User talk:Abecedare/Archive 6

AfD
Hi Abecedare, I think that article should be AfD'd.  Not sure if it is blatant POV, or  the handiwork of a new Wikipedian  who is not aware of the other articles. In either case, it serves little purpose. I am happy to help in whatever way I can. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Help: Mango in the Vedas
Hello there, I've been having some difficulties in the Mango article page trying to cite a statement describing the mango as the 'the food of the gods', as mentioned in the Vedas. I've had a pretty long discussion with User:Paul144, you may refer to the contents of the discussion in my talk page and in his. To summarise, as we are not reaching a consencus, I was wondering if you could help me find the exact verse in the Vedas that describes the fruit as 'the food of gods', if not some verses that prominantly mentions the fruit. I'd need to know the verse and the version of the Vedas you are referring for a valid citation. I accessed you by referring to the Vedas article discussions page. By looking at your contributions, I feel you have significant knowledge on Hindu texts. Hence I'm hoping you can help me out with this, as I'm less familiar. Looking forward to your reply. Thanks and have a nice day! S3000 ☎  16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are dozens of mention of Mango in Mahabharata and Ramayana, and some in the Upanishads (e.g. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV.iii.36), but I have not found any specific reference for Mango as the "fruit of the gods" in the Vedas. There are several non-scholarly secondary sources that make such claims, but they may just be repeating folklore. I'll do a more thorough search later; in the meantime you can also ask User:Dbachmann and User:Rudrasharman for help. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I've sent a copy of my initial message to both User:Dbachmann and User:Rudrasharman. I'll keep this page on watch for a week. If you can't find anything regarding the 'fruit of the gods', I'll just change the sentence in the Mango article to something like 'The mango is mentioned prominantly in the Hindu Vedas' with the verse you provided as a note. Thanks again! S3000  ☎  10:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have searched a bit more, and didn't find any references to the mango in the four Vedic samhitas. A couple of secondary sources say that mango is mentioned in the Yajurveda and cite the verse from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (IV.iii.36), but that is misleading and a misattribution in my opinion, even though the Br. Up. is nominally associated with the Yajurveda.
 * While the Br. Up.'s mention of āmra may well be the oldest, it is quite trivial. The more interesting references to mango are in the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Jain and Buddhist literature, Jataka kathas and of course the puranas. I may try to compile a short section on this for the Mango article, but it may take some time. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest I'm really not knowledgeble in this subject. However fom the little I know, Ramayana and Mahabharata are just epics, while the Vedas are the primary sacred texts of Hinduism. So its really not important noting the mention of the fruit in those epics (?). It would be excellent if you can contribute your inputs directly to the article! Or if you are short of time, just give me the points (with references) and I'll compile it and get your opinion before saving it to the page. Thanks!  S3000  ☎  17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hey Abecedare! You requested rollback and I have granted it and changed your permissions. If you have any questions, please contact me. Enjoy, Poeloq (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Kannada literature
Hi. I have left a note for you under section "Abecedare-Other scholars who concur with point #5". Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just noticed and replied on the page. Abecedare (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the effort you are putting in to resolve this issue. I aaw your note on Fowlers page so just wanted to add to it. Sahitya Akademi, The vol 1, p 248 talks about 800 CE Kannada literature (written in ashtaka 8 line metre) called Gajastaka. I have several other citatins for this work. The vol 2 that you just referred to on Fowlers page also clearly says that early writers and their writings are lost.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to log off now so will reply in more detail later. Your point about volume 2 raises a question I had meant to bring up later: are we differentiating between existence of literary works and existence of a literary tradition ? Pollock, for instance, defines the latter in terms of there being commonly acknowledged norms of writing (too rushed to look up the exact quote right now). If this definitional issue proves to be the bone of contention between editors, it can easily be dealt with with appropriate phrasing; but for now it may be better to proceed one baby-step at a time. Thanks for your input and your patience! Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! I forgot. Please refer to Sahitya Akademi, vol 2 p 1699 for more info on Highly evolved traditions

