User talk:Philg88/Archive 35

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhajanpura
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhajanpura

I edited innotechive as a site/blog name but you reverted it. Innotechive is not a name of shop.

ANd what about safety rate in this town, I had visited there once.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevigilante053 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi there and thanks for the message. It doesn't matter whether it's a shop. The relevant Wikipedia guideline clearly states that the following external links are not permitted: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Thank you for your understanding.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion caused problems
Phil, you deleted Kathi Darbar(Kshatriya) by renaming it without leaving a redirect. Unfortunately, you broke multiple links and redirects to this page in the process. The article had been at that mis-spaced title since 2010. Because the title is so old, it does not qualify for speedy deletion (which is exactly what you did), but instead needs discussion at WP:Redirects for discussion before being deleted. I've restored the redirect, but in the future, do not move without redirects unless the old name qualifies for speedy deletion. Also, do not move without a redirect without fixing incoming links. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Strictly speaking it wasn't a speedy deletion but a page move over a redirect. That said, it was my bad not leaving the redirect, which I did on the basis of a spacing error not requiring one. Once all the wrongly spaced incoming links are fixed, the page can go. Philg88 ♦talk 18:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The page should not be deleted, and its four years at that title would almost certainly lead to a keep decision at Redirects for Discussion. We can fix our links, but we can't fix the rest of the Internet. Since the page doesn't need to be deleted anyway, the incoming links don't really need to be fixed anyway. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

CE
Does this need any copyedit?  Jim Car ter  07:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Philg88 ♦talk 08:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much friend! Any other suggestions on how to improve it further?  Jim Car ter  08:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, looks OK to me. Philg88 ♦talk 08:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of nominating it for GA. Since you have some experience with GA process so any opinion?  Jim Car ter  09:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't done a thorough review but it certainly meets the outline criteria. I suggest that you file a request at the Ga nominations page. Philg88 ♦talk 09:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A follow on question to previous help, now about removing an orphan tag
Hello Philg88,

You helped me before on Teahouse with a question about the Janice Lourie Wikipedia page, so I am returning with a follow on question. The page has been tagged with an orphan tag, however it is only a week old. It doesn't make sense to me that it should have internal links. The page has many external references to insure its notability.

Janice Lourie is pending AFC submission. (Just added the pending status in case that is relevant to me request)

Would it be appropriate for me to select undo and remove the tag? JanJanvermont (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Jan for the additionJanvermont (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Janvermont:  Hi there! The orphan tag was added by an automated editor known as a "bot", so if you remove the tag it will be put back again. What you need to do is to solve the underlying problem and create one or more incoming links to the article. I've added a link from Longy School of Music and removed the tag because it's no longer an orphan but you may like to add more incoming links. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 16:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow you made a link. Please tell me how, I haven't got it all together
I want to learn to do what you did in adding the link to my Janice Lourie pending page. Who, I.e., what page originates the creation of the link. What is behind the motivation. Can you outline the creation process for me enough for me to do one or more myself. Where is the link. In your case is it in the Longy school article or in Janice Lourie. Appreciatively,JanJanvermont (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I went to the Longy article and found you added my name to the alumni and student list. Now I have a specific link which I would like to have, but not sure if it can be done. Herman Goldstine who ha a Wikipedia page, commented in his book on page 20, the computer from Pascal to Von Neumann, about the significance of one of my patents. The book is listed in his publication section. Is there a way to use this as a link?

Jan Janvermont (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask someone else to help you here but I suggest that you read this guideline about conflicts of interest. I didn't realise that you were the subject of the article, which is no big problem but there are certain rules that you need to follow.  Philg88 ♦talk 18:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm here. How can I be of service? General advice or something specific? w.carter -Talk  18:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I guess you're out for the evening, and Janvermont you have to do with me instead. :) I usually "work a later shift" than Philg88 so I'll be you guide from now on, and I'll be continuing this conversation on your talk page see you there! Best w.carter -Talk  18:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for helping out,. I'm sure Santa will reward you accordingly. Philg88 ♦talk 09:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

