User talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2010/May

Pic
Wow, those Indian movies are getting risky. It is only fair use with not rational and is not correct for a BLP, as I understand especially BLP articles should only use free use images as it is totally possible to have one there is no reason to use a fair use pic. There is also no fair use rational on the picture and it may be possible to prod it for that reason alone. The ssue is that it is a BLP and not a film review. In fact even on the film review the picture should be generally representative of the movie and not cherry picked to represent the movie in a misleading way, that pic could well give a false interpretation the movie as a whole. Rangitha is protected now, let me have another look. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, it is a still from the sex sum movie, is it? If it is it should be deleted, it is pretty surely a copyright issue and the video has been restricted. Also as Ranjitha denies being in the sex movie it would be a BLP issue to add it, we have not even named her never mind a sexy disputed pic from a restricted sex tape. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, that's what I thought too, but I rarely work with images unless they are outright copyvios. This isn't on Ranjitha, this one's on Deepti Bhatnagar, a different actress and that still is supposed to be a real movie (the image is on the movie page -- appears to be an English movie). I protected Ranjitha because of the incessant BLP vios, adding that sun news video in filmography etc. And all this is still "alleged", nothing categorical. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I am getting it now, I have tagged it for a week as no fair use rational, it should not be on a BLP at all. It is here on the film article where is is more or less ok and it has a description at least its only on the film article. Deepti Bhatnagar and Don Wilson in Inferno Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

File deeion
Hello, it seems that my picture is up for deletion aain, but the webite that you found it on probably got it from the time when the picture was uploaded for the first time on Wikipedia Commons but was deleted because it was too small. I really am not sure what to do because it IS my picture. What licence should I go for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.244.31 (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What image and who are you? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda
Article is attracting a lot of uncomfirmed vandalism, do you think semi protection is a good idea? Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be semi-protected, but since I've edited the article and have reverted anons that aren't explicitly vandalism, I"m hesitant to do so myself. Let's see if I have any watchers who'll semi it without having to take it to the boards :) &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Veni. Vidi. Protected. Abecedare (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Came, saw. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Gracias. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Greater Punjab
Hello, Spaceman Spiff. I am replying to your message on my talk page which states that you "disagree with the Greater Punjab addition now." However, a discussion regarding this issue already took place and moreover, your initial demands for a "reference that says exactly what you're trying to say, then I'll be fine with the addition" have been met. In that discussion a compromise was established and you are attempting to change that establishment. Until the current consensus is changed, I am leaving the mention of the "Greater Punjab region" in the article. If a discussion establishes a new consensus, you may have permission to remove it. Also, I'm not really sure why you have an issue with the Punjab region. The introductory sentence of the article on Haryana states: "Haryana (Hindi: हरियाणा, Punjabi: ਹਰਿਆਣਾ, IPA: [hərɪjaːɳaː]) is a state in the historical Kuru region of North India." Why don't you provide a source for the Haryana being a part of the "historical Kuru region" if you wish to leave that in the introduction of the article?, taking into your requirement that the "reference that says exactly what you're trying to say, then I'll be fine with the addition." Once again, please do not alter the article until a new consensus has been reached regarding the issue. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, what makes you say "Why don't you provide a source for the Haryana being a part of the "historical Kuru region" if you wish to leave that in the introduction of the article?". Seriously, if you talk like this your compromise formula shall not be acceptable to anybody. The citation which is there as the first reference on the page clearly says "Haryana or the ancient Kuru janapada". And mind you, this is not from a general encyclopedia, which usually borrows from various sources and is being written by people who may be generalists as far as the subject of Haryana or India is concerned. The reference that is currently the number 1 ref on the Haryana wiki is written by an expert and not a generalist. He has dealt specifically with Haryana or the ancient Kuru janapada starting from ancient times till medieval era. It makes for a much more solid proof than the encyclopedia entries you are using to push your POV. 122.169.24.250 (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Spaceman, very clearly Anupam's frame of reference is the British Indian Punjab as he has mentioned in his recent comments on the Haryana talk page. The British Indian era is a recent historical happening and quite obviously the Greater Punjab region he is trying to protect was a historical creation of the British. If we (you, other users and myself) are trying to highlight older history, which stayed true for much longer than 100-200 years of British India, then that is not equivalent to rewriting history. In fact, Anupam is doing a great injustice to the ancient Kuru Janapada and the brave peoples of Haryana by trying to belittle their historical identity.Rorkadian (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point Anupam is just cherry picking references and synthesizing information and there is NO consensus for his additions as is seen from the Haryana discussion. However, he seems to misinterpret that. I'm not going to revert on Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Haryana right now, but I'll let the discussion carry on. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Leonard Shoobridge page
Spaceman Spiff I have been out to lunch in the Zodiac Zoo for the past month or two.