prior to Kavirajamarga. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your obviously excellent effort on Talk:Kannada literature. If some of the people here adopted an NPOV editing style from very beginning it would definitely save a lot of effort on part of other users. But no, they choose to push pov (despite knowing otherwise) as much as possible assuming that other users won't have the time or waste effort to dig into details. And when faced with obvious facts they will try to fudge up to greatest possible extent in order to blur the article in their favor (at least that is what I think is going on in Talk:Kannada literature with the latest comments there.) Desione (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have worked with or seen the work of almost all the editors involved in the debate (Dinesh, Sarvagnya, F&f, KNM, Relato, Rudra, AreJay et al) and hold a high opinion of them as knowledgeable and passionate content creators. Though some of the recent discussion on the KL page became unnecessarily heated and unfortunately focussed on conduct rather than content; I think the overall debate was to the benefit of the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you hard work Abecedare. Just a few clarifications, Is Amaresh Datta the editor of the book 'Encyclopaedia of Indian... vol3 ' that you refered to? Is Garg the author of 'International Encyclopaedia .... vol4' you referred to? Do you have an ISBN or OCLC number for 'History of Kannada literature by R.S. Mugali? I will try and look it up too.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ameresh Datta is the overall editor for EIL (all volumes); L.S Seshagiri Rao is the consulting editor for Kannada, and each article is signed by the individual contributors.
 * Ganga Ram Garg is the overall editor for IEIL; unfortunately individual articles are not signed so I don't know who wrote the two entries I quoted from. There is some info. about the series here
 * The copy of Mugali's book that I have with me does not list any ISBN or OCLC, but worldcat gives its OCLC as 2492406.
 * It has been fun reading up on this topic, which till very recently I had absolutely no knowledge of. Hopefully with all the sources at our disposal, we can come up with neutral and balanced phrasing that reflects all the scholarly opinions. I'll try to weigh in with my 2c, but may be a bit busy over the next day or so. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had it right except the ISBN for the book by Garg.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please have a stab at this portion of the lead, Although the Kavirajamarga, authored during the reign of King Amoghavarsha, is the oldest surviving literary work in Kannada, "public narratives" in the form of documentary inscriptions dating to as early as 450 CE have been found;[11] some of which confirm the existance of popular contemporary "folk literary practice" in Kannada.[12]. How you would like to see it worded? given the info you have brought in from the various sources. Also, FAC director Sandy Georgia did mention (in closing my previous FAC nom) that the prose should be acceptable to all those who objected to it. I would not want to request (unless you have time) to copy edit the whole article, which Risker has done so well, But I would be happy if you could atleast do the copy edits of the lead and the first section thereafter (Extinct writings).thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Your previous reply answers my question. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC) --- Hi Abecedare, here is a list of issues that I feel are important to the lead. It is important that this be given space in the lead, all of this being repeated in the "quotations" currently on the talk page of the concerned article. Hope this helps. thanks for all your efforts.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mention of Halmidi inscription (or inscriptions from 450 CE) and its/their developed grammar-verse content.
 * Mention of KRM as the "oldest surviving" work of literature (on rhetoric, grammar and poetics). It is imperative that the "oldest surviving" or "earliest existing" be used, because 99% of sources repeat that faithfully.
 * The mention of literary-poetic-grammatical culture/tradition/practice prior to Kavirajamarga going back a few centuries is equally important. Cant hide that when every encyclopaedia mentions it along with Kavirajamarga (and Wiki is also an encyclopaedia). I do not believe that practice was entirely just "folk", I have citations to show that royal patronage from kings such as Pulakesi II existed (Ravi Kirti, his court poet being mentioned as one of the earlier poets) and Durvinita himself was a king. Perhaps leaving out "folk" is appropriate. The rest of the lead is not contentious.
 * The section on "Extinct writings" is a must to qualify the above sentence. It is faithfully repeated by all the sources (more than a dozen) we have pulled out so far. Earlier composition forms, poets, known writings should be mentioned - as they are a part of existing research on the literary history of the language prior to KRM. Currently only 3 para focus on it, and that does not make it UNDUE in a article that is 72K long. In this section Fowler has introduced a sentence about Sheldon Pollock. This sentence is WP:UNDUE as he is the only scholar with that opinion. We cant give undue weightage of one scholar, much less name him specifically and his credentials on the article. This entire line must be removed. It would be unacceptable to have article naming all the referenced scholars and their credentials, education degress and such. This sentence is The Sanskritist and Indologist, Sheldon Pollock, has asserted....
 * The three periods of the history of the literature is not entirely accurate and needs a tweak. (Currently it is old-Middle-modern, the more accurate subdivision being ancient-medieval-modern). The current dating of middle (1200-1700) is inaccurate. It should be 12th-18th century based on usage of old Kannda style of language. What do your sources say about this.?
 * One more issue. Fowler, who seems to favour WP:UNDUE citations, has pulled up some info that dates Halmidi inscription alternately to 6th century. But this is 1 in a 100 sources and fails WP:UNDUE. I actually did a google search and went thru the first 80 sources. 79/80 date it to either 450 CE or 5th century. This info needs to be removed so we stick to majority opinion. I too have citations for 9th century "extant" writing Vaddaradhane, being dated by some scholars to 6th century or earlier, but have refrained from using it so as to give value to majority opinion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at the discussion of literary periods in the articles and get back to you in a day or two (I haven't read them completely yet).
 * As for the phrasing of the issue in the lede and the "Evidence of early Kannada writings" section, I think as long as we are clear about what is accepted as facts, and what is and is not surmised from those facts - we should be fine. I think it would be a good idea to develop the exact wording on the talk page, so that any edit-warring in the article itself can be avoided. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I would also request that the final wordings not be led by "high fliers" such as here, people who think they know more about literature than the many scholars who have written on the topic.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

-- No response needed. (From Talk:Kannada literature page, in response to user:Sarvagnya's assertion that Old-Middle-Modern was a linguistic classification, but Ancient-Medieval-Modern was a classification of literature.)

