User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 53

Was hoping for some advice
Good Day -- If you have some time, could you please look at this? I am concerned because all of it's references seem to be twitter and the homepage linked in the info box doesn't contain all the musicians the article lists. I do not have enough experience with this, but think the article should be nominated for deletion, perhaps until better references are found, or the band actually does something. Thoughts? Any input is greatly appreciated. Lettik (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought about it for a while...and was originally just going to let it go since supergroups of famous people have been declared inherently notable...but in the end I agreed with you that they need to actually prove that they exist as a band (perform a gig together, lay down a track, whatever) before they can really have an article. I prodded the article and will consider AfD if that fails. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, thank you sir! Lettik (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Albania
Heyyy, I recently viewed article Indonesia and said suddenly, Oh! God almighty. when a good written but short article like this for big country like Indonesia has been given the title of featured article then an extrementy well written, well refrenced and extremely informative article for a tiny Country like Albania(i am a regular contributer to this article) has not even been given the title of a good article. Please view it and tell me about your conclusions. Thanks.Goodfaith17 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Size has very little to do with Good Article status (Featured Article status is a different matter). I don't get involved in the GA process, but a quick scan of Albania shows a number of problems; there are significant chunks (Geography, for example) that are unsourced or undersourced. Not all of the sources contain all of the required info. I just removed a chunk of very non-neutral, promotional language from the tourist section, so someone else needs to check every sentence of the article for neutrality if that big of a chunk was allowed to sit there. You'll want to review the other required points at WP:GAC. Also, since you are not a regular contributor to the article, you shouldn't nominate it yourself--you should first ask others if they think it's ready. For instance, I User:Dr.K is a regular editor on the page; he is a longterm content editor, who I know has experience with DYK and may well have GA experience as well, and could probably advise on that particular article better than myself. Finally, you'll need to be sure that the article is "stable"; this doesn't mean there's never any back-and-forth, but it needs to be not constant...and, of course, Albania is under discretionary sanctions and has been the subject of edit warring before, so you'd need to be certain that has stopped. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. I understand. Thanks.Goodfaith17 (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User: Yoonadue
heeyyy. I and other have discussed pretty much about Yoga with you and on talk page. you are the only administrator that fully knows what going between me and User:Yoonadue and the reasons behind all this. Now yoonadue is mentioning me negatively on the talk page of an administrator named as User talk:Ekabhishek and he is asking him to make his favourable changes to article yoga. please help me, I can't afford another long fight with this user.Goodfaith17 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with that message. He's not mentioning you negatively, he's explaining that you've made what he believes are a lot of wrong edits. And as far as a "long" fight--well, you've made extensive changes to a well-established article, not only changing data but completely shifting the POV. You have to expect that that is going to require a lot of discussion and collaboration with other editors to determine if the shift is actually appropriate or not. You aren't "fighting"...but you can't just assume that because you think a change should be made, that other editors have to follow you. Oh, that reminds me, I seem to recall a problem somewhere else that I saw just before going to bed...ah yes, found it, I have to revert you and admonish you for edits to Hinduism, but I'll do that on your talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence
Dunno if you noticed, but the article is now back to where it was before I tried to fix it. I have filed an SPI as the IP is likely a sock of Blackwizard2000 who is likely a sock himself looking at his edit history. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism
heyyy. I was extremely shocked when you said that material that I added to article Hinduism was copied from some other source. Thats not true. Could you please highlight which part is copied from other source?. this is purely the work of my cousin Anita, whom I gave assignment to write about caste system in Hinduism.please give me reponse fast.Goodfaith17 (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This, "The power of the sacerdotal order having been gradually enlarged in proportion to the development of the minutiae of sacrificial ceremonial and the increase of sacred lore, they began to lay claim to supreme authority in regulating and controlling the religious and social life of the people," is copied from ENcyclopedia Brittanica--see . Now, that's free text, but it needs to be properly attributed, and, it really should be rewritten anyway; it's so obviously different than the surrounding text that it stands out.
 * Do a search for "the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras having severally sprung respectively from the mouth, the arms, the thighs and the feet of Purusha, a primary being, here assumed to be the source of the universe." and you'll find it all over the net (possibly from EB, too?)
 * And search for "The untouchablity feature in the caste system is one of the cruelest features of the caste system. It is seen by many as one of the strongest racist phenomenon in the world." Again, all over the internet; I'm guessing it comes form the UMSL paper which shows up on the Google list. Also, this particular sentence does not meet WP:NPOV
 * And there's probably more--I'm not going to search down every sentence.
 * Heck, for that matter, you "giving your cousin an assignment" and then writing the words up under your account is itself a copyright violation--as soon as she writes something, she owns the copyright under it, and only she can post it to Wikipedia under a CC-BY-SA license.
 * Plus, of course, there is Yoonadue's very very legitimate point: that stuff isn't about Hinduism (directly); any of that information that is actually usable belongs in Caste system in India or just Caste.
 * All of these problems make me extremely worried about every contribution you've ever made to Wikipedia. Those are blatant obvious cases of copyright violationg/plagiarism. That you didn't realize that makes me think your other contributions are likely as flawed. I may have to comb through your contributions and see what else needs to be removed from Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * hey you don't need to worry. Its my fault. I was foolish that i trusted my cousin. I will try rewrite about this topic my self and insert it into article hinduism.again sorry.Goodfaith17 (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting edit at Talk:Yoga
Please have a look at this edit by Goodfaith17 on Talk:Yoga. Here, he changed the section's title originally created by Sameneguy. As already asked by Sameneguy, is this acceptable? -Yoonadue (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

