, in my opinion, although 'Namdhari Guru' can also be used as prefix. This is Dr. Joginder Singh deals with this (and is a recent text).
Thanks for your time. I will request your guidance on this, wherever necessary. Regarding the original issue, the few points remaining may be discussed separately in a more positive tone sometime later. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User 1Firang

I hope you're well. I note that you've already given some attention to 1Firang (talk · contribs) this month and last regarding bludgeoning and tendentious editing at various pages related to India and Pakistan, and edit-warring at Rape in Afghanistan. We are having continuous issues with tendentious editing on this user's part at Rape in Islamic law, involving a few instances of misrepresentations of sources & continuous editing from a non-neutral point of view. I have made a suggestion on their Talk page that they hold off from the issue of rape & Islamic societies—a topic about which they apparently have a viewpoint that they're very determined to have recorded in Wikipedia—but they have declined to engage. I am pursuing lower-level means of addressing this at present & do not want to deal with the ANI process as I'm travelling abroad & have limited Internet access. However, I thought that this might relate to the other recent issues, & decided to bring it to your attention. Take care. Pathawi (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I have paraphrased and added text from a reliable source as can be seen at Talk:Rape in Islamic law#Pregnancy and zina offenses leading to stoning and jail convictions.. It is Pathawi who is not engaging in a discussion and removing sourced content. Please let us know if we should start an RfC.-1Firang (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Pathawi: See the final warning I left on the editor's talkpage. Let me know if the problem persists or spreads elsewhere. Abecedare (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Thank you. Pathawi (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I saw your noticewarning. Now, if I'm not sure if I paraphrased the text from the source correctly, where should I ask for help without getting sanctioned further; the talk page of the respective article or the Teahouse?-1Firang (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@1Firang: Maybe edit in less contentious areas or ones in which you have real-life expertise? Abecedare (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) If one cannot be certain about paraphrasing a source accurately, they ought not be editing the area irrespective of contentiousness. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare: Will I be sanctioned if I:-
  1. Paraphrase text from a reliable source and ask if it is good enough to add to an article on the Talk page of an article?
  2. Paraphrase text from a reliable source and ask if it is good enough at the Teahouse?
  3. Add paraphrased text to an article citing a source that mentions many countries, perhaps even India or Pakistan (but not mention India or Pakistan in the paraphrased text)?-1Firang (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@1Firang: The short answer to all three of your questions is "it depends". See WP:TBAN for what it will depend upon for (3) and WP:DE (and particularly, WP:TE) for (1) and (2). Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare: WP:TBAN says, "..... if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather" which means I can't edit anything related to India or Pakistan, even if it is a subsection but can I add paraphrased text to an article citing a source that mentions many countries, perhaps even India or Pakistan (but not mention India or Pakistan in the paraphrased text)?-1Firang (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
It has, unfortunately, persisted. As this is about Islam & sexual violence, rather than about India & Pakistan, is the appropriate thing for me to initiate an ANI process? Is there a way to add onto the existing discussion that led to the existing topic ban rather than start a new process? Much thanks. Pathawi (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Pathawi: I took a brief look at the disputed edit but w/o actually reading the source and previous discussion(s), I wouldn't know whether or not 1Finag is again misrepresenting the cite source. So if you feel that further talkpage discussion would not be fruitful, ANI would be the right venue to address this. Especially since I have been involved in several previous sanctions against the editor, fresh admin eyes would be good. You can cite my previous topic-ban, page-block and final warnings for context, if you wish. Abecedare (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Pathawi (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sikh history

What's a good way to deal with the low-intensity POV pushing? Threads like this consume a lot of time. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Agree that such response takes a lot of time and effort but I think that the approach you took was exactly the right one: laying out your analysis clearly and soberly without any extraneous commentary or threats directed at other editors. The hope is that the effort expended not only helps settle the discussion at this particular article (whether on the talkpage or in 30, RSN or RFC follow-ups) but also informs the other discussants and casual page-watchers of the expected sourcing standards. So while this may seem to be a lot of effort to expend on "Battle of Kup", which I assume you don't innately care too much about, we can at least hope (or, delude ourselves!) that it saves time in the long run by keeping editors from using poor sources or, at least, have the prior analysis to point to when they do. And perhaps the true reason for making the effort, as with anything on wikipedia whether we admit it or not, is that we enjoy the activity to some extent. :) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting protection