About your DYK nomination
Hi, Phil! About that article Sunil Kumar Verma that you nominated for DYK: I want to let you know that I am changing a word in the article, and also in the DYK hook (which is currently in the prep area). I changed it to say "assignment to a known species source," rather than "assignation". The most common meaning of "assignation" is a meeting - particularly a secret meeting, like a lovers' rendezvous. I hope you don't mind this change. I notified the author also. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, never mind. EEng changed it back to assignation, saying it's a technical term. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pedant, but "assignation" is grammatically correct in this case (I think it's the present participle but don't quote me on that ). Anyway, thanks for trying to help. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 03:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Season Greetings
I wish you all happiness, a peaceful Holiday and a prosperous New Year. All the best, w.carter -Talk  09:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Same to   Philg88 ♦talk 10:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library - ScotlandsPeople - I've not got mail
It's a little while now since you left me a talk page message about ScotlandsPeople. I've not had a mail about an account, and if one was sent, it would need to be sent again. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. Let me check into it and get back to you. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 16:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Charles Matthews:  ScotlandsPeople now have all the relevant details so you should hear something in the next few days. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 08:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, not to nag about this, but as far as I've been able to tell, nobody has yet received the needed credit to actually use ScotlandsPeople. Is it just a matter of waiting, or is there a problem that needs to be addressed? LeadSongDog come howl!  19:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... Sorry to hear that. I sent ScotlandsPeople all the details of the approved accounts some time ago and thought that they would have been processed by now. I will try and chase it up this week but I don't hold out much hope of success based on the festive season being upon us. I'll let you know as soon as I hear anything. Best, Philg88 ♦talk 20:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. All the best of the season.LeadSongDog  come howl!  20:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
 Jim Car ter  14:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sunil Kumar Verma
 Harrias  talk 00:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Philg88, I see that DYK for Verma is reviewed very positively by another editor/admin. Congratulations on this! Also @Ivanvector has given me article rescue barnstar for this work on my talk page. It is a good feeling!

However, I just noticed that one user named Inder neal has added the deletion tag on this article by giving a reason which was thoroughly discussed, reviewed and administered during the rescue process. He seems to be playing with the article Sunil Kumar Verma again and again and he seems to be biased and personal. Please see and take action as appropriate. I shall be thankful for the same. Hope the matter with inder neal is resolved soon. Thanks in advance. Educationtemple (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've warned the user about such behavior. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 10:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aye.. I have warned him as well. Phil are you using FLOW? Why we didn't had any edit conflict. We both added the warning almost at the same time.  Jim Car ter  10:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers Dear Philg88 and Jim Car ter. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2015!! Educationtemple (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Scotland's People
Hi Phil, something weird has happened with my account on Scotland's People. I'm fairly certain after receiving your e-mail and following the instructions, I logged on and the credits had been applied to my account, but they've vanished and it's insisting that I buy more credits. Are you able to assist with this ? Thanks, Nick (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message . I don't have any direct control over the ScotlandsPeople accounts but I will send my contact an email. It may well be that I get no response until after the New Year so please bear with me. Best, Philg88 ♦talk 20:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Huang Chao
Can you see this article? I have just removed some parts of it, as they were likely unsourced and offered some negative synthesis. Huáng Cháo Qǐyì means Huáng Cháo Revolution or Huáng Cháo Uprising? Both can be two different words at times. Also if you can help making this article better, it has been tagged for more than 3 years. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bladesmulti:  Hi there! I've (hopefully) made some sense of this. The Chinese article is under 黃巢之亂 while 黄巢起义 is a redirect to the former. There is no longer a "political" issue over the name. Needs more work for sure. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 08:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

History of Kerala
Why was my edit in this page reverted? At least you should have mentioned the reason in your edit summary. The source I added is a blog source but the article is well researched and hence can be considered an exception as per WP:ELNO. The page is that of a well known school whose whose name featured in news media for publishing scholarly articles through their web page. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This was a correct revert since history of Kerala has nothing to do with this proposed blog. 124.123.146.102 (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As the IP says above. It's a) irrelevant b) not in English and c) doesn't improve the article. Is that sufficient? Philg88 ♦talk 15:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article is a writeup on history of Kerala. So I don't understand why it should be irrelevant. Anyway I'm not concerned much about this. You can consider this discussion closed. Thanks Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Chinese language skills needed
Hello Philg88,