If user:Dineshkannambadi really thought that by his edit of December 14, 2007, where he changed the sentence, "'The history of Kannada literature is usually studied under four phases: pre-old Kannada ... Old Kannada, ..., Middle Kannada and ... New Kannada'" to "'The history of Kannada literature is usually studied under three phases: Ancient, medieval and modern Kannada,'" he was changing a linguistic classification to a diachronic one, then he shouldn't have left the "Kannada" in there, for both statements are linguistic classifications; furthermore, if he thought there were "no hard and fast rules of classifying" literature, he shouldn't have left "usually" in there. Granted, the edit could have been a mistake, but it's very unlikely that the statement "The history of Kannada literature is usually studied under three phases: Ancient, medieval and modern Kannada," would then have survived the next 1500 edits, survived being moved around, and gone into the FAC in that form if it wasn't intended. More troublingly, when the "Kannada" was finally dropped, it was the work not of you or user:Dineshkannambadi, but that of a copy-editor who likely didn't know what he was doing. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

F&f and Dinesh, Sorry for being tardy; I am going to be busy in real life for the next couple of days, but I will try to contribute my 2 cents as soon as possible after that. In the meantime, may I request that the discussion be less personal and hostile. I know both of you to be good intelligent editors and neither of you are fly-by-night vandals or vanilla POV pushers. Relax - wikipedia editing is supposed to be a fun! Regards. Abecedare (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Abecedare, I hope you are going to be free soon. Fowler is getting really desperate here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dinesh, I am going to be busy for the next 36 hours or so, but I will try to at least read the posts on the talk page. I have read F&f's references on the Halmidi script and requested some clarifications.
 * Can you also clarify your position here: Would you object to something like "Halmidi script, usually dated to late fifth century,[1] ..." with the a footnote, "[1] The inscriptions have been variously dated to ca. 450AD, around 500 A.D. or late fifth or early sixth century. Epigraphist D.C. Sarcar dates them to the late 6th century" with appropriate references ? Of course, the exact wording can be tweaked - I am just asking about the general idea. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Abecedare, the most popular dating is the "5th century" or "450 CE". It is surprising that a later date is used by some small number of sources considering it was inscribed by King Kakusthavarma (435-455). I agree with the general tone of your proposal. Perhaps we can just say 5th century instead of "late 5th century". I am here to work with you all the way.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, 5th century is better than late 5th century, since that does not seem to exclude 450AD, which is the most commonly assigned date as far as I have seen. Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just one concern I want to share (in the best interest of the Rfc process) is that every attempt should be made to ensure we dont allow any one on the RFC to stall the process by bringing in fringe theories calling the authors of those theories "the greatest buddhist epigraphist", "greatest jain historian" etc, based on ones convinience. I am sure you will agree that on wiki we only stick to main stream theories (popular). Fringe theories shoud not even be allowed on the article based on WP:UNDUE. Once a decision is made, we should move on to the next contentious issue so we can put this to rest without endless discussions, something that some wikipedians may thrive on. Just a concern I though I could share with you.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but I think we would be short-selling all our sources by labeling this a fringe vs popular dispute. The dating issue is a genuine academic dispute among scholars, which we can't and shouldn't try to settle on wikipedia. Instead we just state the mainstream scholarly opinion, and also inform the reader that some other scholars think differently.
 * As for the length of the RFC: I realize that it seems to be dragging on, but trying to reach a hurried conclusion will just mean that we will instead have lengthy and fruitless debates about the process and editor conduct. At least, as long as we are specifically discussing content and sources we are making slow but steady progress. I am hopeful we can settle the content issues within days rathar than weeks, and then after a final round of copyediting the article will be up for FAC! Regards. Abecedare (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I find that very encouraging. Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Abecedare, so far in the fist poll, neither Fowler, Rudra or Aadal have really cast valid votes. They are saying only what they want to see in the article. Please ask them to cast a correct vote.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Abecedare, as I had suspected, Fowler and co have taken, in his own words, an irrevocable "no" to all but one option, which is a sort of "my way or highway" attitude.[]. Perhaps we need to make a decision and close this topic on dating Halmidi and proceed to the next topic. Myself, KNM and Sarvagnya have been flexible and that I think is the key to making this Rfc meaningful.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think in Halmidi inscription page, we need a general dating saying "about the 5th century" also quoted by ASI, Narasimhacharya and some others.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure we can add more opinions, but I am not sure of those two sources:
 * My copy of Narasimhacharya lectures does not mention Halmidi, which is not surprsing since his lecture (1934) pre-dates the discovery of the inscrption (1936)! He does have a statement, "Kannada inscriptions make their appearance from about the 5th century", but I don't think it would be WP:OR, and probably incorrect, to link that statement to Halmidi.Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right. Narasimhacharya was perhaps writing about the other 5th century inscriptions; Chikkamagaluru, Uttanur(copper plates-419), Basavanapura (497) etc. Recently another 5th centiry inscription was discovered from Hosadurga. The only reason Halmidi gets so much importance is because it is a royal edict unlike other which may be private records, temple grants etc. from the 6th century ofcourse there are plenty, Siriguppi insc, Badami cave etc