unblock request
Unblock Samenewguy otherwise it will be harmfull to you. hahaha.Samenewguy10 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of all Buddhist info
Samenewguy10 says "yoga is only for Hindus....The article is now ours" and deletes the Buddhist info. Lightocha (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He was blocked under his other name by a different admin. I've blocked this sockpuppet, and semi-protected the article so that he can't just make more socks and keep up the disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Abbey vandal
Hello, Qwyrxian. This vandal that you indefinitely blocked is back up to his or her disruptive editing again. See here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for a week. Let's see if this gets the message across. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This vandal seems to be persistent, but we'll see. Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder who does disruptive editing. Some self-styled editor/administrators are the most disruptive on the net. They have their own peculiar and rathe childish notions of editing, what to include and what not to include. In addition, they talk of turning wikipedia into a highly quality international journal! Non-peer reviewed, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.78.22 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're the one who came here to memorialize your family, and then when we tried to preserve some of what you did and make it into an encyclopedia article, then you got upset. If you want a place where you can talk about all the great things your extended family did, get your own website. Just like every private publisher, we have rules. You don't have to like them or agree to them, but you can't write here if you don't. Seriously, would you walk into the offices of the Times of India and insist they publish an article about your father exactly the way you wrote it, and then throw a fit when they had an editor polish it or, heaven forbid, refuse to publish it? Seriously, why are you still complaining on my talk page? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not complaining. The comparison with TOI is irrelevant. If the editors of the TOI don't like a piece, they either edit it, or polish it, or change it, or if even than doesn't agree with the author, then not at all publish it. They throw it out. They don't publish parts of the article without the consent of the author. You have the right to believe that your journal is as good as some other very well known journal, but then the rules have to also similar. If you feel an article on the wikipedia is not up to the mark, is memorialising an extended family which seems to be immoral, then remove the article completely, please do not appropriate it. An article belongs to its author. If the present contents of the article are not to the liking of the author then you could remove the article, not change it against the wishes of the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.181.199 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it's a very good comparison. Articles do not belong to anyone. That's basic policy. WP:OWN makes it clear that "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." So far as they follow our policies and guidelines, everyone has the right to change your text. If you can't live with this then you can't edit here. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if that is the policy then who am I to question it. I don't belong to the wikipedia team, so once I have had taken the decision to put up some information on someone close to me on the public space, I can't do anything if it is taken over and changed according to the wishes of people who may not have known the person on whom the piece was written. At the same time, I should feel happy to point out that in peer reviewed journals and the national dailies in India, one of which has been mentioned here, this may not be the case. In Indian papers, if the author doesn't like some information to be given, it is normally not given, deferring to the wishes of the author. Moreover, I doubt if in these dailies, weeklies, monthlies and by-annual journals editors are persuasive. Of course, wikipedia is a fine e-journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.181.199 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: the second last sentence should be "I doubt if in these dailies, weeklies, monthlies and by-annual journals editors are not persuasive".