mentioned your language skills. I am hoping that editors who read Chinese might comment, on either side of the question, at Articles for deletion/2010 Hebei tractor rampage. A search for possible Chinese language sources would be useful. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328:  I've commented at the discussion. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 06:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Co-op
Hey Phil. Just wanted to alert you that our planned mentorship space, the Co-op is starting up soon. If you are interested in mentoring, please sign up here and feel free to peruse, make suggestions, or ask questions about how the Co-op will work. I'd be happy to hear any ideas or thoughts you might have. Thanks a bunch (and Happy New Year!), I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the message. I've signed up and look forward to the project moving forwards. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 05:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! A new year has come! How times flies! 2015 will be a new year, and it is also a chance for you to start afresh! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave on someone else's talk page.

CE
Hello master, can you please polish this article. Thank you,  Jim Car ter  13:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW Happy new year, master. :)  Jim Car ter  13:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've left a couple of notes in the article about things that need fixing. Happy New Year to you too! Philg88 ♦talk 07:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, master. I have fixed them.  Jim Car ter  08:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Philg88!


Happy New Year! Philg88, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 05:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Original research and reliable sources
Hi Philg88.

I saw you just closed the discussion at WP:ANI. Let me ask you something. Suppose a person self-puclishes a conspiracy book that, among other things, claims that an Italian Renaissance text says "X". Now suppose the actual text is available online and says "not X" (in Italian). Also an old translation into english is available online and says "not X".

Do you believe it is "original research" to change the wikipedia Article from "Italian guy said X is true" to "Italian guy said X is not true"?

If you believe it is not, please visit Talk:Pope_Leo_X and restore sanity. Thanks in advanced. El Huinca (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there and thanks for the message. The key here seems to be whether the "conspiracy book" is a reliable source. You might want to establish that at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Good luck and feel free to come back here if the matter remains unresolved.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Satyananda Saraswati straw poll
Hi, Philg88. A few days ago I started a straw poll at Talk:Satyananda Saraswati on the material that was the subject of controversy because I was fairly sure there was a consensus and wanted to confirm it (I know all the caveats about polling and wrote a preamble detailing them). Could you suggest how long the poll should remain open? I was thinking seven days. Does that seem reasonable? If so, would you consider closing the poll at your convenience anytime after 17:00 EST on January 2? -- Rrburke (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Rrburke:  Thanks for the message. I saw that you took a sensible initiative and started the straw poll and I stayed out of it deliberately. I'd be more than happy to close the discussion at the appointed time - feel free to ping me if I forget. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 19:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Philg88. The poll has now been up for seven days. Please close it whenever you have the time. Cheers and Happy New Year. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, you were too fast for me! :) -- Rrburke (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I thought I was late to the party! Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Moved to User:Philg88/Barnstars. Philg88 ♦talk 07:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OneClickArchiver
There is something really strange going on with the OneClickArchiver now. I noticed it some days ago, and it's only getting worse. Your archiving this morning caused two notifications to me to your archive, and that page (34) does not have any headings on my browser. Check it out. Same thing happened to me yesterday when I was trying to archive on Educationtemple's talk page. Once I added

between the sections, it looked normal again. Don't know what's going on, but I've sort of had it with that archiver. Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  09:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Added a pic of the thing in case all the other editors in all those sections also got pings and are wondering what is going on. Also ping who is the keeper of the OCA to let him know. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  09:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... Sorry about that. Sounds like a possible problem with OCA. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 15:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

