User talk:Yogesh Khandke/Archive 2

Ganges
How on earth is a reference undue? Suggest you rethink that one, this is getting silly -- Snowded TALK  17:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question, See wp:UNDUE, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. How significant is faecal bacteria level at one place,to have it in the lead? Thanks for asking and not reverting right away.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a REFERENCE in support of a statement, it is not text. You really should self revert you know, I'll leave it for a bit to give you a chance -- Snowded  TALK  17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand please explain.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are refering to Green diary source, it is the same source for the next sentence, so removed one occurence. The Ganges ranks among the top five most polluted rivers of the world with fecal coliform levels in the river near Varanasi more than hundred times the official Indian government limits. . Pollution threatens not only humans, but also more than 140 fish species, 90 amphibian species and the endangered Ganges river dolphin. , your next edit was The World Bank estimates that the health costs of water pollution in India equal three per cent of India's GDP. It has also been suggested that eighty per cent of all illnesses in India and one-third of deaths can be attributed to water-borne diseases.  World bank estimates are irrelevant, for this article which is about a river, and not a general topic such as India, or health in India or disease.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't be around to answer you on this, not soon anyways. Thanks again.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions welcome on India discussion page.
Hi, Does this edit look good? References for Bharat ie India
 * 1. Bharat i.e. India is mentioned explicitly as explanation.


 * 2. realm of Bharat, India


 * 3. Search with name "bhArata"


 * 4. Search with bhArata - "{varSa} n. `" king BhñBharatas's realm "' i.e. India" (Incidentally also gives one amongst many explanation of bharata as Bharata of a Manu (who gave the name to the country Bha1rata) ib. ; of a son of Manu Bhautya Ma1rkP. ;


 * 5. Bharatvarsha i.e. India

My suggestion: India also Bhārat̪ (, lit. land that comprises as Bhāratavarsha)  (भारत; see official names of India) officially the Republic of India (भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia.

References from other wikipedia pages for conventions etc.:
 * 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#India gives idea about pages in India which can be improved also when needed.
 * 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges_River : The Ganges (English pronunciation: /ˈɡændʒiːz/ GAN-jeez;) or Ganga, (Sanskrit: गङ्गा Hindi: गंगा Urdu: گنگا Ganga IPA: [ˈɡəŋɡaː] ( listen); Bengali: গঙ্গা Gônga), is a....  - Notice the "or" word.
 * 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangetic_Plains : The Indo-Gangetic Plains also known as the Northern Plains and The North Indian River Plain is a large... - Notice the "also known as part" for different names based on Ganga and Indian words, for the same.
 * 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aravalli_Range : The Aravalli Range literally meaning 'line of peaks',[1] is a... - Notice the literal meaning explained along with references.


 * Some other examles:
 * 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks#cite_note-0 : notice The Liancourt Rocks, also known as Dokdo or Tokto (독도/獨島, literally "solitary island") in Korean or Takeshima (たけしま/竹島?, literally "bamboo island") in Japanese,[1] are ... . - Notice the meaning given also along with words, the names are all English and references of sources for explanation).
 * 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trentino-Alto_Adige/S%C3%BCdtirol : Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol[4] (German: Trentino-Südtirol;[5] Italian: Trentino-Alto Adige .... - Many English names, notice the sites for constitution of Italy, eurostat, and Italian documents referenced for clarity.
 * 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voblast : - Voblast is a loaned word in English, which means something similar to ... in other words something similar to administrative division but in respective understanding not strictly bound by translation.
 * 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo_(state) - notice "ã" in São. I want to say that putting ā in Bhārat should be accepted, and not avoided.
 * 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_(regional) - it is possible to have a varied site for India related article in separate category in Manual style region wise, so as to have information adhering incorporating Devanagari script, the tendency to view as as lively and not as "things" and so on, or be incorporated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#India

Thanks. .असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 19:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All the best
Hope you come out with flying colors in the personal issues keeping you off Wikipedia and in General too! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Need comments on this RFC - [| discussion]
Need your views and comments. One should also go through ['no consensus' discussion]. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  06:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Tibet on South Asia
Quigley seems to want to start a discussion on the inclusion of Tibet in South Asia. Please chime in if you can. You are being informed of this as you took part in similar discussions on Talk:South Asia in the past. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join the WikiProject Education in India
naveenpf (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

cleanup of the 4 way test suggestions
the part where you explain the 4 way test could be made a little easier to read by putting it in some sort of table or vertical list instead of one sentence.Thebestofall007 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Wikibreak
I saw your message, good luck and hope to see you back at some point in the future. I've been off Wikipedia (and will continue to be on and off) too for not too different reasons. I still feel that an "on-Wikipedia" solution is still possible and I prefer that approach. However if certain editors-admins do not look at the bigger picture, I have a feeling that the real-world community will get involved and things should take care of themselves. The latest "administrative action" is to block and ban editors who don't want their castes to be labelled as Shudra. No sympathy towards editors who do not/cannot follow WP rules but I'm not sure the administrative action shows any maturity or an attempt to understand the underlying issue. What was the average age of the typical Wikipedia editor? Zuggernaut (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back
Hi, Nice to see some reply on India page. It is strange to see hardly any mention of Hinduism and anything positive (including Gupta Dynasty times) on Hinduism on the page, but slowly I am understanding the western state of mind which I have come to know is more about 'civilizing heathens' etc. Was reading some stuff over the internet, which I am sure you would have some idea of, such as 1, etc. Indeed how disappointing and frustrating for Hindus in America when Hindus are insulted in classrooms even.