Please comment on Talk:Josh Willis
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Josh Willis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Kshatriya
Hi, I had removed incorrect content from Article Kshatriya. This is regarding historical Kshtriya's. Reference taken for post Parshuram Kshtriya article is actually a book written by one Mr. Gurye in 1969. Kshtriya community itself is thousands of year old. Mr Gurye's book cannot be considered accurate in deciding race of all Kshtriya’s. Please remove abusive and misleading content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratap.mane (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's true, why did you not remove the entire section, which was all sourced to Gurye? I can make guesses, but none of the reflect well on you. I've modified the sentence to point out that this mixed progeny theory is just that--one of at least 2 different theories; that way we adequately represent that the exact historical details are unknown. Does that sound better? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Thanks for the quick reply. I have not removed the entire section because I am not aware of editing the Wikipedia articles. This is my first serious attempt. Let me know explain you the doubts of Parshuram theory. It is told by few people that Bramhin Sage Parshuram alone (Please note he was not having any army or followers with him) had revenged his father's death by defeating Kshtriya's 21 times. This is just a tale. There are no actual details or marks available anywhere in India. Still let’s assume Parshuram had defeated (not killed) the Kshtriya's 21 times with his divine powers. At that time millions of times more Kshtriya's were living than Bramhins and the proportion is still same in today's time as well. It is also questionable thing that how could a person kill all Kshtriya's second or third time after he had done so initially. In recent time some mischievous people have added to this theory that Parshuram had killed all Kshitriya's 21 times to downgrade Kshtriya community. Unfortunately in our history such claims are largely based on some books. Hence the books cannot be accurate on all claims. I hope you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratap.mane (talk • contribs) 08:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that all I have is your word that the story is doubtful. Now, I'm not saying your wrong, because I simply don't know, but the way Wikipedia works is by looking at what reliable sources say; that book seems to be a reliable source, and so it seems like we should report what it says in the article. If you had any other reliable sources which reported on problems with the first source, we could question it. Or if you have some specific evidence that Gurye does not meet our reliable sources guidelines, we would remove it under those grounds. But note that right now the article does not say that that theory is, in fact, correct--it simply reports it as a theory. That's what we do a lot on Wikipedia--often, we will have an article say, "Theory 1 says ..., while Theory 2 says ..., while Theory 3 says ..." Lots of things simply aren't "decided" as "true", and so our responsibility is to report that.
 * Do you have any sources we could look at that would be relevant here? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well in that case Gurye’s publication falls in Questionable sources. Because Mr. Gurye himself is a Bramhin. His book is largely based on tales, rumors and personal opinions. There is no materialistic evidence like DNA analysis or any such method to verify paternity of such a large community. Also he has made claims against a large community which constitute approximately 35% total Indian population and has a history of more than 5000 years. I don’t fully understand the way Wikipedia works but it is now up to you to take a call on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratap.mane (talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've given me enough info to realize that keeping the material is correct. You simply don't like the conclusion. You can't say, "That source is unreliable, because I don't agree with the theories in it." Similarly, there is no requirement that claims be based on DNA analysis (in fact, DNA analysis is at present a terribly method for analyzing group history, since every DNA study I've ever seen conducted in cases like this in India has been terribly flawed, with too small a source, or too small a conclusion). And, ultimately, neither the book nor the Wikipedia article state that the claim is a "fact"; they state that it is one theory. Our job is to report what reliable sources have said, and so that needs to stay there. It's not a claim about a living person (individual living people fall under slightly more strict rules, but not really groups), and, even if it were, it's not negative anyway. It's simply stating one theory of their descent. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely this is a hypothetical theory evolved by few specific people. I can understand your job but believe me the statement sounds like a claim, which any Kshtria will find this as highly negative. The statement is making a serious claim about characters of Kshtriya females after death of their husbands. I request you to please edit this article and publish in unbiased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratap.mane (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was about to tell you "sorry, no luck", but, then I looked into it in a little more detail--I didn't realize the character that's being discussed is 100% mythical. As such, the entire section needs to be rewritten or, as I've just done, removed. We can't be claiming that people of today are descended from an avatar of a God (or were wiped out by said avatar, depending on which of the theories we go with). If someone else wants to figure out a way to include that info usefully and appropriately, they can, but, for now, just removing it all is best. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reinvesting your time and taking the appropriate decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratap.mane (talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI
... at SPI. There are going to be a lot of article deletions. - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFP/C
I would like to say that I've seen this edit as inapproriate text (double request), so I removed the other one. I hope I'm not butting in, just helping. Hamham31 Heke!  KushKush!  06:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC at The Departed
As a recent commentator regardng Talk:The Departed this is just a note to let you know that there is now an RFC regarding the issues discussed at Talk:The Departed. Softlavender (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

unblock
heyy. i am goodfaith(rajputbhatti).i am extremely extremely extremely extremely sorry for what i have done(sock puppeteering).I have been blocked for several months now and i severely want to unblock my account. I can't resist from editing wikipedia. I thank I am a wikipediholic, that's why I have created so much socks. please unblock me. I assure you that i will never do anything bad again. please give me one chance. please. i have added request on my talk page(talk:rajputbhatti).203.124.31.129 (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Life is hard. You cannot say "I can't resist editing." You have to. If you can't follow as simple a rule as not socking, we certainly can't believe you'll follow our other rules. And let me tell you, I'd say that at least 80% of your edits that I did see violated several of our other rules. You edit warred, you inserted non-neutral and undue information into articles, and your talk page conversations said almost nothing. So, the truth is, unless you're going to commit all of that, too, we don't want you editing here.
 * Wait a minute, I just remembered: your last set of socks were created to impersonate another user! You deliberately tried to damage someone else's reputation by pretending to be them socking. That's so offensive and rude and unacceptable that I don't see why you should ever be allowed to edit WIkipedia. Try not socking for at least 6 months, learn how to be a part of collaborative environment, and then try coming back. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

PJDF2367
Thank you for attempting to explain things to PJDF2367. They have added the exact thing with the same sources on several other pages besides Ali, so some additional explanation to them about NPOV and sourcing might be beneficial. So far they haven't seemed to respond to me. Edward321 (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP issue
Hi. I noticed your name at the WP:BLP talk page and assumed you've well versed enough in that project to comment on this issue regarding self-published sources in such an article. Can you? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sanjeev Nanda Hit and run case
Hi, I noticed that you are trying to redirected "Sanjeev Nanda hit and run case" to "1999 Delhi hit and run case" So can you write Sanjeev Nanda's bio biography on Wikipedia and make it fully protected. Please reply to me ASAP for further discussion. I tried the same thing two times but some guy removed it. I am really interested to discuss this further hence please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidgaur (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is he notable? What references discuss his life outside the criminal matter? If the criminal matter is the only thing from his life which has been discussed in sources, he should not have an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of 'support of AAP to battery operated rickshaw drivers in Delhi'
Greetings Qwyrxian,

Sorry for the long response however I request you to put forth your opinion on this as I am trying to create a consensus on this issue as the earlier edits by me were reverted by you, Sitush as well as Binksternet. In my opinion this issue should be included because it is not a minor issue due to following reasons - 1) The issue existed for past one year even before the AAP made its stand on 16 September. 2) The issue was given due coverage in the media an year ago when Delhi Transport Department appealed the government to form a policy or guideline on e-rickshaws. 3) PIL was entered in Delhi High Court seeking ban on e-rickshaws due to bad practices. 4) Delhi High Court asked delhi government to respond to the PIL. Please let me know if you require any links or references to these. 5) A month ago Delhi government put a ban on selling e-rickshaws Now what AAP claims to want (based on article on their site as well as secondary sources given in the talk page that) is - 1) Instead of banning sell of e-rickshaws or exploiting the drivers, government should form a policy that includes guidelines for e-rickshaws about what rules they need to abide to & what laws they are subjected to if not Motored vehicles act. Moreover the protests of 23 March 2013 as well as 10 June 2013 have found place in the article so if we apply same standard, the protests of 16 September should also get a place in the article.