SummerSlam
Please move Summerslam 2015 to SummerSlam (2015). At first you must link SummerSlam (2015) from other pages. Sorry for interrupting once again! Do I have to ask you to move pages like this for every wrestling events? Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ikhtiar H:  ✅ If a page already exists, only an administrator can move another page over the top of it, so yes, you do need to request such moves. The best place to do that when the move is uncontroversial is at Technical requests, which is patrolled by multiple admins. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 12:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Italics
Hi Philg88. I've seen some of your edits and noted that you are a co-ordinator of the copy editor's guild, so I thought you'd be an appropriate person to ask this question. I'm currently involved in a minor dispute with another editor regarding when italics should/should not be used. I currently have an article nominated for GA (Jill Valentine), and while overhauling the article I placed the names of all websites and TV networks (such as IGN and Spike) in italics. The other editor states that sources like websites and TV sites should not be placed in italics. They cite Tutorial/Formatting, which I note makes no mention of other forms of media such as websites or print magazines, rather only stating "Italics may be used for the names of books, movies, albums, and computer or video game titles." However, I note this guideline doesn't say when italics should not be used. Is there a set standard of whether websites, TV networks, print magazines or newspapers should be placed in italics? If so I will edit that guideline to say so, so as to avoid any confusion for other editors. Thanks for your time. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the message. According to the manual of style guideline, "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, named exhibitions, computer and video games (but not other software), music albums, and paintings. The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, research papers and other short works are not italicized; they are enclosed in double quotation marks." I always place newspaper titles in italics (e.g. The Daily Telegraph), because its article has an italic title as have print magazines. On the other hand, websites and TV networks are not, AFAIK, italicised. Hope that helps. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 14:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Skipper tragedy
Hi,

Any chance of a steer on Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves? William Avery (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @William Avery:  Should be OK now. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 06:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In regards to your WP:RMTR moves (talk pages not following the article move)
Hey Philg88. First off, thanks for your administrative assistance at WP:RMTR. I just wanted to let you know that when you move a page, the talk page should be moved with it as well. I'm not sure if you are aware that the destination's talk page is not deleted prior to your moves of the page, but if I understand how the administrative tools work, the talk page at the destination should be deleted per speedy deletion criterion G8 (in addition to the requested title) before moving the page. Steel1943 (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the message. Yes, I know about the talk page thing but sometimes I forget. It's early here ...   Philg88 ♦talk 06:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I figured it was just an oversight!  Steel1943  (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Chinese export porcelain
Since it is a part of the Trade, I have fixed up this article a bit. Would you mind taking a look at it with some ce? I don't think any of us major dabblers on that article are native Eng. ;) <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  16:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nice article! Philg88 ♦talk 06:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you ever so much. :) <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  09:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, can you make heads or tails out of this diff? It was reverted before I got to my page this morning, and it is written in such an agitated way that I don't understand it properly. Is it Halias23 who want something or should it just be ignored. (My money is on the latter.) Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  10:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Best to ignore it . Could be an enemy of Halias' from Spanish WP but so long as they don't damage articles let them rant ...  Philg88 ♦talk 10:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Satyananda Saraswati
Thanks for taking care of that. I put full pp on for 48 hours on Friday and didn't hand out any blocks because I hoped (stupidly) that they might actually discuss in the meantime. But no, wait for the protection to end and back to square 1. I suspect it will continue and more blocks ensue. Nthep (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . The indef-semi should stop some of it, but you're quite right, this is the sort of content that will continue to be argued over. Break out the sock radar ... sigh ... Philg88 ♦talk 09:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I was also hoping that an of the people that kept in deleting the content added was going to come forward to have a real discussion but it didn't really work. Sorry that I requested a third party opinion. It seemed to be like the best next step. I will follow your advise using one of the other approaches. What do you recommend we should do next. Basically followers of the person in question are trying to avoid some of the content revealed in a public hearing to be added to the bio. Any suggestions are welcomed. Totocol (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Totocol:  Asking an admin for advice? Heavens above, whatever next! As far as the article is concerned, all you can do is ensure that all potentially controversial content is solidly referenced. That said, I noticed a WP:CITEKILL section - you don't need nine references - pick the best three. As for  potential socking and disruption, there are two members of the Evil Cabal watching the article...  Philg88 ♦talk 09:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Sock radar activated. indef blocked after loud quacking heard from the article's direction.  Philg88 ♦talk 20:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since he has started an RFC, I have reverted his changes. Because it is one of the rule of RFC that the requested changes must not be implemented if they are new. I don't see how they are necessary or they cause any impact in his career, it is just an allegation by a person who is just a former member of center. Some hours ago, I had also asked for page protection. I am also not sure that why these SPAs have singed in after years, other than edit warring on this article. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