About India, if you have time, you could go through the discussion India=Bharata & RFC, where for one whole month I presented sources on 'Bharata' (on India page!) as 'English name' of the country! But then, it seems the page is special and has special needs for sources from heathens but casual 'modern english' sources are by default assumed as acceptable. Just my 2 cents, but what a sorry state of affairs on Wikipedia.

I also found some quite amusing links on the internet, full of covert propaganda, 1, 2 etc, and some links explaining the discourse of scorn on Hinduism such as 1, this is well written; some material on voi.org, bharatvani.org/, etc. (which is banned on Wikipedia because it is 'right wing', which means if some Hindu mentions that Muslims/Christians broke temples then it is the Hindu who is fascist not those who broke temples in the name of God), and so on. It is no surprise to me that the whole discourse is ignorant/deceiving of Hinduism though I must mention some things interesting I read somewhere like 'those who live by rules of the jungle, die by rules of the jungle'( from Raamaayana, Raama to Sugriva); 'No one can do aDharma without ultimately paying a price for it'( Krishna in Mahabhaarata), and so on.

The question here is why do all the tantrums which will ultimately be wasted. Just thinking aloud here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  16:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:GREATWRONGS. Also, a web-site is not a good source, peer reviewed secondary sources are good sources. You are right, or should I say the rule is of the ghatayantrachakra, what is full is emptied and what is empty is filled. rikt: bhavanti bharit: bharit: cha rikt:Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Therefore, considering that work has to be performed with detachment, you perform it, considering yourself a non-agent. This will be declared in the words 'with detachment' and 'which ought to be done" - translation of my sign, as described on my page here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..  Humour Thisthat2011  16:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Param Vir Chakra

 * In vain?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's a start. Future "generations" will try the move again since you've set the precedent and given it visibility. Plus you fractured your wrist :) Zuggernaut (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks nevertheless!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Soapboxing on talk:India
Hi,

Could you please get some diff.s you mention from archive/history please? That will throw some light on credibility of those calling me soapboxers, biased and ignorant! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  11:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is useless until there is a critical mass, Zuggernaut tried the formal route, it bommeranged on him, wonder how he got back, well you need to read contributions, there is enough evidence of wp:OR, wp:SYNTHESIS, wp:SOAPBOX, wp:ETIQUETTE. There has to be a critical mass first. Also you should be careful of wp:TAGTEAM.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yogesh. we need a critical mass. For the longest time Brits followed the policy of "Divide & Rule" and ruled India and unfortunately see the same going on now on WP.  That there is a deep WP:BIAS on WP is something most people accept.  Can having editors from minority demographic groups help improve things - yes.  We need to focus and pick the debates wisely and be realistic what we can hope to achieve.  Otherwise the term "Hindu nationalist" will continuously be thrown around and people will keep getting away with it.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Support.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. I don't want to sound pessimistic but getting the critical mass is at least 4-5 years away as the demographics are only beginning to shift. That does not mean we should not try, but, in addition to editing articles, there should be an equal emphasis on contributing to templates, editing Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays. You can also post at the various Village pumps (see this). Right now, I'm seeing some not-so-nice remarks directed towards ThisThat2011 about his English - such comments should not discourage anyone. There is no need to know perfect English - get a spell checker (install Wiki-Ed), make sure the grammar is reasonable and go full speed ahead. People will often also taunt and bait you so that you make a legal threat or launch a personal attack and then quickly have you banned for doing so. Best thing to do is to stay focused on the content. Another problem reaching the critical mass is because admins like SpacemanSpiff block hundreds and perhaps thousands of editors because they may be "Hindu nationalists". I've just recently created a new template based on the conventional Wikipedia template. It's called Welcome-India and I've started using it via Twinkle to welcome India editors. I intend to use it to welcome IPs who would otherwise get blocked. You can use it too - takes a minute or two to get the thing working. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another problem I see building a critical mass is the same problem that has plagued India over the millenia. We have multiple Indian language wikipedias including one in Sanskrit !!  while it looks good superficially in reality it divides the contributors and takes away the time they could spend on English wikipedia countering the POV pushers from other English speaking countries. I know of some Indian editors who speak write perfect English but spend most of their time on their local language WP. I would much rather see WP invest in translation technology so that anybody can translate the English article into the language of his choice to read it.  But I am sure many people in India will not agree with me on that.  "Divide & Rule" has been a strategy used by people who do not want India to do well since way back when.  so to tweak the statement above by Yogesh we need a critical mass of editors interested in India who want to edit in English.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Zuggernaut. somebody should ask Spaceman & RGPK how many "Christian racists" they have blocked or if they think that Racism does not exist among Christians ;).  Good job on the template.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes good job on template. I would suggest to have a caution section where one could be suspended for various reasons, and how to positively contribute i.e. writing in your own words, not indulging in debates without secondary sources & not get emotional, etc.
 * As far as current discussion in considered, I would like to suggest some characteristics that one should be wise enough to have no bitterness regardless of what happens; recognize that there are responsible people in India and in all other countries. Ignoring things like these can lead to arguments where grounds become slippery on this side in absence of these characteristics and lead to Wikibans etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  16:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is good advice and something to keep in mind going forward. Regarding the fixes to the template, I may not be able to do it right now. Feel free to edit it, it's pretty simple and even if something goes wrong, you can undo your edit. If you don't plan on editing it, please watchlist it. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