Massive edit war at Jadaun Rajputs between two disruptive editors ,3 reverts by No2WesternImperialism [5][6][7] and Kshatriya_Yoddha [8][9] I'm requesting sys-op protection for the time being, Regards.Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, please request other users not to remove information based on the way they view things.
The user Kshatriya Yoddha appears to be a caste supremacist and removed information based on the way they didn't like what they saw. No2WesternImperialism (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: Thanks for the message. I haven't full-protected Jadaun Rajputs though since if No2WesternImperialism or Kshatriya Yoddha continue their edit-war, they can be blocked or otherwise sanctioned instead. I see that Aman.kumar.goel has already notified No2WesternImperialism of the potential 3RR violation and I have done the same for Kshatriya Yoddha. Abecedare (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Question about this edit

This edit [10] on the Battle of Kup cites two books. One from GS Chabra and the other from Bhagat Lakshman Singh. GS Chabra states that 50,000 Sikhs were surronded by 150,000 Afghans. The note appended to the Afghan figure states that it should be cautiously taken which implies the veracity of the figure is uncertain. Bhagat Lakshman on the other hand is, I would argue, a fairly outdated source, his last work "Sikh Martyrs" was published in 1923. He was also a member of the Provincial Educational Services from 1900-1919 and was Professor of English Literature and History in Gordon Mission College from 1894-1898 as per his autobiography [11] (page xi-xii and 100 respectively). In cases like this, do we add a supplementary note to Wikipedia similar to what was on the original text, or leave it as is, or exclude it entirely?

Pinging Twarikh e Khalsa in case he'd like to add his own input. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bhagat Lakshman Singh book wouldn't be citable on wikipedia by itself for the reasons you list. The only reason for paying it any attention at all is Chabra mentioning one factoid from it in his book, in which case we should not excise the cautionary note Chabra provides about the credibility of the source and figure. Note too what Chabra writes in the Preface:

Much of the study of this period of the Punjab History, involves the study of a literature based upon religious inspiration and false pride of race and belief. Not un-naturally, therefore, very often it is coloured with bias and prejudice. Fact have been mixed up with fables, and a simple history has been converted into a complicated mystery. An effort has here been made to apply a discerning eye and an impartial mind. The success or failure is before the readers, to judge. Only this much claim can be forwarded that no source has been left untapped, and no effort left unmade, to make the account as exhaustive as possible.

Citing the results of the "exhaustive" accounting which removing the "discerning eye" is (inadvertently) misrepresenting the source and misinforming the reader. Two side notes:
  • If more recent works than Chabra are available, that of course would be better still
  • WP:MILHIST and the {{Infobox military conflict}} documentation may have guidelines about how such information, which needs caveats and qualifications, is best presented in the infobox and/or the article body. Worth looking/asking.
Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand, so the 150,000 figure should be changed to say (according to G.S Chabra instead of Bhagat Lakshman Singh)? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry that I wasn't clearer. The attribution to BLS is correct but there should be some indication that that number is dubious; attributing the number to Chabra would definitely be wrong because we'll be implicitly using his credibility to support a figure he explicitly doesn't endorse!
Not sure how such nuance can be incorporated in infobox. MILHIST may have guidelines or one can say "Uncertain" and direct the reader to the article text (Aside: saying 30,000—150,000 would be inadvisable though since the two ends of that synthesized range are not equally credible.) The article body can then say something like, "Bhagat Lakshman Singh gives a number of 150,000 for the Afhgan forces (excluding the local levies) although this figure is doubtful." Or better still, since Bhagat Lakshman Singh is neither an authoritative figure nor a name the reader is expected to recognize, "The number of the Afhgan forces has been said to be as high as 150,000 (after excluding the local levies) but this estimate is doubtful." The exact sentence will need to crafted depending upon the adoining text. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@Suthasianhistorian8
Im actually completely fine if you add a footnote that says that this figure should be cautiously taken as this is mentioned in the sources footnote.I was originally going to do that but due to time constraints i was unable to.The reason why I wrote (according to bhagat lakshman singh) was because chabra got the 150,000 figure from bhagat lakshman singhs source.I also added lakshman singhs source just incase if the reader wants to check his account aswell. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright, will do. Thanks a lot Abecedare for your suggestions, I really appreciate you taking the time to help others. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@Suthasianhistorian8
Apologies aswell for not including the footnote. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) I have made the question quite redundant; there were atleast a couple of inaccuracies in the article as it stood. Regional sources - even the likes of which have been published by Punjab University — ought not be used AT ALL unless from doyens like Grewal. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    @TrangaBellam
    Exactly why did you delete all of the information from the page? Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    HauhgtonBrit making disruptive WP:IDHT arguments at Talk:Second Siege of Anandpur. I believe the page should be protected to WP:DENY his attempts to frustrate the encyclopedia. 15:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Suthasianhistorian8: Reverted for now. Will protect/range-block if they persist.
Noting for the record and as a memory aid for myself: since the range 2601:547:b03::/49 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is blocked till Nov 3rd, HaughtonBrit is currently (again) active on 2600:1016:b010::/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which I had previously blocked from Jun 3 to Jul 3rd, and on 174.203.96.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Abecedare (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Abecedare. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Per above, the SPI and your request here, I have blocked 2600:1016:b000::/42 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for 3 months. That range seems to be used mainly by HaughtonBrit and by another editor interested in American television; hopefully the latter will create an account. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare! Fingers crossed for the other editor — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · e · c) 20:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Need Guidance