article. Bladesmulti In the talk page you say you are removing my additions because your oppinion is that they are a random allegation. Proper references were provided. Can you explain why official proceedings from a royal commission are random allegations in your oppinion? Can you also explain why the fact that I haven't signed it for a while is important in any way? Totocol (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Bladesmulti:  I've no idea either. I've extended the full protection for a week pending the result of the RFC.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening again. I hope the result is that the editors that are trying to delete new information with valid references are not able to continue deleting the new information added. Totocol (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * welcome. I'll keep an eye on how things develop. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 18:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit warring again, I have no idea what to do really, I thought that 190.(the IP) is a new editor, but now it seems like Totocol has been also editing with IP. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Page now indefinitely semi-protected. Please can and  attempt to reach a consensus on the contentious material. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 16:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Can you explain how trying to ensure that factual information with proper references is kept is disruptive? Is it the fact that a number of followers of the person in mention are trying to avoid others from being able to access official records that can lead to criminal proceedings? I fail to see my wrongdoing. Can an alternative method be used to check that information is factual and is properly referenced? Totocol (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Totocol:  I think you've nailed the problem in your response: "can lead to criminal proceedings". At the moment, the allegations are at the enquiry stage and therefore only speculative, which is not permitted per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTGOSSIP.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks For the response Phil. I strongly disagree as it is very clearly mentioned that these are currently at allegations stage. I and sure other editors will appear at different points to add that information back. I will abstain from updating until January 15 when the first report will be published. Thanks again for responding so quickly Totocol (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rational response. It doesn't matter that you emphasise that the matter is "currently at allegations stage". The fact that it's there in the first place is the problem. Have a good festive season! Philg88 ♦talk 16:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Philg88. The proceedings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse have been widely reported in reliable sources such as the Sydney Morning Herald, ABC, The Guardian, the Australian Associated Press and Sky News Australia.  I agree that the reliance on primary sources is a problem, but there is ample coverage in secondary sources -- certainly enough to justify inclusion.  It appears that editors who admire the subject of the article are unwilling to accept the inclusion of negative material about him with little more basis than I just don't like it.


 * I say this because the reasons given for suppressing this topic have been wholly specious. They have run the gamut from calling the material "illegal", "slander" and a "smear campaign" to baseless assertions that the allegations must be "proven" (whatever that might mean in this context) or that the inquiry must be concluded before this material can be included in the article. Some have claimed that only "official"(?) sources can be included, while others have argued that including this topic is an attempt to influence to the outcome of the inquiry. Still others assert that that the controversy is somehow irrelevant to the subject's biography because it did not affect his career.


 * Needless to say, none of this offers any basis for exclusion. It is all quite wrong and some of it is downright kooky. The overriding issue is this: the controversy is well-covered in reliable sources, and so is eligible to be included in a Wikipedia article. The next issue is whether, what, and how much to include, and this requires forging a consensus, but no consensus can be achieved as long as some parties insist on outright suppression.


 * As for the question of edit-warring, Totocol is a relatively inexperienced editor who appears (I hope) to have learned his or her lesson in that regard. I will note, however, that the behaviour of other editors has sometimes verged on the abusive, taking advantage of Totocol's relative inexperience to, for example, issue baseless warnings about vandalism in order to  gain the upper hand in what is after all a fairly run-of-the-mill content dispute. Totocol appears to have a good-faith belief that the article is incomplete without including a section on the controversy (I agree): where there is no intention to harm the encyclopedia, neither is there vandalism. Such accusations are entirely inappropriate. In contrast, attempting to suppress well-sourced material because it is unfavorable to the subject does harm the article by putting the reputation of the subject above the integrity and completeness of the article.