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to include generic websites alongside scholarly sources, especially since the ASI webpage is unsigned. ASI does have some publications on South Indian inscriptions, which would be excellent sources, but unfortunately I haven't been able to locate them on the web. Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Working together on the Sri sukta and Venkateshwara

 * Hey,I am very thankful that we can help each other, comprimise with one another to improve articles. It is actually quite nice and fun. Please, let know what is wrong and I'll change them. I really do apologize for any conflicts in the past. It really is nice seeing pages being improved for the public. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job on Halmidi inscription
You've done a very good job on that page. I've developed great curiosity about the work of epigraphists (as a result of this RfC dispute which I hope will be resolved soon) and might order Salamon's book. Also, I'd like to get hold of Gai's paper. Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but frankly most of it is simply a copy of the your quotes and refs from the KL talk page! It would have been a pity if wikipedia readers didn't have access to the information after all the effort had been made to dig it up. Also, instead of spending so much time on finessing 3-4 words in the KL page, we can lay out all the views in the main article. Finally, I hope we can eventually expand the non-dating sections of the inscription article too.
 * As for the papers: I am yet to read the 2 Pollock papers completely. Gai and K.V. Ramesh's work sound interesting too. And to think that 2 week back, I had not even heard of any of these guys (except Pollock, of course) and knew next to nothing about Kannada literature ! That's part of the fun of editing here. Abecedare (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here. As a matter of fact I said to someone, I don't even know what the language sounds like.  I can't say I've developed a taste for the literature though; I think I would have, had they given more examples.  (I did enjoy reading Ananthamurthy's novel whose name I can't remember in Ramanujan's translation).  I agree too that adding intelligent discussions to the subarticles like Halmidi inscription is a very good approach.  Speaking only for myself, if the main page on Halmidi has an intelligent discussion with good sources, I don't much care what they say in the Karnataka literature page as long as it is reasonable and very brief.  Similarly, if we could introduce some intelligent discussion in the Extinct Kannada literature page and Kavirajamarga page, we could resolve the other problems in the RfC, by shortening those discussions in the Kannada literature page and referring to the sub-pages. That way I could go back to my British raj articles, which I have now begun to miss a lot.  That's my take.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply:Ref formatting
Thanks a lot! That tool comes very handy; I'm always kind of lazy when it comes to ref formatting. :) Is there a way we can add quote as part of the generated ref? Or we just have to add it manually? Thanks again. - KNM Talk 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

hi
thanks for welcoming me but how do you register? and how do you get your name and the date and time and stuff in talk sites (pages?) thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.24.139 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, thank you. 71.153.24.139 (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DC Sircar
Actually, I'm astonished that my "Materials" page shows up so early in the Google listings. The page is basically for personal notes; I suppose I'll have to be conscious of the "google impact" from now on... As for pinching stuff from Banglapedia, that looks like as good a source as any. DCS was also the instigator of the Mahabharata dating controversy in the 1970's, some details of which are on the talk page, though I don't know if that tidbit is worth writing up. rudra (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the power of wikipedia to get pages ranked highly on google is quite breathtaking. For instance, just 45 minutes after I had created the 2 line stub on Dineshchandra Sircar, it was the top link on the subject, with the Banglapedia article (which is much better), ranked further down!
 * I plan to (eventually) expand the Sircar article with content from Banglapedia and other sources; and we can add th MBh bit if we can find some source for the information. Alas, the set of articles I plan to edit here is much larger than the set that I actually do ... but at least we now have a honey-pot stub. Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology

 * Dear Abecedare, I just wanted to say hello and to let you know, I really do apologize for any injust insinuations and etc. I really like the fact that you, shruti, redtiger and myself have been working together in bettering some of the pages. There turning out very nicely. The Krishna page turn out be a very nice page. Please accept my apology and I hope that we can work together in a beneficial manner for the public.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message. Content disputes are inevitable on wikipedia but as long as we can assume good faith, avoid edit-warring on article pages and discuss with civility and high-quality references - things usually work out. I look forward to working with you on the many Hinduism related articles. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the same note thanks for your edits. I hope you will accept as RS ones that have academic forewords and reviews and revert your judgment on them. Thanks. Wikidās ॐ 16:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidas, multiple editors on Talk:Krishna, WT:HNB and WP:RS/N have already pointed to you why some of your sources, including the books authored by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami‎ are not reliable or authoritative for articles not related to ISKCON, and even for the latter they are only reliable sources of ISKCON views and not facts.
 * If you continue adding such sources, or misrepresenting others, it will be difficult to assume good faith and you will be heading towards blocks, article/topic probations etc. Hopefully you will not take that path. Abecedare (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And what is your academic status to say what is reliable or authoritative? You are just an editor and should assume WP:FAITH. You are just biased. Wikidās ॐ 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of discussing this further here, since you obviously don't understand wiki-policies on content or user conduct. If you find my editing/references deficient, take it to WP:RSN, WP:FTN etc; and if you find my conduct lacking take it to WP:ANI. Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramayana
Sorry, it was just an edit conflict. I am fixing your corrections. David G Brault (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Ah, I see untangling this will take some time. I will have to dust off my copies of Gavin Flood and R&M and start checking citations. Have left a suitably worded suggestion on FTN, will follow-up in a bit. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal
Hi Abece, I came here to just let you know that I find your proposal mostly acceptable. We'll deal with the details when we get to it. For now, please continue to work on your proposal. I thought I'd say this on the article talk page itself, but I noticed that Fowler's already laid waste to that thread with his signature off-topic babble. Sarvagnya 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am using Mugali, Narsimhacharya, Pollock, EIL etc for my night-time reading nowadays. I should have the first draft ready by late Wednesday/ early Thursday UTC. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your efforts Abece. What are you planning to draft first, the lead or the section on early witings.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The section. The lede should be just a 2 sentence summary of the section anyway. Abecedare (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing citations and messing up FA article
Is there a way to stop some editors from removing citations and messing up FA articles, say like locking up the page? I hate to see any page locked up, but at times it seems needed. Please see Tamil language and Chola dynasty, two of the FAs being messed up by a group of editors. Can you help?--Aadal (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your refert on Krishna page
As you have suggested I wanted to discuss your revert on. Maybe you can spell it out for us please. Not that I insist that it should be there, but its a valid addition of the meaning of the word. In Sanskrit word very often taken apart when meaning is described. Wikidās ॐ 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell the issue is as follows:
 * The etymology of a word is a matter, not of faith, but of language, which is handled by dictionaries. Standard Sanskrit dictionaries include Apte, Monier Williams etc; some of which are even available online.
 * While it is true that Sanskrit allows extensive conjugation of morphemes to form longer words, this process is governed by strict rules and is not random or arbitrary. In particular the breaking of the word kṛṣṇa into its syllables and assigning them independent power (not meaning!) is a matter of an esoteric tradition (i.e. interpretation) and not linguistics (i.e. translation). Even your citation says as much, right before the part you referenced.
 * That said, it is certainly valid to discuss these traditional interpretations in their proper context. In this case, mentioning the innumerable interpretations of Krishna's various names is simply undue in the Krishna article. Feel free to add the information to the Shuddhadvaita page, which needs to be rewritten anyway so that it is about the sampradaya instead of the founder Vallabha Acharya. Make sure that you cite the source correctly!
 * Let me know if you have any questions. Abecedare (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please post and follow-ups at Krishna talk page so that the conversation is not duplicated any further. Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing FACs
Thank you for the wonderful suggestion. I agree that reviewing featured article candidates would certainly help, and I would love to do so as soon as I get a chance. Cheers. -- Shruti14 t c s 23:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion
Hello there. The article 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra is undergoing a peer review. Can you give your views on it? Here is the link to its peer review. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Images
If you keep reverting my edits or interupting my edits you will be reported to authority.

and Image:Brahmana.jpg is my photo. if i notice you keep gonig through my edits you will be informed. even if you think its copied please provide accurate investagation.

--PadmaDharma101 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to take the issue to WP:ANI. Abecedare (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature
Hi Abecedare. I was looking forward to your content last week, perhaps you have been busy with other things. How is it coming along. In the meantime Fowler is laying waste to Halmidi page adding vast amounts of data that you did not prescribe. How do we resolve this issue.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Dinesh, Sorry for the delay. I am going to be busy IRL till about Wednesday but hope to have the version ready soon after that. Some of the content that F&f has added on the Halmidi inscription page seems to be good (e.g. varying views on association with Kadamba dynasty), although some of it could be regarded as OR (e.g., the inscription not being mentioned in XYZ). I think it would be a good idea to settle the issues on KL page and take it to FAC, before we look into UNDUE/NOPV issues on the linked pages. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Regarding Kannada becoming a administrative language from the time of Halmidi, the Sahitya Akademi vol 2, p 1717 actually uses the term "administrative language" where as the current citation from K.V. Ramesh says "official language" of the soil, which by any measure is one and the same. Just something to keep on the back burner for now. Appreciate your efforts.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Abecedare, I came by here to see how things were going with you and saw the discussion above. With regards my statement "Accordingly, the Halmidi record is not included in the volume Inscription of the early Kadambas  in the new series on inscriptions published by the Indian Council of Historical Research."  It might have appeared that I put two and two together (OR) when I stated that.  In fact, Gai explicitly says that (in my copy of Inscriptions of the Early Kadambas, Indian Council of Historical Research, 1996), "'The paleography of this record also does not militate against our view that we can refer it to the end of the fifth century A. D. or the beginning of the sixth century A. D. (footnote: Sircar, Ind. Ep. p. 48; Ind. Hist. Quart., Vol. XVII, p. 134; cf also. Ep. Ind. Vol. XXVIII, p. 71, note 5) Since the Halmidi inscription does not belong to the reign of Kakusthavarman, it is not included in this volume.' (p. 26)"
 * As for "administrative language" I have clarified exactly what Ramesh says (the full quote) on Talk:Kannada_literature. He says nowhere that Halmidi is an example of "official language," only that the Kadamba-Ganga period (mid 4th to late 6th) saw the "the elevation, hesitant though, of his own mother tongue Kannada as an official language," (notice the "an": for the vast majority of inscriptions of the 6th and 7th centuries were still written in Sanskrit, as evidenced in both Gai's Inscription of the Early Kadambas (1996) and Ramesh's Inscriptions of the Western Gangas (1984) both published by ICHR.  Only later does he say that Halmidi indicated that Kannada had become the language of the soil.  Given that during the entire period from the 6th century to 10th century there was great tension between desi, or popular, forms (Kannada) and marga, or haute, forms (Sanskrit), saying that Kannada has become the language of the soil is hardly a testament to its official status.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits on Svayam Bhagavan page
Dear Abecedare, I have made some edits on the Svayam Bhagavan page. Please let me know what you think and any suggestions. Namaskar.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Svayam Bhagavan article
Abecedare, can you please help with the S.B. article. Please look at the edits of mine and wikidas's. Can you please help with the article. It appears there might be some friction between wikidas and myself again. I really would like to contest alot with what has been put on this article. Please Help.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Abecedare, please help in the situation on the svayam bhagavan article. Can you please help in the situation with wikidas. Just look at the edits that were made. Can you please mediate between wikidas and myself and undoing any of his edits that need to be corrected. I have alerted DaGizza about the situation.Please help. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