About sources from my side
Hi,

The only reason my sources (presented here and earlier on talk pages, are ignored on talk:Kurmi is because there are no reasons to ignore it. User:MathewVanitas has explicitly commented, without any sources, that these amount to 'swaying' authorities and so on.

Why would anyone ignore these and call it disruptive? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  11:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is crux of this. The sources mentioned by me are explicit about (1)social and (2)legal status of Kurmis as Kshatriyas. When I presented the source, it was assumed that it was so because of 'swaying' of authorities by Kurmi movements, which is incorrect(as per me).
 * The social status was recognized during 'debate' etc. with notable Pandit's views and reasons were given for varna too. (year 1907)
 * The official status was recognized by a Governor and there are also reasons given for it by the one who recommended so and accepted. (year 1896)
 * Both these processes by no way means 'swaying' authorities and mention explicit recognition of Kshatriya Varna. It is difficult to know how these are ignored on the talk page, there are no reasons given other than 'swaying' authorities logic. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  11:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, there are no issues with editing on main page as can be inspected on history page (here), it is talk page that I have presented sources. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see talk:Kurmi.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Mumbai XI
As per your request on this page:

About Laguna Copperplate Inscription
Hi,

Is this Kawi script based on Laguna Copperplate Inscription[ a good source for [User_talk:Thisthat2011#Laguna_Copperplate_Inscription this topic? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  16:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know? The wikipedia article has a Roman phonetic translationYogesh Khandke (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Message on my talk page Shivashree (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR
You are in danger of violating 3RR on Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Please be warned. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sudheendra Kulkarni


The article Sudheendra Kulkarni has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Mark  Dask  12:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush
Sitush get off my back Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comment
The Yogesh Thanks for the nice message you posted on my wall. I appreciate it. I saw your contributions, and I am amazed to see the great contributions you make. Please continue the good work!