 * Finally, regarding the issue of socking, the abundance of SPAs and the sudden flowering of IP edits going back to December 3 suggest to me there is plenty of socking going on all round, some of it quite artless. Cheers! -- Rrburke (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm indeed quite an inexperienced editor with just a handful of contributions but I'm glad to be learning more through this process. Thanks Phil and Rrburkel for your patience and rational approach to this issue. Totocol (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Rrburke:  Hi there and thanks for your in-depth analysis of the situation. As you rightly identify, this is a content dispute unfortunately complicated through the involvement of inexperienced editors failing to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines with some added sock/meat puppetry spice added. While I have no doubt that  is editing in good faith, my role here is to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia and to try and maintain the stability of the article. In view of that, I haven't blocked  for edit-warring and have asked the editors involved on several occasions to reach a consensus on what should and should not be included. My view on how the matter moves forward is that those involved should step back and seek dispute resolution. Pending a consensus for its inclusion, the abuse allegation material should stay out of the article. In the mean time, edit warring and disruptive editing will be dealt with accordingly. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 07:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again Philg88. Thanks for your reply. I think that unfortunately the inexperience is precisely what is preventing a consensus from emerging, because editors unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works continue to cite specious reasons for suppressing this topic, something more experienced editors wouldn't do. And, equally unfortunately, the inexperienced have the numbers.  Fortunately, though, Wikipedia is not a democracy and decisions are not made by straw poll, so the numbers shouldn't matter: the correct understanding and application of policies and guidelines should.


 * I won't ask you to become involved on one side or the other, but it would be helpful if, as a neutral party, you could explain to editors what the relevant policies and guidelines are, and how they are customarily applied. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rrburke:  I don't intend to become involved and of course I'll keep an eye on what's happening with the article intervening where appropriate. Hopefully we'll see a lot less disruption over the next week as people become too drunk and overfed to edit. Best, Philg88 ♦talk 06:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware that you are having a discussion on the Satyananda article here. I would like to protest for not being invited and included in those discussions. It seems almost as if user Totocol is trying to influence the judgment of administrators. That's not acceptable. Enigmafay (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Enigmafay:  :Since I have never heard of you, It's unlikely that I would invite you to a discussion. As for being "influenced", that isn't going to happen, as is abundantly clear from the above discussion. I don't decide anything, just enforce the rules of Wikipedia.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been participating very actively in the discussion page of the Satyananda article. How is it possible that you have not been aware of me? To me it look as if user Totocol is trying here to gain your favor by writing on your personal page. When the real discussions, are taking place on the talk page of the article. Enigmafay (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I request that you reopen the poll and give people the proper time to vote. Enigmafay (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Philg88, I think you should archive some of your discussion and also this section, it is becoming very big now. These recent messages can be made in a new section. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Enigmafay:  The poll remained open for seven days, which is the normal time period for sundry discussions so I don't intend to reopen it. This whole thing needs to be resolved in short order—a minor content dispute like this should not have required such a prolonged and tortuous discussion. Consensus indicates that the abuse allegations should be covered in the article (with the caveats noted in the straw poll close) and that ought to be pretty much the end of it unless there is a breach of Wikipedia policies/guidelines.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We do not agree that the allegations should be included and this is a constructed consensus that does not represent reality. Enigmafay (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Enigmafay:  I'm not sure who you mean by "we" here but it appears from the article's talk page that things are moving ahead and the allegations will be included.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you can still pass a good suggestion if you want to. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up . I'm aware of the ANI discussion and have deliberately refrained from commenting—I'd rather another admin took a look and see what they think. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 05:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Why including the allegations paragraph violates the Neutral point of view
Firstly, I would like to inform you that I have edited the allegations paragraph in a way that would satisfy both parties. However, those additions were deleted. That is why resorted to deleting the whole paragraph again. Please check the history of the article to see my changes.

Secondly, I was threatened by 2 administrators and 2 users that they will ban me, if I continue to edit the Satyananda Article, because I was disruptive. I don't see how my edits were disruptive and those of the other parties were not.

Thirdly, it is my right as any other wikipedia user to say my opinion and to edit the articles accordingly. You should know better than me, that a Straw Poll is not a substitute for consensus and that Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Fourthly, I do not know how to use wikipedia well and instead for the administrators here to help me learn, they are trying to scare me and to threaten me out. I will not tolerate any more threats from anyone. It is your duty to solve this dispute in a fair way, and not to take sides.