Looking forward to your reply.--ratastro 06:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)


 * @Qwyrxian Following the support of AAM to the demand of e-rickshaw drivers to draft a concrete policy, Delhi government constituted a committee to come up with report & guidelines on these type of vehicles. Following are the references http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Govt-plans-panel-on-e-rickshaw-after-Aam-Aadmi-Party-backs-them/articleshow/22672524.cms http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/committee-on-status-of-erickshaws-in-delhi/article5140942.ece & http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-appoints-committee-to-lay-down-guidelines-for-erickshaws/1170516/ I think this proves that the issue is not minor & can be included in the article.--ratastro 11:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)
 * I am unlikely to have time to look at this; however, I trust Sitush and Blinksternet, and if they've looked at it in detail and found it to be WP:UNDUE, then it very likely is. The question to ask yourself is this: will this matter have lasting importance--five years later, ten years later; if so, what is your evidence for that. Again, though, you'll have to just continue on the article talk page, as I won't be looking into the actual sources here. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I can understand that you must be busy with other issues so it is ok even if you do not have time to look into it. Me, Sitush, Blinksternet & Raybhari are having a discussion on article's talk pages. However in case there are some edits on concerned articles, please do not revert them as I assure you that any changes done by me in the article will be post consensus. Moreover 'how long an impact of this issue is felt' could never be a deciding factor as there are many issues which exist for short time but based on the decisions, its impact can be big e.g. Going to war or not, passing a bill, ammending the policy etc. This issue is related to the stance Delhi Government takes on the issue of 'battery operated rickshaws'. If they form a good policy, issue will have a solution. If the policy is not good, there is a possibility that protests may continue.--ratastro 17:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)
 * At the end of your posts on article talk pages or user talk pages, please add four tildes (~) so that they're automatically signed with your name and time of posting.
 * As for the above, you are simply flat out wrong. How long an impact is always an issue. Per WP:NOTNEWS, our job is not to address what is important "right now"; we are supposed to write a neutral summary of a person/political party/company/etc. overall history. And we don't speculate if protests will continue. And even if they did, I doubt it'd be all that important--how many protests go on simultaneously in India...heck, just in Delhi, all the time? It is possible that these protests are important enough to discuss in the article, but it depends on how wide-ranging and lasting the coverage is. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response & suggestion. Point noted. Coming to the point under discussion 'How long an impact is' has nothing to do with inclusion of contested protests in the AAP article. The same article can have another section about impacts of different issues on election results, post election. I do agree with you that there are many protests going on at any time but few of them reach High Court level & very few of them reach a stage where High Court asks response from Government. In my opinion, this fact not only makes 'e-rickshaw' issue different but also shows 'how much impact it has already created'. --ratastro (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that we have come closure to the consensus & only following issue needs to be sorted out.

Why I am against adding a single line 'The AAP has supported various regulatory complaints raised by rickshaw operators in Delhi' is becuase

a) This line misses the significance of impact 'e-rickshaw issue' has created. b) This line does not give AAP's point of view behind protests.

What I am suggesting is - 1) Remove following lines from the article

On 10 June 2013, Kejriwal supported the agitation of Delhi auto rickshaw drivers, who were protesting the Delhi government's ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws.[24] Kejriwal claimed that, auto rickshaw drivers supported his party and they carried AAP's advertisements on their auto rickshaws and this is the reason for Delhi Government's ban and he challenged that volunteers of AAP will put 10,000 advertisements on auto rickshaws as a protest.[24]