I want to get into the India Project. Do you know how can I get into it? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI
You have been mentioned at WP:ANI in connection with a complaint initiated by. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yogesh, I dropped in to check your response on my request. I think you are busy. I will wait. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Kulkarni
Apologies for dropping by but please show me the diff where I "implicated" Kulkarni. I ask here so as not to embarrass you in the ANI discussion, which I think is pretty decent of me even if I do say so myself ;) - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have called you benign as AGF, you used the word implicated check earlier diffs. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not mithered about what you do or do not call me. I just cannot find any "implication" anywhere re: Kulkarni. If I have got it wrong then fair enough, but I could do with knowing otherwise the same error could get repeated. - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think its this difference. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  06:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't be that: it is correct. You queried the "some years" bit as being weasel, although in fact it was not (you had misunderstood WP:WEASEL). Other than removing that phrase, the same content remains now. You just moved it to a separate paragraph and added an "according to", which is fine but not necessary because the citation is clear enough/says who wrote it etc. If I did libel the guy, which is the only offence at BLP that doesn't apply on other articles, then it is not that diff. - Sitush (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, here's the diff where you say that I was "implicating" Kulkarni. I still cannot see where I did & have now been through the entire series of edits. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * More clarity here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  07:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it not true? I have just spent the last several hours revamping Cash-for-votes scandal and Kulkarni was named by the committee as being one that the police should investigate further. Furthermore, as the cite on K's own page indicates, he was last interviewed on 14 July. No-one is saying that he is guilty etc but he is implicated in it as per the committee findings. I wonder if this is more an issue of someone not fully understanding the word "implicate"? - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)I M P L I C A T E DYogesh Khandke (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Yes, he is implicated. The Deo committee implicated him by saying that the wanted another body to do more investigation because they had some evidence relating to him whereas no evidence relating to, eg, Amar Singh. Like I said, I wonder if the problem is a misunderstanding of what the word means. Doesn't matter anywa, I'll change it back, with a better source. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All along you are asking implicating where, now this U turn. Can't you handle text? (That is a rhetorical question, don't answer that.) Perhaps you need rest.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is another attack that I could add to my list, I guess, but it is mild in comparison. You told ANI that, effectively, I had libelled Kulkarni when in fact I had done no such thing. The sooner you realise that this is supposed to be a collaborative environment, the better. Your racist remarks regarding the intelligence of the average US citizen etc is just one of many recent examples of why you simply are not getting how this place is supposed to work. If you cannot work within it then perhaps you should find another outlet. On the other hand, if you wish to stay here then you are going to have to stop slinging so much mud around without first doing your research: in the last 24 hours you have made at least five false accusations. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was told many times by Americans that Ganga would be confusing for Americans (sentences like if you walk down the streets of xxx an American city, and say Ganga, they would think it was weed), I just carried the logic forward, if Ganga is confusing, Indian would be many times more, and provided evidence for why, ghits galore. See the text at AN/I or implicating Kulkarni on his page. You were careless about a BLP, which is a display of incompetent editing, where is libel?? You dragged me to AN/I, I had to defend. You hounded me to Kulkarni, you got another editor over to the party, you can write five false accusations you can write fifty, can we have diff for one? Just get out of my soup, leave me alone, dont drag me here and there. Please.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are really going completely tangential here, accusing others and advising to 'find another outlet' etc. in what yourself understand very well as 'a collaborative environment'. This doesn't look too collaborative. Has he indicated that you should 'find another outlet' etc.? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011  18:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, TT, you made the same mistake in another thread. I have not told Yogesh to "go away" or anything like that. I have suggested, politely, that if he is struggling to cope with the way things work here then there are other places that may be more congenial. There are plenty of Wikis out there, for example.
 * I was careless about nothing, Y. He was implicated and that is what I said. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi
Please do not make changes at Kurmi which you know do not have consensus approval. If you wish to make such a change, please discuss it on the article's Talk page first, provide reliable sources to support your desired change, and wait until you can achieve a consensus supporting you. I have to say I'm really rather disappointed that you have still apparently not understood Wikipedia's insistence on reliable sources, and have still not understood our policy of consensus when settling content disputes, despite the number of times they have been explained on Talk pages on which you have taken part. I would hate to see you blocked for this repeated failure to understand (which some might even see as deliberately ignoring our policies), but there is a strong chance that is what will happen if you continue. If I can help to explain the relevant policies any further (though I honestly don't know how I can make them any clearer than I have already endeavored to on pages on which I know you have been participating), please do feel free to ask me on my Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (1)I have made an edit, why not wait and watch what the consensus is? (2)See the lead Other Backward Class has an in-line citation, do you think The Hindu is a bad source. (3)You are involved in content dispute, you shouldn't be threatning editors with whom you have content disputes, please provide a few diffs for all that you have said above. It is 1.30 am local time. GTG.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, section titles do not carry links. Taking them off. So much for knowledge of policy.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm pleased to see you have asked for opinions on the Talk page in an attempt to gain a consensus - that is the right way to do it, and we will hopefully gain consensus one way or the other. As for section titles, User Talk pages are not subject to article policies or the Manual of style, so there is nothing wrong with my providing a link to the relevant article - and you would do yourself a favour by not looking like you are so desperate to find fault with others that you will pick on such utter trivia. Of course, it's your Talk page, so feel free to style the section headings however you wish -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I am not involved in a content dispute, as I have no preference for what that line should say. In fact, I think your suggested change might be a good compromise, but as you know perfectly well that it is a contested issue, you should seek consensus. And I am not "threatening" anyone, I merely made a civil request that you seek consensus for your desired change, in line with Wikipedia policy. If you believe my polite communication to be against Wikipedia policy, then please feel free to raise a complaint at the appropriate venue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding If you believe my polite communication to be against Wikipedia policy, then please feel free to raise a complaint at the appropriate venue what is I would hate to see you blocked for this repeated failure to understand (which some might even see as deliberately ignoring our policies) that you said? As an admin you have the power to back words with actions. I have no reason not to take you seriously. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point on the trivial: You write User Talk pages are not subject to article policies or the Manual of style, which is incorrrect, see Talk page guidelines, check the column Wikipedia guidelines, in that lives Manual of Style, so talk pages aren't exempt from them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the link in the blue box to the right of the page? - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hi Yogesh. It honestly was not meant as a threat, and I really don't want to see any of the current participants in this issue blocked. There really are issues with a lot of India-related articles, and I would very much like to see them resolved - and the best solution by far would be by involving Indian editors and getting as broad a consensus as we can. We have had some blatant and deliberate trolls and sockpuppets blocked so far - I've done some of the blocks myself, and I think that was correct. But I think the few people currently discussing this are genuinely trying to make positive progress - and I really want to encourage that. I will reserve my own admin actions here for blatant abuse, vandalism, sockpuppeting, etc. But I will not use admin tools against people who I believe to be genuine in their aims here, because that would be unethical - a genuine two-way discussion is not possible where one party is holding a sword over the other. So I give you my word that I will not block you or use any admin tools against you in any interactions we have, and I hope that promise will help you to feel you can speak freely and that I will listen to what you say. But I cannot guarantee that other admins will not take action if they see repeated anti-consensus edits being made in these caste articles, and that's what I would not like to see happen. Now, I really am off to bed, so I'll bid you goodnight -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm not going to waste time on arguing trivia like links in Talk page headings. You can either treat what I say in good faith (and reformat your Talk page however you like), or you can try to use it to score trivial points against me. One of those courses of action will not make you look good - I'll leave you to work out which one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(a)Agree it is trivial (b)Is there anything in the reformat that is pro- MoS, I don't see it. (b)My point is every one is trying to learn the ropes here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That blog link
That blog is making blatantly false personal attacks, so please do not post links to it around the place as it only gives the author publicity (and it might even result in people seeing you as trying to further publicity for the accusations - especially as you awarded a cup of tea to the latest newly-registered editor who posted it!). I have redacted the link in all three places you posted it - Jimbo and Sue can get it from the history if they really want to see it. The way to deal with people making allegations like this is explained at WP:RBI. The rest of us have moved onto the "Ignore" step, so might I please suggest that you do too? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Read my comments I have said people are throwing muck at Wikipedia!!!!! Did you leave a link when you blocked DKBose? I am not an oracle to know the history behind the block if you didn't, if you did hit me with a trout. No Zebedee sweeping things under the carpet are not the way. No Zebedee I don't take such things seriously, that is why I wrote that muck is being thrown at Wikipedia, did you see the tag under the blog, it says WHY WIKIPEDIA IS NOT RELIABLE, which hurts fellas and you guys are no help. The point is that unless certain measures are taken against errant editors, people are going to speculate?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did read your comments, yes, and I'm sure you meant your reports in good faith - but please do read WP:RBI and please do not give this person publicity that they do not deserve. As for DK.Bose7, that block is provisional pending a sockpuppet investigation, and I did not provide an explicit link to the block, no - I provided the minimum I thought was needed for the investigating CheckUser/Admins, in the form of diffs to the two users' edits (the sock and the suspected sockmaster) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Zebedee if you had written on that fellows block about the case and links that would have informed a person that something was wrong. The block read indefinite. Which is bad admin work, if I may say so. See Zebedee that is why I used the classification Other Backward Class which is accurate and objective. But you allowed it to be reverted, please your weapons wisely. And if someone thinks that I think there is money involved, that guy is a paranoid moron, Zebedee I request you, don't sweep the thing under the carpet. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not wasting my time with yet another near-endless and utterly pointless argument with you Yogesh. If you don't like my actions, you know where to report me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * God bless you!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