India Image Rotation
Hey, You recently showed concern about my edits on the India culture rotation page. You accused me of unilaterally editing and making undiscussed changes to the culture images. Let me point out that as per the culture rotation vote, all of my edits were agreed upon and discussed way before I added them.

Contrastingly, User:Fowler&fowler "reverted" my unilateral edits with his own additions, which had NEVER been discussed. He replaced the image of Shiva (which had 6 people for inclusion in the rotation and 3 against) with the Toda Hut image (which had 1 user for and 9 against) here.He also added an image of [[Brihadeeswarar temple] which had NEVER been discussed or agreed upon for inclusion in the rotation. So maybe, it is not I who is making unilateral edits, but rather he who is sneaking his own images while trying to "revert" my "unilateral" edits.

Nikkul (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

British Raj
Abecedare, I don't mean to waste too much of your time, but can you please step in to British Raj talk pages. Many editors including me have pointed out neutrality issues with British Raj article (see achieves) and hence an NPOV tag was placed on the article. However, fowler seems to want to remove that tag now. All I am interested in doing is to establish that neutrality of the article is disputed. I am not looking for you to necessarily support my arguments. Just that Fowler seems to be receptive to your arguments and hence your views regarding neutrality of British Raj article would be helpful as an experienced editor. Desione (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

DWhiskaZ Returns
hi - wanted you to know that user DWhiskaZ (whom you helped block) is at it again (edit wars, and his obsession with linking Mohammad to the Bhavisya Purana) this time as user "Padan". Can you help block him once again? I dont know how. I reported him to wp:aiav last night, but I dont know what it takes to have some action taken. This user by now has a long track record see here for instance of vandalism and sockpuppetry and there must be some way to make a more permanent ban? Thanks. I'm also leaving a note with Thatcher who helped with this user before. -jak68 P.S. Paul Barrow is currently investigating User Padan for additional sockpuppetry, here Thanks. Jak68 (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mango, again!
Hi again! If you remember, I sent the same message as I initially sent you to BalanceRestored some time ago, but he's only recently replied. His message is in my talk page. Please have your say. Thanks! S3000 ☎  11:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Zeuspitar
Dear Abecedare, I have filed a following case failing to resolve it by other means. Please let me know or review the above if you have time and sign. Wikidās-ॐ 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD: Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs
I have nominated Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs for deletion as suggested. Please comment and support/oppose the nomination there. Thanks -- Shruti14 t c s 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your expert opinion wanted.
You are one of the most senior and experienced editors that are contributing to articles in the scope of the new project WP:KRISHNA, I thought you may want to check the proposal of merger and cast your vote in relation of the additional section to article Krishna. Thanks. -- Wikidās-ॐ 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume III, Issue no. 001 - June 2008
This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Vikramaditya
What is the original meaning of the Sanskrit term Vikramaditya? Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Away?