2) & then add

On 16 September 2013, Aam Aadmi Party supported e-rickshaw driver's demand in Delhi that there should be a policy on battery operated rickshaws in the capital city to stop their exploitation by Delhi Transport Department. Party also said that a subsidy should be given to manual rickshaw drivers who want to purchase e-rickshaws. Earlier in June 2013, the party had supported agitations of rickshaw drivers against ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws alleging that the ban is imposed because most rickshaw drivers supported Aam Aadmi party & carried their banners. Please let me know your thoughts on this.--ratastro (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting all of these details here. This is a decision that needs to be made as a consensus of all involved editors, and the place to do that is on the article talk page. If I have time and interest, I'll comment, as will others. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Pratibha Patil
Hi Qwyrxian, I notice you have a problem with the write up on the foreign trips undertaken by President Pratibha Patil. While the article did not initially have a write up on the same, I added that section after it was pointed out that the map appended would require a textual context. While trips by Heads of States are per se normal affairs what gave rise to a controversy with Patil was her extensive trips abroad and the fact that she took along family members on these jaunts. All of this was paid for from the Indian exchequer and the total bill came to over ₹2.23 billion which was far more than any of her predecessors. The cost and the practice of taking family members along led to a major controversy about expenses and presidential propriety forcing the Government of India to clarify on her behalf. All of this is in that write up and every word is sourced. So I'd like you to reconsider these reverts you keep making to the article. Ashwin147 (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, it wasn't a "major controversy"; it was mentioned a couple of times in a few newspapers, mainly because her political opponents tried to make it seem like there was a controversy when, in fact, it was normal. None of the sources actually indicate that there was any lasting controversy.
 * However, having said that, I think that there may be enough sources to warrant inclusion of this information, but in a neutral way (i.e., not calling it a controversy). In the next 3-4 days, I'll look over those sources again, and propose a simpler, shorter, and neutral version; perhaps that version will reach consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"it was mentioned a couple of times in a few newspapers, mainly because her political opponents tried to make it seem like there was a controversy when, in fact, it was normal" - 4 national dailies and 2 national weeklies quoted ("a few newspapers") and what is your basis for this assertion about it being nothing but a politically motivated controversy? The text of the article doesn't call it a major controversy - even the title is only controversies, which many of the sources say this clearly was. For someone who left office only a year ago, her last months in office were dogged by this issue. Whether it is a lasting controversy - or one that will forever be attached to her Presidential legacy- only time will tell. Considering every statement in the article is sourced from reputed, non-partisan sources and since the text of the article makes no personal unfounded claims it should stay while you peruse the sources. Don't be an immediate deletionist on this, please. People have a right to know while you look at the sources. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody has a right to know anything on Wikipedia. Period. And WP:BLP is very clear: always be extremely cautious about including anything "negative" or "contentious" in a BLP. And the reason why it needs to stay out until reviewed more is that I've already reviewed several of those articles before (you're not the first editor to try to stick this in) and none of the articles presented before called this controversial. Rather, an editor, like yourself, read the newspaper articles, and somehow decided that there was a controversy. So until I actually read something that explicitly calls this controversial, it absolutely cannot be labelled as such. What I want to see, after looking at all the sources, is whether or not there might be something neutral we can include, that meets WP:UNDUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After some reading of those sources and reorganizing, I've added a single sentence to the article about the trips; this should be sufficient to cover the matter. Note that it does not describe the trips as "controversial", since the majority of sources do not do so. The only potentially controversial issue cited was the taking of family/friends, and that was primarily raised by an activist. I hope this deals with this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Index article
Have you ever seen something like this article before? Does it really serve a useful purpose? It seems to be perhaps one of the best examples of where categories actually do have a worthwhile function. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (tps) Doesn't look useful at all. An index is generally useful for looking something up but on Wikipedia all someone has to do is to type it up in the search box. Pointless. Are there others?--regentspark (comment) 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are tons. We have list articles, Portals, Outlines, and Indexes, plus the category system. I think that we do not need so much duplication. I especially think that since we are "maturing" as a reference work, we do not need anything that isn't of decent quality. So burn it with fire, in my opinion.
 * But, the problem is, the ARS seems to love all of these various formats, so long as at least one person finds them "useful". What they'll say is that the problem with that Index isn't it's existence, it's that it needs to be cleaned up and better organized, because that might help someone navigate WP. I believe that I've failed when trying to delete these before, but I don't remember exactly; it's been a while.
 * So, nominate it, I say, but don't expect it to go away. An alternative is to simply forget that it exists.... Qwyrxian (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you ...
... like to bring to bear your fine judgment and considerable experience, in other words, weigh in, at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_17? I have already warned editors there I'll be soliciting. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, seems to be outside of the extent of my knowledge, and I can't take the time to research now. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

More wholesale revisions of house music article - this time by 216.251.112.134 - similar style to Xavierla 2
I have just reverted revisions made to the house music article which removed detail of the spread of the early house scene to Europe in the mid-to-late 1980s. The style of the edits by IP address 216.251.112.134 is, I believe, similar to those made by Xavierla 2. (Etheldavis (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Blocked IP for 2 weeks, and Xavierla 2 for a month. If it happens again, let me know and I'll just semi-protect the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Question
First of all I would like to say thank you for explaining Wikipedia's policy on primary source. I will have the Maytham al-Tammar article cleaned. But on another point there are various hadith (religious primary sources on the Abu Bakr article, which are not found authentic by none sunni sources) that are used. What is the ruling on that and why is that allowed? Could you please leave a comment on the Talk:Abu Bakr under the Sunni view and article errors section to clarify the issue or delete the hadiths all together (if it violates the wiki ruling)? And can you please help me clean up the Abu Bakr article as well? Thanks for helping me get adjusted to Wikipedia rules, and sorry if I hurt you in any way in the past. Zabranos (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I don't have time to look into a major other issue right now; maybe in a week or so. If you don't get a clear enough response on the talk page, or you can't seem to reach consensus, try WP:DR. I will try to look, but no promises it will be soon. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Zabranos (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

House Music - Xavierla 2 style changes by IP address 98.111.1.97
More unsubstantiated and completely unexplained changes to the house music article- I don't want to jump to conclusions, but exactly in the style of Xavierla 2, this time under IP address 98.111.1.97.