India place names:Replied

 * Replied♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Anthromorphic
You have used the word anthromorphic on the Kurmi page, share anthromorphic features, what do you mean by anthromorphic?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Yogesh, Anthromorphology stands for physical features of a particular community or race. Other definitions I have seen on the web include, structures built by humans such as the pyramids. Risley was chief of the 1901 census of India. Unlike the present system, in those days the British colonial authorities counted every caste and sub-caste in India, for example, Marathi deshastha and karhade brahmins. For the this particular census, he also measured physical features of all the castes that were studies. The features includeed length and breadth of the nose, shape of the head, skin colour and height. I may have missed or added a feature here or there. I am using the word anthromorphic studies for this project. I don't think I coined this word. If you use anthromorphology with the word racial then you will get several hits. Hope this helps.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that how anthromorphic used? Please check the Wikipedia article. There is another word for what you have written I don't remember it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Yogesh, I am at the verge of saying goodbye to Wikipedia. I see a much larger issue than just a few castes or anything as such. Mahatma Gandhi gets renamed to Mohamdas K Gandhi, Gandhi is termed racist due to his association with hinduism, Ganga gets changed to Ganges, Indians are termed 'caste warriors', 'plague', 'at the cost doing business in that country', repeated instances of using the term 'Shudra' and thousands of other glaring examples of open insults and not a fair treatment. Great historians are termed as 'useless' and what not. Books will get filled with pages. I may not have got worried if it was related to just a few users, it seems to be bit larger than this. It is for wiki to look into this.

But I do see a ray of hope. as I believe in the basic good nature of fellow beings.

If anyone had the slightest context of India, they can clearly see that a person with 'Khandke' surname is in no way related to those poor Kurmis of Northern India. Maharashtra, your state, is 1000 miles from Bihar and UP. You have been the sanest voice I have heard so far in the conversation. Inspite of all the mud that has been hurled to you, you have maintained composure.

I don't think I can continue for long. My career at wiki is almost at an end as I can't digest such things for long. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the appreciation, don't know how much of it I deserve. Well edit a few dull articles, there are thousands of them. Also have a good look at wp:GREATWRONGS, you will feel better. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to see this. I think it really is a big issue how some stuff is handled here. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

HELP!
Thanks for your comments. You can now help here.... User:Animeshkulkarni/List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Wiki Conference India Invitation
Hi, It will be great to meet you here(Mumbai) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConference_India_2011, This is first India level conference, let meet up there. KuwarOnline Talk 08:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya. Thanks! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just want to tell you....
that I replied to your comment. Maybe you have not seen the reply, because in the beginning I did post somewhere else in the page, because I in turn have not seen you text. So it took more time until I replied. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Tirthankar move
I fail to see no consensus there. Google hits are not the end all in the process. While you used numbers of Google hits in India, that may or may not be indicative of English hits. But again, Google hits is not the decider. The other editors presented reasoned cases for changing. Clearly there was consensus and the claim that the new title is supported by searches on Google Books which is considered a more reliable indicator. So in the end, we had consensus of several editors and support that this was used in reliable sources. I fail to see how you think there was no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was demonstrated on the Gandhi move argument, which is still wet paint, that consensus isn't about counting votes but is weighing the points. My point is simple, India has a system of Romanising Indian language proper nouns (and other words), such my name Yogesh or the name Arjun which is the user name of the move proposer, the Chinese system of Romanisation is accepted by Wikipedia, why are you ignoring the Indian system of Romanisation which is evident in application. This argument in opposition of the move was ignored by you. Tirthankar is a name like Vegas is. There is an established way in which it is spelt in English in India. It is unnecessary to have it spelt to confirm a committee spelling. Kindly advice future action. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous personal attacks
Yogesh, just today you've compared me to the Oslo bomber and also keep, and keep, and keep dragging up an absolutely ludicrous assertion from some random blog. If you had brought it up once in an appropriate arbitration committee, fine, that'd be your right, but you and MW have attempted to spread these smears across every page you possibly can, and rather than follow formal proceses went running to the founder of WP. Jimbo, by the way, did not say "awesome call, this needs looking into", he basically said it seemed unlikely but that if anyone has actual evidence they should submit it.

