User talk:Crawford88/Archives/2018/June

Replaceable fair use File:Portrait of Yvette Rosser.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Portrait of Yvette Rosser.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thin ice
Crawford, you are on extremely thin ice at Anti-Hindu sentiment. You've reinstated blatant original research, non-neutral wording, and dodgy sources. By reinstating that content, you are taking responsibility for it. Fix those issues before you add anything back into the article, or expect to find yourself at arbitration enforcement. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , don't use my talk page for threatening remarks. Use the article talk page to write comments about edits. I expect better from you. Crawford88 (talk)
 * This is a behavioral issue with you, not a content issue related to the article. Your talk page is meant for discussing precisely this sort of thing. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Show with proof that I am a serial disruptive editor, otherwise don't post a reply here. Crawford88 (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Notifying you of this AE request, as required. Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Crawford, you can open a talk page discussion instead of engaging in revert war even if you feel wronged. You should consider what you can do without spending time in conflicts. It is a collaborative slow pedia. There is no guarantee that what you type will stay or what someone else will type will stay. It is not worth fighting over. Open a talk page discussion, put your understanding and wait for others to put their understanding. After all, you cannot have complete understanding of everything and you may not be right all the time. Seek a middle ground and/or expand your understanding or forget the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbohoadgwwian (talk • contribs) 11:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Crawford88, please respond to the arbitration enforcement request. --Neil N  talk to me 18:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have closed this request with, "Crawford88 is strongly cautioned to follow closely what sources actually state, be aware of WP:ASSERT, and not to overreach when writing article content based on reliable sources." --Neil N  talk to me 21:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide the excerpt from the source which has "radical Christian extremists"? --Neil N  talk to me 14:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer is that it doesn't. What the source says is " In mid-June 1950, the remote and venerated Sabarimala Temple was discovered to have been damaged by vandals. A police investigation implicated Christians, though no arrests were ever made." (Jeffrey 1980 p 494). Vanamonde (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted. Before I implement a topic ban I want to hear Crawford88's explanation. --Neil N  talk to me 16:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm curious too. How did you (Crawford88) get from "damage" to arson? I'm sorry to say this is looking like gross POV editing and, unless a really good explanation is forthcoming, a topic ban looks increasingly necessary. --regentspark (comment) 20:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "radical Christian extremists" is not my edit. You may ask the concerned editors. I have simply provided a secondary source to back up the claim that it were indeed Christians and not some unknown persons or poachers, as suggests. Now, coming to the edits on "arson" from "damage" comes from primary source. The title of the case itself was "Sabarimala Temple Arson Case". I was being more specific about the damage. Crawford88 (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your explanation is unacceptable for these edits:, --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * On May 15th someone replaced "radical Christian extremists" with "unknown persons". Note that at this point there were two sources, the original report and an official Kerala state website. Crawford reverted, replacing "radical Christian extremists". I reverted that as no source says radical or extremists and the perpetrators are unknown. Thinking back I should have left Christian. Crawford reverted that, adding the JSTOR source. Now all that source says about the incident is "In mid- June 1950, the remote and venerated Sabarimala Temple was discovered to have been damaged by vandals. A police investigation implicated Christians, though no arrests were ever made." It does not source the replacement of radical or extremist. I reverted, then edited to read " possibly set by Christian poachers. The police report suggested that the motive was religion in the context of a dispute over the gradual absorbtion of low caste Hindus into the folds of Christianity."" with an edit summary " a bit of detail, these seem to have been poachers, a quote on motivation - this was probably a religiously motivated incident during a period of religious conflict & protests over conversions to Christianity, ie a reprisal" That was reverted with an edit summary "stick to the source. Jeffery's article doesn't mention anything about poachers, and you contradict that by writing about conversion of low caste Hindus. Also, removed primary source, as it's not desirable in Wiki per policy." The text then said " Christians as per the police investigation." Crawford also changed "No charges were brought." to " No arrest (sic) were made" for some reason.  I find the edit summary confusing as the report was clear that low caste Hindus and Christians were poaching in the area, and everyone interviewed in the investigation was a poacher. Yes, Jeffery doesn't mention poachers, but then he doesn't mention the fire at all. We do have a sourcing problem which I'll take to RSN. The Kerala site fails RS - official state sites are not reliable for history. The JSTOR source doesn't mention a fire (I don't think Jeffery was trying to say there was no fire, his source is, after all, the official report). But if we can't use the official report or the Kerala site of course we have no source for a fire, which is ridiculous. Crawford is clearly wrong to have replaced "radical Christian extremists" twice as it never had a source, and the second replacement suggests that the JSTOR article backs it.  Doug Weller  talk 09:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I've discovered a new source which explains why the JSTOR article says vandalism. "In June of 1950, at the end of a period during which the temple is habitually closed, a priest discovered evidence of forced entry and arson: the temple’s store and tools rooms had been broken into, the door to the inner sanctum was smashed, the image damaged, and the temple ravaged by fire. Within days the sanctum was restored and a new image consecrated" - a PHd dissertation from the University of Chicago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

ARBIPA reminder
Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)