 * Hey, haven't seen you around lately. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, wassup? Waiting to see you around! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome back to Wikipedia! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  08:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just logged in after months and PINQ was the first page I checked. Hope to be around for a couple of weeks before taking another (shorter) wikibreak. Abecedare (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmn... well hope to bump into you now and then. :) You should be our next Indian administrator. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Phew! Feels really good to hear from you. -- KnowledgeHegemony  talk 16:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Next time please leave a note before going on a wiki-break, dude! -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 16:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * True. Hopefully the next break won't be so long anyways (though real life can be hard to plan and predict :-) )! Good to see the old folks around and some new editors too. Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, what were you doing for eight months?!!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Abecedare. Hope you were having fun during your absence, and good to see you back. Priyanath talk 01:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for the re-welcome. I'll be wikignoming over the next few days - let me know if there is any particular article-improvement-drive, FAC, or FAR rescue I can help with. Happy holidays and editing! Abecedare (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking: Two need urgent attention: Kalimpong and Indian Railways. I can only commit post Christmas. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look interesting at first glance. Will be happy to take a more detailed look over the next day or two. Abecedare (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Congrats on winning PINQ Round 30 !
Hi, Thanks a lot. I prefer to keep my page as simple as possible! --Amondal (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Maps
Thankyou for your concerns on the List. I have finished uploading 3 Images. I'll upload the rest shortly. Incase, you find some Maps, Images of Governors, feel free to put in the article. I think that may be Over-mapping. A big thankyou again for taking your time to find the Images on the Web. Regarding the 1832 Map, although it is a CC-by-NC license, still I think it has to be in the PD Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  07:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with you. The Images are bleeding in some sections. Proper selection is required. Thankyou for your interest. I have also started a Peer review of the List at Peer review/List of Governors of Bombay/archive1. Feel free to offer your suggestions. Thanks, Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  08:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Hope you have a great and merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year! -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Merry Christmas to you too! Abecedare (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merry Christmas, Abecedare. Kensplanet TC 21:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My name is not John. Kensplanet TC 21:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A Happy and Bliss-filled Christmas to you, Abecedare! Priyanath talk 01:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Priyanath. Merry Christmas and happy (upcoming) new year to you too. Abecedare (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and Merry Christmas to you too. The John Kenny was what the media called him, so therefore the italics. Strange that his name was clearly mentioned on his userpage, but the media corrupted it to John Kenny. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, on wikipedia he will always be John Kenny, since we have reliable sources for that moniker! :) Abecedare (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol yes, the strange quirks of Wikipedia! Secondary sources beat a Primary source. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dharmaśāstra question
Thanks for the kind words about my Hindu Law contributions! It was indeed a course project. The course was entitled "Hindu Law" (LCA 620) and was offered for the Fall 2008 semester in the Department of Languages and Cultures of Asia in the College of Letters and Science. Lotus (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, my editing activities on Wikipedia extend well beyond the course, so I won't be going anywhere! And I think a few other students will continue to edit now that they've gotten a taste of it!  About nominating some of the articles for Good Article status, I had asked someone from Wikiproject Hinduism to evaluate a few of the pages since I am unfamiliar with the ratings criteria.  I must admit, I was a bit disappointed when all the pages were given a rating of "C"... But I don't feel qualified to rate them otherwise.  If you think any of the Hindu Law-related pages deserve to be re-rated, please let me know.  I will be adding a section to Monarchy in ancient India covering Buddhist kingship soon, so please look out for that! Thanks again! :) Lotus (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your changes and suggestions on the Hindu law page are a great help! Thanks in particular for moving things to the Further Reading section.  I can't claim much credit for this page as one of the other student groups in the course was assigned to work on it, but I should be able to help out when extra references or other changes are needed! Lotus (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
Hi, I noticed that you've made several edits to the article and made a brief statement on the issue of renaming. I was wondering, on the renaming issue, if you had looked through the various arguments for and against and if you have any further opinion? Jbarta (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jbarta, Since you asked, here's my 2 cents:
 * I think the whole article naming issue is overblown and have therefore happily stayed out of the debate. My personal take is that the current name is supportable by reliable sources, but that would also be true for several other possible names.
 * I was disappointed to discover earlier today that even an article watched by so many experienced and enthusiastic editors, contained several factual errors and unsupported statements. Admittedly these errors were "minor" and a matter of oversight rather than any bias or effort to misrepresent, but I do wish more editors would focus on article content instead of spending disproportionate time on the article title.
 * Abecedare (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your thoughts. I will keep them in mind. Jbarta (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why changes to the question shouldn't be made, but why would adding the link to the archived discussion as I did be improper? (Looking through WP:TALK and WP:RFC I didn't see that specifically addressed, although the talk page does mention it's good to update links) Jbarta (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted because you changed the content of the question to which people had already reasponded and thus ended up potentially misrepresenting their answer, for instance, surely the early responders had not seen the discussions "below" that was now referenced in the RFC question. If you wish to add a link, you can make a supplemental post with the correct date-stamp, so that readers know when that message was added. Also see WP:REDACT, which specifically addresses the etiquette for editing ones own talk page comments. Abecedare (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, adding "below" was poor judgement, my apologies. I'll add a supplemental post below that statement pointing readers to that archive for the previous discussion. Thank-you. Jbarta (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Berg is not the only one making the allegations. I'm finding sources now. Undue focus on just berg might not be right, but not reporting the theories apart from him would be too little weight.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may well be right. I simply have not researched this issue myself yet. That is the reason I asked for help with finding reliable references on the talk page - once we have gathered those, we can decide how to include the content in the article. By the way, it may be batter to keep the discussion consolidated on the talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bhaṭṭikāvya
Thank you very much for your kind comments and offer of help. I will be adding new articles on Sanskrit texts in the future, and will probably be in need of your help. opfallon (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have emailed my GFDL. Thank you so much for your help.opfallon (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry about that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - it was clearly unintentional. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Governors of Bombay
Hello Abecedare. Thanks for your comments. Looks like a lot of work to do. I'll keep replying to your comments. Kensplanet TC 13:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The list does appear long, but most of the changes should be straightforward and I have tried to include suggestions along with the comments. If you want further input on any particular item, just let me know here/there. I see that you have already dealt with several of the comments - I'll take another look in 10-12 hours and strike out these points. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. Even if I mind, it doesn't matter :). Kensplanet TC 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say!
That editor is turning out to be fine. -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lalit Jagannath
Hey, you might be interested in Requests for comment/Lalit Jagannath. Any comments would be deeply appreciated. --Enigma Machine (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Valued picture candidates/Ganesha
Sorry, could not get your comment properly. "block artifacts" meaning ?? I have only brightened the image a bit, using HP Image Zone. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 09:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have explained my comments on the VPC page. I had earlier linked to the incorrect "current version"; hope that didn't cause the confusion. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the two are making similar edits like the removal of Five headed Shiva img. But we can assume that they two are different. If the same issues arise on the article, a formal sock complaint can be registered. An admin can be contacted to use "checkuser". -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry,I have not aware of 3RR rule.