It is appropriate to question others editing practices, it is edgy but sometimes necessary to accuse others of documentable bias. It is inappropriate to speculate "I bet So-and-So did that because he's Catholic/Hindu/Inuit/Ainu", and it is completely, ludicrously inappropriate to compare someone to a terrorist, and to continually spread completely unsubstantiated accusations about another editor simply because you disagree with his editing. If you do this literally one more time, I'm putting a grievance against you for blatant personal attacks. Feel free to dislike and critique my editing, but your recent comments are totally out of line. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on MatthewVanitas's talk page Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Invite to WikiConference India 2011
naveenpf (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI
A discussion of your behavior has been raised at WP:ANI; see WP:ANI. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges. See the above ANI link for the reasons why. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene talk 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Further to your emails, if you wish to contest the block you're best doing that on this page using the unblock template so it can be reviewed by an independent admin. For convenience, the ANI thread that led to the block is now archived here. EyeSerene talk 20:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I realise that you are at present blocked from editing and this means that you cannot contribute directly to the WP:AN discussion referred to above. However it is permitted for you to put comments here and request that someone copies them over to the AN discussion. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. - moved from WP:AN per request of Fowler&fowler. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi
I hope your wrist is getting ok. In 2001, I met a lot of engineers. I see that you are an engineer too. Guessed by your articles and precise language. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Info about what SpacemanSpiff and Crusoe8181 are at
... namely deleting content on populated places in India. SIA-Populated places in India (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yogesh,

Requesting help with resolving dispute on Jan Lokpal Bill. The debate can be found here: Talk:Jan_Lokpal_Bill and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Your opinion is most valued!