I moved the Leonard Shoobridge page in the hope that I could make it public - as I commented, I hope it meets the criteria and so will not be deleted (or marked for deletion).

If the page is acceptable, do I need to do any more to make it public?

Peter71947 (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he's notable, but it could definitely use a couple more refs to show that. Either way, I don't think it's speediable, if at all, it'll end up at WP:AfD and someone with some idea of these types of articles can dig up refs. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:who ever I am2
Hi Spiff, Could you take a look at this user's contributions. I suspect a sock but am not well versed in hunting them down. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Methinks Nangaparbat putted an application for another sock. See that Elockid's already blocked him, let me know if any of the articles need a semi-pp if the ips show up. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess any editor pov-trolling the kashmir pages is a likely nangaparbat sock. Hopefully, I'll recognize him/her the next time. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Leonard Shoobridge
Thanks for your reply.

''I think he's notable, but it could definitely use a couple more refs to show that. Either way, I don't think it's speediable, if at all, it'll end up at WP:AfD and someone with some idea of these types of articles can dig up refs.''

I don't understand 'speediable'. And it appears that the page won't go public unless it is improved?

Peter71947 (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is in mainspace. When I say not speediable, I mean it doesn't fit the speedy deletion criteria where one admin can delete the page (like I deleted the other page you created). However, this can still be deleted by the longer and more interactive WP:AFD process if a couple more references aren't found (I believe they can be, but I can't find any). cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

About the Account Robotboy199
Hi! I am a new account for robotboy199. Can you please allow the editing again for the account? I really won't EVER, EVER, EVER do it again. Please allow robotboy199 to edit again.

Beamer103 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:SOCK for our policy on using multiple accounts. If you wish to appeal your block, do so by logging in and placing an unblock request. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Spaceman. I truly don't know if this user has difficulty grasping the concept of "clue", whether they're just a bit overeager or if they're all about the lulz.  It's getting close to the point of being irrelevant.  They've blanked a section on my user talk, replaced User:A little insignificant's talk with gibberish and created and recreated several deleted articles (if their socking claims are true).  Now they are socking.  Their claim of socking may be disingenuous, but why claim it if it will only harm oneself?  I'm just providing some background.  You may be aware of this already, if so, excuse the ring.  See ya 'round   Tide  rolls  21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Tide, I haven't had time to look through the contributions, but I figured someone would when an unblock request is placed. Eitherways, in a couple of days, I'm sure you will be able to do the honors. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yogi Bhajan article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbhajan_Singh_Yogi
I noticed you have made edits on this article and I would like your help in reaching consensus on a more balanced article about Yogi Bhajan. I have included a link to the discussion where you can see where Guru Fatah Singh has been relentless in deleting any fair quotations of Dr. Trilochan Singh's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harbhajan_Singh_Yogi

Thank you Guru Sant Singh

Guru Fatah Singh Khalsa has again shown his extreme bias and true colours as a cult follower of Yogi Bhajan in the latest edits of May 15th 2010 concerning Dr. Trilochan Singh in the Sikh Scholar's section. Guru Fatah Singh is clearly substituting his own personal views and opinions for those of a well respected Sikh scholar and historian. Guru Fatah Singh's attack on Dr. Trilochan Singh is so outrageous that I am inclined at this point to leave Guru Fatah Singh's edits in place since I have faith that most people will see through Guru Fatah Singh's cultish opinions and others will support my previous edits and make the changes in this article which will give the article more truth and balance. Guru Fatah Singh Khalsa who has written the entire article about Yogi Bhajan clearly exhibits extremely biased positions and has even admitted this in his statement that Yogi Bhajan appointed him as his biographer. In these last set of edits he made about a week ago I have been struck again at how narrow minded and cultish Guru Fatah's opinions present themselves. Guru Fatah has now included an entire section titled, "Sikh Scholars' Views on Yogi Bhajan's Mission" which gives lengthy quotes from supposed Sikh "scholars" who spent at most a few days around Yogi Bhajan and his 3HO American Sikhs. Guru Fatah has degraded Dr. Trilochan Singh to a position of inferiority and even ridiculed Dr. Trilochan Singh's book [1]"Sikhism and Tantric Yoga" as insignificant and motivated by revenge. I have written in this discussion section at length concerning Dr. Trilochan Singh's creditbility and I will add that unlike the Sikh "scholars" Guru Fatah Singh refers to, Dr. Trilochan Singh spent months with Yogi Bhajan and interviewd many students and ex students of Yogi Bhajan. Dr. Trilochan Singh had no reason to be vengeful and his book was only motivated out of love for the Sikh faith and the young American Singh's and Kaur's who desired to learn more about the true Sikh path. I refer you to Dr. Trilochan Singh’s opening statement in his book [2]"Sikhism and Tantric Yoga":