(Etheldavis (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I've semi-protected the page for a week to see if that helps. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding house music
Thanks for your prompt help. I've been involved with the house music history page for some years, previously as user Solidsandie (I lost my log-in details recently), and it's sad to see it disrupted as I believe it's a good example of Wikipedia editorship. It's a complex subject, but I've watched it grow, been able to contribute, and learned a great deal from fellow editors. Xavierla 2/dynamic IP addresses, also seems to be known on other Wikipedia music genre pages, including Chicago house and Garage music (USA). I'll keep an eye on those two pages as he/she tends to make similar changes there at times. Thanks again.

(Etheldavis (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Thanks; while I'd rather not stick a bunch of articles on my watchlist (I've already got more than I can easily cover in a day), I don't mind if others monitor them and then ask me for administrative intervention. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith?
I have today received this comment on my Talk Page from user ItsAlwaysLupus.

"Dubious claims

What do you mean by ‎"AllMusic contains unsubstantiated opinions and is not suitable for encyclopedic reference," are you an troll? Sincerely, ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)"

I found it rather unfriendly and not assuming good faith on my part as per Wikipedia rules, but replied:

"No, not at all. But AllMusic contains reviews and opinions which are not based on substantiated sources. This is in the nature of most reviews, and thus does not always match Wikipedia's criteria for sources. I have been using Wikipedia for a number of years, previously as user Solidsandie (I lost my log-in details) and can assure you I have always acted in the best interests of, and in observance with the rules of, Wikipedia.

(Etheldavis (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC))"

Since then, ItsAlwaysLupus has reverted one of my edits on the Chicago house page as being "unconstructive" with no other explanation or substantiated sources to back up his/her edit. I feel rather fazed by this!

(Etheldavis (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC))
 * It's hopefully not such a big deal. Your stance on Allmusic is correct--they should be treated (I think, though you'd have to check the archives at WP:RSN to be sure) like IMDB, which is that they can be considered reliable for basic info, like the names of songs, or the people who are credited on an album, but not with other background info or interpretation. As for reviews, it would depend on who wrote the review...I don't know much about the service myself, to know if they might have paid, qualified staff doing some reviews.
 * As for the revert, go to the article's talk page and discuss it, if you think your version should stand. I don't like the use of "troll" towards you, or the uncommunicative edit summary, but the questions is whether this is going to continue, is some sort of spite, or, is, in fact, a legitiamte edit from ItsAlwaysLupus. It's possible that he thought your opinion was wrong wrt AllMusic, and thus looked through your contributions for other possible problems. The best thing you can do is to engage in civil discussion on the talkpage, making sure your points are backed up by reliable sources. If IAL doesn't respond, try putting your version (if sourced) back in the article and see what happens. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I won't bother reverting the edit by the editor already mentioned as it is a small matter ("post-disco" is such a nebulous term, I think, and disco itself is certainly "post-" other genres, but disco itself has always been seen as being a stylistic origin of house). The main problem I had with the editor was the abruptness of the communication on my Talk Page and subsequent reversion of the Chicago house article. But then we are all different. I note your comments about AllMusic. It is a site I find useful and stimulating, but I would never quote information from it as it contains opinions and unsubstantiated statements - which is fine for a site of that nature, but not as an encyclopedic resource. Some editors do seem to regard it as something of a guide book, and I think that is a problem. I will be not editing for a while, but I will keep an eye on the house and garage pages and let you know if further major problems occur. Thank you again for your help.

(Etheldavis (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

Black-listed
That's apparently what you are now. You can't be a TV editor. I'm going to be on the list, too, very soon - if a certain Betamax fan doesn't withdraw what I think is a legal threat (unless he really means he's going to embroider us...) and I block him indef. 8-( Peridon (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He's removed the threats (and my advice). At least he took part of it. I give up. Peridon (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I'm contemplating whether I should try to explain one more time that this doesn't have to be a permanent block or a ban on his ideas, just a need for him to use sources...I'm not sure, though, that the human behind the account will...um...understand what I'm trying to say. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck... TLDR could be handy too. I've got doubts about the competence level anyway. Peridon (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Bad images" in popups
I tracked down what was happening and filed a bug about it: Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups. DMacks (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Aam Aadmi_Party". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 07:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Issue
Hi,