@Abecedare Hello Sir, I need your guidance for page creation. I want to creat many pages(mostly with battle template) Now I am clear that what are called as primary sources & what are the secondary sources. I will place those accurately. For now I just want your guidance for how to create page & how to place the link of it so that is marked at one paragraph it will be redirected at that battle template. & About overall guidance. Aryan330 (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: For now, I would suggest starting articles in draft space since as a quick glance at your recent creation Battle of Vani shows, you are still relying on dated sources rather than on modern scholarship. It really is a disservice to wikipedia readers (and a waste of your time) to propagate such outdated and dubious information.
I don't understand your question about placing links. Is it the one already addressed by 331dot? If not, can you try spelling it out more clearly? Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare Yes, addresed by him.
Since you was not responding for many time and thought you have taken a leave from Wikipedia for some days.
That's why I decided to create article directly,so would it will be rejected?as I don't created it using draft. Aryan330 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Aryan330: Yes, I was busy off-wiki for a few days but should be back now. Haven't reviewed the Battle of Vani page beyond the sources to know if it would be better off draftified. Will take a look in the next day or so. Would recommend that you create in the immediate future be in draftspace and not be based on on dated sources whose own over-reliance on dubious primary sources has been noted by modern scholars. Abecedare (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare not be based on on dated sources whose own over-reliance on dubious primary sources has been noted by modern scholars. I didn't know what you mean by dates sources?
Are you saying that source should not be entirly copied from primary source?
Should i shift the whole page to draft(copy paste)?
As 331dot said that even it is not drafted It will be reviewed by patrollers.
So should i create on draft or what? Aryan330 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare First of all you didn't replied me,that's ok I have found out that what is called dated sources & I am Clear about Sarkar's work now.
But you didn't replied me & also accused me for some reasons on that discussion page.
At what basis did you said that I was not aware of it?

At what basis you are saying that I am pro Maratha? at what basis? Because I had engaged in edit war at page of Mughal Maratha wars from Maratha side(the earlier result was in the favour of Maratha & I just reverted that edit which was removed by two users namely @capitals00 & aman.kumar.goel without providing sources).then why you didn't said both of them Pro Mughal or Anti Maratha?Think another time when you will use these types of statements again that is it really true? See my reply to you on that page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169447995Aryan330 (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for protecting the article on Gaur Brahmins

Hi Abecedare, can you please check the revision history of Gaur Brahmins, and protect the article! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Would also request you to take required action against the user Assasian9564b, engaged in subtle vandalism in caste & other articles, currently Karan Kayastha; doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The article may not require protection at this point of time, rather Karan Kayastha requires protection, I mean ECP. All related caste articles are protected (ECP). Thanks, Bbb23 for blocking the user! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Caste-based disruption

Thanks for the effort against caste-based disruption on enwiki. With respect to the Koli case, Makwana (clan) needs to be sysop-protected for the time being; No2WesternImperialism whose modus operandi seems to be the restoration and reinsertion of past socks is doing exactly that on this article (also engages in other dubious caste-related edits in articles/cats et. al., in a past SPI analysis you were not convinced of this account's relation to the Koli case but restorals of those exact edits does put it again into suspicion).