Another thing is the article Darpa should be created. But i dont get referent sources for.--Powerprowess (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I read and understood WP:NPOV and edit warring--Powerprowess (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Image deletions
Thanks for taking care of all the copyvios uploaded by. Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most welcome - Hopefully he gets the hint - Peripitus (Talk) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Governors of Bombay
At Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Bombay, you said you would revisit later in the week for a second review. I'm just giving you a prod as I would like to close the nomination one way or the other at the weekend. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Maleabroad
Hello Abecedare. I noticed you have compiled some data about a certain sock issue. The guy you are tracking seems to operate from 136.159.*.*, which is associated with a Canadian university. Could you take a look at a recent report on the WP:AN3 noticeboard? It is currently at this link. This is somebody who wars on Indian religious topics, but has a 70.72.*.* IP, i.e. he is from the same city but not at the university. If we could get an exact match, then a longer block could be justified, There is some risk of mixing up nationalists who happen to think alike. Thanks for any advice you can provide. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They're all Maleabroad. I blocked a set a few months ago and told Mitsube and Anishshah to tell me if he popped up again but he didn't.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. was a recent avatar, if someone cares to run a CU - not that there is any real need. I'll email Ed and you some further behavioral evidence to keep an eye out for. Abecedare (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The cure for cancer? no?
Hello,

I see you posted a complaint about my contributions on my talk page.

Just a personal question:

If there is a cure for cancer, don't you think people should have a honest chance to read about it? Numerous references have been supplied. Whole articles have been deleted. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to have both sides of the story side by side. Of course the medical establishment gets the final word on everything but to prefer quackwatch over medical research makes my stomach turn over. I'm not going to edit wikipedia anymore, I just wanted to hear what you think about helping to kill people like this.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-invasive_RF_cancer_treatment&oldid=267121375
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kanzius
 * http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=John+Kanzius
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_From_The_Cure
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Simpson
 * http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Run+From+The+Cure
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxsey_Therapy
 * http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Hoxsey+Therapy
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife
 * http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=royal+rife
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife
 * http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=royal+rife
 * http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=royal+rife

Look how corporate cancer is killing the wiki? There is more but lets leave it to this. I'm all done editing with so much wp:own going on.

I'm just currious, how do you feel doing this? People do die you know? 84.104.135.86 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be on the wrong website. Please read WP:SOAPBOX. Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminship
You should run for adminship one day. You have great potential. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  20:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Someday maybe; right now I am enjoying my time fiddling around with whatever catches my eye. And the experience is made more pleasurable when interacting with editors like you. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC) PS: Have also left a message on your talk page; our lines just crossed.

Thankyou freind
Yes, I noticed that the List was promoted to FL status yesterday. Thank you for the Barnstar too. I thought it won't be promoted since 22 days were up. But it was. Thanks to you, who helped me in restructuring the List. Your comments were very much helpful. Thankyou again, Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 07:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Light48 possible sock account
Hi, You had earlier deleted several copyvio images uploaded by and blocked the user for 48 hours. I think the user is back as sock and has resumed repeating same form of edits and uploading. See for example File:Skyline of Shimla City.jpg versus deleted image File:Shimla City.jpg, which are copied from. Let me know if you prefer that I report this to checkuser or ANI instead. Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through the contribs I am sure that it's the same user. Not only the same image but also the minor edit marking of soon reverted edits to the same articles. 72 hours this time but I'll escalate if necessary... I just wish they'd engage with the community - could be a productive editor but there are no non-mainspace edits. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. By the way, wouldn't it be standard to block the sock account indefinitely, and apply the escalating blocks to the main account; else it simply allows the user to split their editing history to avoid scrutiny ? Either way, I hope the user got the message that discussion, rather than socking, is the way to go. Abecedare (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If they were editing under both I'd take that option but in this case I'm feeling mellow for some reason. I'll watch them and hope that a lesson is learned - Peripitus (Talk) 02:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
for your input at Prem Rawat. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)