Fifth: The way the allegations paragraph now stands is misleading and implying that Swami Satyananda was a child molester. It is omitting very serious information thus compromising the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Swami Satyananda was NEVER convicted and never brought to a court of justice. You cannot simply imply that he was. In order for the readers not to be misled, we have to include that "Prior to these investigations the allegations had not been proven and Swami Satyananda Saraswati was never convicted during his life." ALSO, we must remove this "The Commission heard evidence from former child residents that Shishy, a former senior member of the ashram, allegedly subjected them to fierce beatings, and summoned teenage girls for sex with Akhandananda" which is provocative and outrageous. This violates the policy of Neutral Point of View, invokes a disgusting emotional response and giving false impressions to the readers. Sixth: I consider the Straw Poll to have had a very bad influence on this discussion. It just allowed everyone to rage and rant. Seventh: Administrator Philg88 threatened to ban me, if I continue to edit the article since I am a minority. I would like to inform him that I am not a minority. In fact I am talking on behalf of more than 200 people who are backing my position up on the article. It is just unfortunate that these people cannot use wikipedia as it is so difficult to use. But we are signing a petition that will go directly to the head of wikipedia, hoping that someone will take us seriously. Already 228 people have signed  and more are signing every day. https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/petition_54aac7cc8309f/ Eighth: Instead of people concentrating on finding out and reporting in which ways Swami Satyananda contributed to the his society since 1964 to the day of his death, through the University institutions he established, the scientific research in collaboration with prestigious medical and educational facilities, the recognition from the Indian government, the charities and the development of the region of Bihar, it looks like the sole interest of the editors here is how to show that he was guilty of crimes he never committed. That to me is another sign of a hidden agenda behind this whole dispute. Enigmafay (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Enigmafay:  You don't seem to be getting the message. The above is further evidence that you have no interest in Wikipedia beyond pushing your own point of view on Satyananda Saraswati. That is unacceptable and as I've said before, if you edit war or disrupt the article again, I will block you without further warning.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this all you can say? Why are you not taking into consideration my 8 points? Why are you not discussing them? I am taking so much time to write and explain to you, and all I get as a reply is a threat of a ban? You have to resolve this issue with me, even if you ban me, other people will come in my place. This is not the way to solve this issue. Enigmafay (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Page moves
You think if this page move was correct? To me it is, and these asana pages were moved by a particular user without making any discussion. What if the actual word, though having less amount of results include diacritic and the non-diacritic word has more results? What should be our choice for a page move. As these page moves took place during 2013, I would probably like to revert every move with the summary undiscussed page move, just like I have done at least 5 by now. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bladesmulti:  It seems that the meaning is open to different interpretations, which would indicate that there can't be "fixed" diacritics. However, I don't know enough about Sanskrit to give a definite opinion. Have you discussed the move with ? Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 05:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * JJ's page move seems to be correct, that's why I haven't discussed with him. It is another user who had originally moved these pages from diacritic to non-diacritic, discussing him is not going to be some actual help as this is probably more about the guideline. These titles included diacritic for 2 years or when they were created, it is just another user who moved them because of common English word. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So, no problem then? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Naming conventions (use English) "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged". That would indicate use of the diacritic title isn't an issue-particularly as the one under discussion isn't a common English word. In short, no problem!.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Philg88, JJ also prefers diacritics, so I hope that some agreement can be established while discussing on other appropriate talk pages. Thanks for writing and pointing to the guideline. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikification
I can see an argument for some of this edit to Wusong, since it is MOS-standard to place a limited number of foreign-language names directly into the lead sentence instead of using a footnote. All the same, if you're active in Chinese articles, you should be aware that zh is a terrible template that should pretty much never be introduced into new articles. It's short, that's made it common, and being common makes people overlook its mistakes. It doesn't just format simplified and traditional Chinese as (needlessly long and badly capitalized) separate languages: it ridiculously formats pinyin as a separate language as well. The scriptor's been made aware of these mistakes but refuses to see how unhelpful it is, in part because he doesn't mind formatting pinyin at the same grammatical level as Tibetan and French and in part because he doesn't realize how commonly other languages appear with Chinese.

If you're reformatting text that has already corrected zh's faults, kindly don't reintroduce them. Instead, Chinese is a better solution all around, moving the text to a better-looking infobox that provides cleaner text and easier formatting and expansion. — Llywelyn II   13:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that zh is "terrible". If you have a problem with it, or indeed with any other guidelines pertaining to Chinese language articles, I suggest that you raise them on the appropriate talk pages. Quite what you hope to achieve with the above officious lecture is beyond me. Philg88 ♦talk 14:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)