Pages targetted by the Koli socks that need EPP include:

This might appear somewhat extensive but the scale of the sock network and its disruptions are well known and need further protection and the extensive IP socking can be seen in each of them. Gotitbro (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Thanks for compiling the list! I'll run through it in a day or so. In the meanwhile, feel free to add/subtract from it as needed. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
We also need discussion whether these dubious cats need to be CfD'd: Category:Brahmin princely states‎‎, Category:Charan princely states‎‎, Category:Gurjar princely states‎, Category:Jat princely states‎, Category:Kathi princely states‎‎, Category:Koli princely states‎‎, Category:Maratha princely states‎‎, Category:Rajput princely states‎. Most of them created by the aforementioned No2WesternImperialism. Gotitbro (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Quick points:

  • I have indef ECPed the above articles in cases where I could detect edits by TSSJ socks (even if not recent). Didn't spot that at Thakur (title) and Dhor though. Did I miss something (quite possible)?
  • I also BANRVERTed edits by TSSJ socks/IPs (often dating from last Oct.). Could you please review these pages or my recent edits to see if any of the information I so removed should be legitimately retained? See especially Gokalpura State, which after my revert is essentially a blank article; it should at least have a lede sentence or should be deleted.
  • I have a vague memory of looking into No2WesternImperialism's editing at some point but don't recall the circumstances and haven't kept up with their current activities. If there are problems, could you file a report at SPI/ANI/AE as appropriate with the diffs?
  • Not touching categories since I haven't kept up with the policies and norms in that area. Can you ask an admin who specializes in that area to take a look or nominate them for deletion?

Abecedare (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Great job, I have simply rded the Gokalpura article (a lot of tese petty princely state articles were created frivolously anyhow by a now blocked user). Dhor is a distinct caste which the sock network has been very keen to include inside the Koli framework (see here), I have rded it as well but since caste disruptors are likely to return better indef it. Deloli and Muhammad Shah are also in need of protection. Further, I have CfD'd all the caste princely states cats seeing that other such cats for princely states have already been deleted every now and then. I will keep an eye on No2WesternImperialism but going the way they are, I would not be surprised if they run into trouble on their own. Gotitbro (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Onyeka Nwelue

Rewrote the article - anything sticks out, BLP-wise? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Ends up painting quite a poor picture of the subject but that should be ok as long as the cited sources are reliable and representative and that's what they say, which I didn't check.
Made some minor copyedits, and had a grammar question about African women — who use makeup — coming across as "masquerades". IMO, the clause ""who use makeup" in there is intended to be restrictive but the current punctuation makes it non-restrictive, ie, as it stands, the sentence says that (in Nwelue's opinion) all African women (a) wear makeup, and (b) come across as "masquerades". Can you check with some grammar maven? Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Not that I am a maven, but I do wonder if by "who use makeup," "who all use makeup" is not meant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sengol

Remember the last ANI? Well .... TrangaBellam (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hope everything is fine....

Hi Abecedare, hope everything is fine! I am a bit worried considering your long absence! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

PS Yes, haven't heard from you in a while. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
+1 - I am mostly inactive and noticed it rn. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Iruka13

please help me to deal with the things done by user Iruka13. because he wanted to delete the file File:Jess No Limit bald.jpg without giving a clear reason. I told him that the file was on Indonesian Wikipedia and someone who uploaded the file was not subject to copyright. but he still didn't care about me and let me be. Serigala Sumatera (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy new year(2024)

I apologize for occupying a space on your talk page. I hope everything is going well. I wish you a happy New Year! I hope you have a year filled with joy, laughter, and good health. May the upcoming year bring prosperity, success, and abundant opportunities for growth to you and your loved ones. Cheers to a fresh start and a bright future! Thanks, — Satnam2408(talk) 19:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Abecedare!

Happy New Year!

Abecedare,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Dympies (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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

BLP topic ban appeal

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TheNewMinistry (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_26&oldid=1218265712"