Thanks! Veryhuman (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi
where are you? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Probably nothing to worry about but I think some clarification is in order and WP:IND is not necessarily the best place to find out how the legalities operate. A word in Sue Gardner's ear may not have gone amiss. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal
I saw your e-mail only today and I will get in touch with you over e-mail in a week or so with a more detailed reply. Help can be sought from User:MangoWong who is learning Wikipedia rapidly and is making some excellent points (for an example see the suggestions he's made at the welcome template I created Welcome-India). However he may be restricted by his concerns about privacy (I have similar concerns). User:Qwyrxian is capable of providing a different and a helpful perspective. Involving him may make things more interesting and the chances of success will be higher. You may choose not to involve Qwyrxian at all if the comfort level is not high. A few points: Zuggernaut (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * India related editors frequently get called "nationalist POV pushing editors". In reality a feeling of nationalism is alive and kicking in newly industrialized countries like India and China and even in the US to some extent. An example of this is the recent, quiet and non-violent anti-corruption revolution taking place in India where Indian flags and feelings of nationalism were aplenty. For too long European editors applied a European connotation of nationalism to Indian editors based on their eurocentric experiences from the middle of the past century (I am no pandit on this but my guess is nationalism is generally looked down upon in most of the European countries and they want Indian editors to shut up too or get blocked).
 * Maps, caste (ideally WP:BLP should be applicable here but I've not seen a single admin do that), India v. South Asia and other topics that I will discuss in my e-mail.
 * "My" Ganga table and other similar data, repetitive move requests.
 * The insults hurled at and the denigration of Hindus.
 * The demographics of Wikipedia (young, urban, tech, Macaulay's Children) I will provide links to the exact data quoted by the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * That the demographic problem is known to the WMF. Yet, I am unaware of initiatives to counter the problem. Quite the opposite actually - last fortnight, the India chapter recruited about 1000 students from the College of Engineering in Pune (see my post on User:Salvio giuliano's talk page.
 * Terrorism and security concerns (this was touched upon by media very recently, more by e-mail)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Quigley (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to remark made on blocking admin's page
I understand that the blocking admin isn't interested in discussion of the issue on his page. That is why I stated that I would be willing to pursue the issue formally but I would wait for him to resume editing since he is on a wikibreak. I wonder why this simple thing was not clear. It is unfortunate that there were a couple of ANI cases against me, though I am lucky that nothing stuck. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is where the puppetry case is -> The allegation that I was invited to TT's case is imaginative, like tilting at windmills. The invitation is dated 2011-08-21, the ceremony started on 2011-08-25. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A question: are you saying that none of those IP addresses that posted in the topic ban discussion for ThisThat2011 were you? Note that I never claimed that they wer. It's clear that there were some logged out user (one of the edit summaries basically says so) but not necessarily you.  Note that you were not sanctioned at all--rather, just the IP addresses were blocked.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have said this earlier, thankfully SPI seems to be a automatic process. That is why the score is 2 - 0. What do you have to say about a bloke's imagination running wild? The one quoted above. Also Zuggernaut above was refering to presentations at the WikiIndia conference, I was looking for a partner, but with two black balls, it looks like it won't go through.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in any event, they were not blocked as being socks of you--they were blocked as being clearly socks of someone (basically, since they said they were). So, even though the SPI is listed under your name, the blocking admin never actually held you responsible. Furthermore, you were not blocked for this issue--the last time you were blocked was back in July, and that was for something totally separate.  So you're fine now, right?  You weren't sanctioned for anything, you didn't lose your editing privileges, everything is fine. Or am I still misunderstanding something? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (1)Block relates to this block. I tried to discuss the issue with ES informally, but he wouldn't. (2)Blackballing refers to the presentation that I had proposed at the WikiConference India 2011, I had received 2 strong reject votes then, which is why I called it two black balls. Zuggernaut suggested that I solocit your partnership. If things are still not clear please get back to me. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I misunderstood, I didn't realize you were going back to that older block. As for that block, Eye Serene has already explained exactly what happened: there was a discussion on ANI.  After any such discussion goes on for a while, any uninvolved administrator is allowed to look at that discussion and determine if there is any consensus for any administrative action.  In this case, Eye Serene determined that the WP:CONSENSUS was that you needed to be blocked to prevent continued disruption to the project.  In other words, Eye Serene didn't choose to block you, Eye Serene simply enacted the will of the community to block you.  As a similar example, when a police officer arrests someone for a crime, it's not because they personally dislike what the person is doing, it's because the State made a law (which, presumably, in a democracy, represents the will of the citizenry in general), and the policeman is merely making a judgment as to whether or not the person broke that law.  Here, Eye Serene didn't say "I think Yogesh did bad things, so I'm going to block him"; rather, Eye Serene said "Looking at the discussion, it seems like, on balance, the community thinks xe needs to be blocked, so I will do what the community wants."  You can, if you wish, open a thread on ANI to dispute this, but, in all honesty, it won't accomplish anything.  Your block is already done.  We basically cannot change block logs, for technical reasons.  And you are never going to get an admin sanctioned for doing what the community asked.  If the community thought what Eye Serene did was wrong, then they would have spoken up at the time.  The fact that no other admin challenged the block, means that the consensus was held. As Eye Serene said, maybe the problem is that you are expecting some sort of formal proceedings, or an official vote, or something, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy or democracy, and so everything went the way it was supposed to.  The best thing you can do now is to move on, and start contributing productively to the encyclopedia while following our behavioral and other policies.  Why worry about a block that expired weeks ago?  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (1)I think it was you who informed ANI. So you aren't uninvolved. (2)You are creating a straw man - assuming that I expect some sort of formal proceedings (may) and then attack it by explaining that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and what not. (3)I am merely following procedure, attempted the informal route first, and am waiting for ES to turn up, Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12), so it isn't my fault that weeks are rolling by. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I just went back and reviewed the thread...I forgot what that was about and that it was me. And while EyeSerene blocked fairly early in the proceedings, after xe did, 2 other admins also stated they were going to block you too, and for longer.  And, of course, several other non-admins supported the block, including myself.  In any event, maybe I should ask a different question: if you could get whatever you want right now, what would you want?  The block is over, so it's not like you need to be "unblocked".  We can't erase your block log (the software actually doesn't allow it, as far as I know).  Do you want some sort of action taken against me or EyeSerene for bad judgment or bad use of administrative tools?  You can do that, and I'll even tell you how, but I have to tell you, it's almost certainly to end up hurting you, given that almost everyone who commented at the previous ANI thread agreed with the block.  If you can explain clearly what desired outcome you have, though, I will gladly explain to you what steps you would have to take to achieve it. Finally, my apologies about the straw man argument; I didn't mean to set one up--I was just trying to interpret your comments at EyeSerene's talk page.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your concerns, I think we should wait for ES to resume editing, and not bring this up while he is away. You were not involved in the ANI as an admin. My desired outcome is stated on ES's page. There have been so many misunderstandings: is my dialect difficult to follow? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, better to drop this and see how we can work on some of the problem areas of systemic bias. There's some good news - we've have consensus at Welcome-India. Even better news - WMF has signed up 1000 editors from the College of Engineering, Pune who have started editing Wikipedia and I've just used the new welcome template with WP:TWINKLE to welcome some of these editors. They show great promise. Let's look forward, not backward (with some exceptions). Zuggernaut (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking into the future, Sodabottle has just called me a troublesome editor when justifying his reject vote to my presentation days after he voted. I look forward to a long innings here, my block has been quoted in two ANI proceedings against me too, one block leads to another it escalates, it builds a record. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it, you want him to reblock you for like a minute leaving a block summary saying the previous block was in error. Why would you think that would happen?  Three separate admins said they would have blocked for the same thing--one even said they would block you indefinitely. In other words, you were lucky that EyeSerene blocked you, because other admins were going to block you for even longer.  You compared another editor to Anders Behring Breivik.  No one could successfully argue that was just a random name you picked (who also happened to spend a long time writing something).    But, if you really, really want to re-raise the issue, you should do so by opening a thread at WP:AN (since you're criticizing an admin's conduct, and this isn't an immediate incident), explaining why you think the block was wrong, and what you want done. I will tell you that in the 1 year I've been watching AN/ANI, I've never seen a case where someone's block log was adjusted the way you're asking (though there may be examples I'm just not aware of/don't remember). At best, you're going to be told to go away; at worst, you're going to raise more scrutiny and bad will towards yourself.  If you won't listen to me (understandable), listen to Zuggernaut. On the other hand, the way you can be "successful" is to focus on contributing constructively to the encyclopedia, not being disruptive or leveling personal attacks, always logging in to leave comments, etc., etc.  If you can contribute positively from now on, your past problems will eventually be forgotten/forgiven. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply sub-section