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO THE AMERICAN SIKHS AND OTHER WESTERN SIKHS Whose devotion to Sikhism is unique and exemplary, Whose passion to learn from historical experiences and the lives of really great Sikh saints is marvelous, Whose zeal to study the Sikh doctrines and language of Sikh Scriptures in the original and imbibe its spirit is impressive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.60.155 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have the patience to fix this article. It fluctuates between two extreme POVs, with none of the editors of the page being interested in following any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Christianity in India
Can you give your inputs and help this discussion come to an end. I am bit fagged by it. Thanks. Arjun  codename024 11:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA
Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Please can you tell us why this 'Copyright Violation' template been associated with this page. Please can you place a talkback on my page. Thanks Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacdsouza (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

/* East Indian people */
Come to the talk page of "east indians" and explain yourself there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_Indians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.160.117 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * THe tag is self-explanatory. If you keep removing it, you will be blocked. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the link to the PDF file? Is that link causing this Copyright issue? Thanks Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacdsouza (talk • contribs) 11:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Move req.
Hi, we have an article Women's Reservation Bill India and Women's Reservation Bill is a redirect to it. Since, the name "Women's Reservation Bill" is unique; i guess its usual in WP to move Women's Reservation Bill India -> Women's Reservation Bill. It requires an admin to delete the page and move it, right? Requesting the same. Thanks. BTW How do you do?  Arjun  codename024 17:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This title would require a disambiguation of India in it, however, I don't think the current name is correct. It should either be Women's Reservation Bill (India) or Women's Reservation Bill, India. I'm not overly familiar with the naming conventions for these things, a discussion on WP Law or WP India might be appropriate. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will put this @ Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Arjun  codename024 08:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

East Indians
Are you talking about the link to the PDF file? Is that link causing this Copyright issue? Thanks Jacdsouza (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The details are provided on the copyvio template. Until someone from the copyvio/OTRS workgroup verifies that the text conforms to guidelines, the template should remain. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Indian Expressways
Hi SpacemanSpiff, I saw that you have reverted my edits saying "do not remove maintenance templates without fixing the issue". I would be happy to fix this issue if you let me know what exactly missing/maintenance needed. I want to make Indian Expressways article as clean as possible, so if you let me know or help to fix this issue, I will be more than happy :-). Thanks KuwarOnline (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Half the content in the page is not supported by refs, so refs need to be added for those. Right now, a good chunk of it is personal opinion. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai
Hi spacemanspiff. We have added more latest proffestional picture of Aishwarya Rai on her wiki Hopefloat007 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC) hope
 * Please do not add non-free images when free images are available. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Chelo61 RfC
Hello, this note is just to tell you that an RfC has begun regarding User:Chelo61. Since you may have been involved with this user, your input is appreciated. Requests for comment/Chelo61. Thank you. Phearson (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think an RfC is necessary in this case, at the rate at which he's going is bound to earn an indefinite block soon. I'll take a look at it later. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Add the padlock
When you restrict editing of an article, please add the padlock to the article page, as you did not do with Goswami. The icons and templates exist for a reason. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pocket Gamer entry on Wiki
Hi there,

I recently tried to create a Wikipedia page for Pocket Gamer, but you rejected it. I was hoping you could tell me why.

My arguments in favour of having a page on Wikipedia are

a) that Pocket Gamer is referenced in hundreds of other articles on Wikipedia (a search yields 4549 results, though not all refer to Pocket Gamer), many of them with incorrect links to an old entry for the long-defunct Pocket Gamer magazine (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob's_Game). b) that dozens of other comparable video game blogs have Wikipedia entries, including Kotaku, Joystiq, Destructoid, and so on. Each of these sites has referenced stories by Pocket Gamer on numerous occasions, just as Pocket Gamer has referenced many of theirs. On this basis, I find it difficult to understand why Pocket Gamer is being singled out as ineligible.

Would you mind explaining?

Hope you're well.

Cheers, Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobHearn (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The page fits in with our speedy deletion criteria for websites. I can (or if I'm not around, ask any other admin) userfy it for you and you can add references to ensure that it meets our notability guidelines. Once you're done with that, you can move it to article space. Let me know if you have any questions. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)