Can you please talk to Johnleeds1. He is ruining the Battle of the Camel article by adding irrelevant information (that is poorly written and not referenced properly). He is basically copying and pasting the biography of Muawiyah I into the Battle of the Camel article, which is creating a mess. In addition, he is deleting a large amount of information that is sourced properly and relevant to the article. Even Drmies agrees that his edits are "clearly written by someone whose first language is not English and whose research methods are not up to par." And that his copy and past edits are "like a narrative". Please talk to him cause he is messing up the article everyday. I am trying to clean it up, but he keeps on sticking his foot creating a mess. Thanks. Zabranos (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Zabranos
 * My first language is English
 * I don't mind you removing the information about the battle of siffin. As you said it is best cutting down this article to be basic information just on the battle of the camel. There is clearly contradictions between the Sunni and the Shia and the western understanding of the events. I don't mind you having a Shia views section and the Sunni view section and putting the relevant information into that. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Against my better judgment, I looked at the article and talk page. Zabranos, I don't understand why, when Johnleeds1 added irrelevant information, you removed it (that seems good), but then when Johnleeds1 removed irrelevant information, you re-added it (that seems bad and hypocritical). If this article is on the Battle of Camel, well, that's what it should be about. I don't understand why the first 6 sections are there; everything prior to the battle should be able to be wrapped up in a single, succinct section, referring to other WP articles as necessary.
 * Johnleeds1, please note that copying from within Wikipedia is not okay unless in your copied edit summary you clearly state something like "Add information taken from Muawiyah I"; not doing that means you're violating the CC-BY-SA licensing agreement. But, as pointed out, it seems to not belong there anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The initial tension which led to the war is relevant because it sparked the political conflict about the Caliphate which led to the war. Historians always mention events that sparked conflicts before mentioning the battles themselves. For example, historians alway mention the stamp act, Boston massacre, Boston tea party, and other events as a spark to the Revolutionary war. The information that was obviously irrelevant was the information about Muawiyah, the Kawarij (who arose after the battle of Siffin not Jamal), the peace treaty with Hassan, and Yazid elected as caliph after Muawiyah. How do those events tie into the battle of the camel. On the other hand, the events that sparked the tension basically caused the battle to occur making it relevant. In addition, I think that the events that sparked the war should be kept in the article because not a lot of people know about them. And Im not trying to be hypocritical or biased in any way shape or form. Im just trying to decipher what is relevant and what is irrelevant. Zabranos (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, next time don't go against your better judgment. :) That article is a mess for more than one reason. Note that in 60,000 bytes the author(s) manage to have one full paragraph on the actual battle, and half of that is not about the battle. 10,000 people died, but you wouldn't have guessed it from the rest of the article. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * note that I moved your comment Zabranos so that it didn't interrupt mine and make it look like I had an unsigned comment To Zabranos, thanks, I was sort of hoping you'd produce an example of that, which is exactly my point. Yes, historians would mention all of those things in a book about the US Revolutionary War. THey would not, however, mention them in a discussion of the Battle of Bunker Hill. Look at that article, which I will note is a Good Article. Notice how, while there are prelude sections, they're small compared to the rest of the article and, more importantly, they are the prelude to the Battle itself (troop movements, intelligence, etc.). They're not about all of the political and religious (or whatever) background to the more general conflict. I think that information belongs in First Fitna or somewhere else like that. The Battle article should state who fought in the Battle, how they got ready for that Battle, what actually happened during the Battle, and what the aftermath was (though note that I'm talking about the Battle's aftermath, like remain troop strength, major leaders killed, and land occupied, not about political/religious results). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To Qwyrxian, I am not disagreeing with you at all. In the talk page I indicated that we need more information about the actual battle and that we need to expand it because the article should focus on that. Currently the "The Spark of Tension Leading To The Battle" section looks big (we can work to trim it) but mainly it looks big because there is not enough information about the battle it self. Also the reason why the battle section is not as detailed is because there are not a lot of western sources on the actual battle (since the actual battle itself only last for a day or two). There is more information on the events leading to the battle and preparation for the battle because those events lasted longer than the actual battle itself. The conflict was relatively short. But I am encouraging everyone to find more information about the battle in order to expand it. I myself am trying to find western sources that talk about the battle itself. Zabranos (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Side note: This battle is seen as a civil war rather than just a battle itself. Hence, the arabic word First Fitna "First Civil War". Its unique in the fact that you cant really classify it as a battle, but rather as a short civil war and thus needs background information explaining why it occurred. Zabranos (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can cut down the background info or just place the info in the First Fitna article. Your call. Zabranos (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not really my call; I only barely skimmed Battle of the Camel and First Fitna; but my intuition is that the battle article should focus on the fighting, and the rest should focus on the broader conflict. I don't see how a two day event can be a "short civil war", especially since (my quick skimming tells me) it's part of a broader 5-ish year revolution. I recommend discussing the matter further; you might want to hold the discussion on Talk:First Fitna (since you're essentially proposing to add material to that article) and then provide a link to the discussion on Talk:Battle of the Camel. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The First Fitna dates are wrong because they have combined all three fitnas, battle of jamal, battle of sifeen, and battle of nahrawan (all three were different), into one. All three fitnas combined lasted for approximately 5 years. I recently corrected the article, but I haven't corrected the dates yet. The battle of Jamal itself was relatively short. Im ok with placing the events that sparked the battle in the First Fitna article. That way the Battle of the Camel page could just discuss events about the battle itself. I will also trim the background info down. Zabranos (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Disregard the previous comment. Even though, battle of jamal, battle of sifeen, and battle of nahrawan were three differenct fitnas (civil wars all aimed at the caliph ali) western sources combined them into one based on the fact that they all were fought against the caliph ali. That is incorrect because they were all different, nonwestern sources classify them as three different civil wars. But since western sources categorize them as the first fitna. I will keep it to the western style of viewing the conflict. Sorry for the confusion. Zabranos (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved most the irrelevant info from the battle of the camel to the First Fitna article. Since we agreed that the article should only talk about the battle. Zabranos (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tamilakam
Could you please join in? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem seems to be settling; we're discussing, sort of. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice this before. You could try asking at Wikiproject India's talk page, as that may bring other uninvolved editors who could help. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link! Might be very useful, at least to get a broader picture of the issues at India-related articles. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi!
After a long time and self realization I am here to say Hello to You brother.How are you? May this six month ban can now be lifted by any method? kindly inform me whether I can participate in AFD's or can open ANI. In this duration I have learnt a lot and I promise to participate in any activity with full humility and humbleness. Is there any wiki policy which restricts editing Wikipedia Articles with a malafide intention? Is there any wiki Policy which punish editors from editing destructively? Means If I am editing with a motive and posses a hidden bad intention but hide my editing under the cover of wiki policies.Also tell if many times I am opposed by various other editors then Can I be punished if found guilty ? Thank You in advance Msoamu (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of Jainism related articles
Few articles related to jainism has been vandalized. The pages such as jainism digambara Śvētāmbarahas suffered a major changes from single user using multiple user IDs ,most of them are blocked. Rahul_RJ_jain

Rahuljain2307

He also goes with name Rahul Jain

The Rahul Jain

I request you to restore the page to earlier version.you have once blocked his user id so but vandalism is still taking place i request you to freeze the articles related to jainism if possible.

thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravjns (talk • contribs) 10:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The multiple user problem has been dealt with, and he's only editing from one account now. As far as I can see, his edits are not vandalism; please do not use that term for good faith contributions, as doing so is considered a personal attack. Vandalism means making edits like "Jains are silly lolololololol." Additionally, we never lock edits in a sort of permanent freeze; that's essentially the opposite of how Wikipedia works.
 * So, let's try to move forward: have you attempted to discuss these edits you disagree about with The Rahul Jain, either on his talk page or on the article talk pages? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

References for wikipedia page of Dr.Ganapathi Thanikaimoni
Hi, I do not understand your comment saying that the wiki text is not directly linked to the multiple reference source publications provided in the REFERENCES section. If you go through each of them you will see that the info contained in the wiki article is adequately referenced in those scientific research publications (whose authors are all researchers themselves). Whilst I can comprehend that the POVs and style of the text needed to be re-written, can you please clarify why you are deleting information (text + reference sources) which is facts-based (and where sources have been provided) without first going to the TALK page and opening a discussion to see if your deletions/edits could be discussed prior to modification of the page ? I STRONGLY encourage you to read extracts of scientific publications cited in the BIBLIOGRAPHY section to understand the research undertaken by Dr.G.Thanikaimoni and also the scientific research/discoveries that have been attributed to him and which you can read in the publications cited in the REFERENCES. TIP: Google Scholar will allow you to find and download PDF version of some of the publications. 91.182.105.219 (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I didn't mark it as unreferenced. Instead, I marked it as needing footnotes (sorry that I marked the template wrong, now it's corrected). That is, Wikipedia's style strongly prefers that information be verified with in-line citations--that is, after each sentence or two or at least each paragraph, a reference is put in reference tags that says where that specific information came from.
 * The information that I removed, though, was not removed for those reasons. As I explained in my edit summaries, here's why I removed stuff:


 * "Tell Me Why" is a publication for children. It cannot be used as a reliable source for any factual claims in Wikipedia.
 * We cannot have "signatures" in articles--we can't say "This was compiled by these people".
 * The paragraphs removed in this edit are ridiculous violations of WP:NPOV. They state in Wikipedia's voice that a person's reputation is well deserved; furthemore, they make bold claims about what his most famous contributions to science are, and that claim was unsourced. Even if we included it, we would need to explicitly state something like "According to Source X, he is most famous for..."
 * The external links were removed because they all violate our guideline on external links.
 * If you'd like to discuss further, I can certainly do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

He's back...
72.211.185.40 has had his block expire, and is right back on the same behavior as before: adding factually-correct but BLP-sensitive and uncited controversy bits to NASCAR drivers' pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked that address for 6 months this time. It's somewhat surprising to me that he doesn't change IPs, but it certainly makes things easier. We could conceivably use semi-protection, but it seems like there are a wide-range of targets, so let's hope it doesn't come to that. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's too many articles for semiprotection to be an option. There's always rangeblocks I guess... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

... and another one
The member of the De family is back also, hitting Barun De and some other stuff. They're using 170.140.181.199 as well as a registered account. This "don't show my dad has died", "don't make his academic opponents look good" etc stuff seems unlikely to go away. - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Working on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "B. R. Ambedkar". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 19:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Déjà vu
I came across this editor via AfD as one of his articles is there at the moment viz. Abhijit Pawar. Looking at the other articles he has created to date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abhijeet_Safai#Articles_created_by_me I don't see why most of his mini-BLPs are Wiki articles. I think the one at AfD looks like the best of the lot, possibly better than his other mini-BLPs put together e.g. Anjali Pawar. Please have a look at his BLPs. I haven't looked at his other articles.

I will be in touch again when I have had more time to look at the Sharma/Shastri articles we discussed earlier. Having looked at one of them, in which Dungar College is mentioned, I turned to that institution's website http://www.dungarcollege.ac.in/history.html and find that, for the most part, the Wiki Dungar College article, apart from the lead, is copied and pasted verbatim from there. - Zananiri (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at just the first one on the list, and it seems probably notable, assuming some of the unsourced claims are true, but needs more details and sourcing. I don't know if/when I'll have time to check the rest.
 * On Dungar College--if you ever see a copyright violation like that, please immediately remove it from Wikipedia (as I've now done). You can attempt to rewrite it (though we shouldn't be basing an article about a school on the school's website), but the copyright vio has to go immediately. Both our rules and, probably, copyright law, require that we do so. 02:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)