 * 1) I refuse to discuss the circumstances of the block or anything regarding it unless the purpose of doing so is declared.
 * 2) Qwrxian you are creating strawmen one more time, please don’t.
 * 3) One strawman is delay: ES has taken a break, I’m waiting for him to resume editing, before going official, is courtesy a crime? Why do you bring up AN/I when I have told you that not until ES arrives?
 * 4) Another straw man is being disruptive or leveling personal attacks: I haven’t. Another admin left a message for me on ES’s talk page, I simply replied, and then you arrived on the scene to with questions, comments and allegations, two for which you have been kind enough to apologize.
 * 5) Another strawman is inability to focus on contributing constructively to the encyclopedia: All the alleged commenting I have done is in replying to questions asked by Administrators. In the mean while I have created a page.
 * 6) I am sure you not trying to bait me.
 * 7) (I repeat) Is my dialect difficult to follow?
 * 8) I am a little busy these days and may not reply to messages promptly. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Waiting for EyeSerene to return is fine. My point on the delay is that if you questioned the block, you should have filed an unblock request while the block was still underway.
 * I have nothing to apologize for regarding the initial block: you made extremely gross personal attacks against another editor, and were rightfully blocked for it.
 * I apologize for the straw man regarding bureaucracy--I really thought that part of your complaint being that ES acted out of process, when no more process was needed.
 * Once ES returns, you're welcome to raise the issue on ANI. You shouldn't raise it directly to ES, because xe's already told you xe is unwilling to discuss it further with you directly; he told you and MangoWong that already.  I'm advising you, out of a ridiculous amount of AGF, to not raise the issue at ANI, as it will only hurt you and not lead to the outcome you desire (of this I am 100% confident--I've never seen anyone, and especially not people whose block was so obviously correct, get a revision to their block log). Zuggernaut has advised the same thing.
 * You are correct that I am not trying to bait you.
 * Sometimes your dialect is difficult to follow, and I apologize if I am not careful enough in figuring out what you are saying.
 * Finally, I'm glad that you started working on the encyclopedia itself again--that still seems to me like the best step forward. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)o

Just FYI I'm now (mostly) active again. EyeSerene talk 10:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiconference
Nice try, Yogesh. Unfortunately for you, one of the journalists leaked it several hours before the papers went to press. You seem still to be forgetting what you have been told over and over, ie: Jimbo does not set the agenda here on WP - as with your previous attempts, this will get nowhere.

Now, I understand that you are also proposing that the government block access to Wikipedia. Good luck with that. - Sitush (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, this is also being discussed on Jimmy Wales' talk page at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. I've also created an article regarding the matter at Wikipedia-BJP India map dispute. Hope you are enjoying your time off Wikipedia. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Gosha woman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyderabad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruption
Hi Yogesh, I notice that your nationalist stance is getting you into problems again on various articles, eg: at Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar and Charles Dickens. Is there any chance of you leaving out the Hindutva/anti-colonial style of POV and just sticking to the Wikipedia way of doing things? If not then perhaps it really is time for you to find another outlet for your opinions. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've been hearing that prominent MPs of all flavours are getting on TV to speak against the British colonialism and rasicm issues which have been recieiving very wide coverage in Indian media. "Anti-colonial style"...hmm, that would include Gandhiji. Question: Pro-colonialism = ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.33.169.35 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

--another indian citizen attacked by a british citizen in london--
google for the latest crime against indian by british

another indian stabbed in london. this comes after the racist murder of two other indians in the last 2 or 3 months. it happens while the british mp mr. vaz is visiting india to address privious murder. the british government seems to be in damage control-public relations mode but how much is that going to help. real impressions and public relations happen in people-to-people concact like here on wikipedia and the british citizen has failed in that regard. murders, olympic sponshorship problems, bbc racist auto show, what is next. your block is almost similar to throwing gandhi off the train in the 1800s. how far are such british citizens from civilisation! but i guess you just have to keep calm and carry on and they will soon have to apply balm and carry on

Article leads
Please read WP:LEAD. As a summary of the content of the article, leads rarely need sources. You actually removed "He was closely associated with the nationalist leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak" as unsourced although that association is described in the body of the article. It's a bit hard to understand why you did that. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Yusufkhan Mohamadkhan Pathan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Hello. Thank you for your recent edits to the United Kingdom article. I have raised a couple of concerns on the article's talk page regarding your classification of the Church of England and Church of Scotland as state religions. Specifically, the Church of Scotland is a national church according to the Church of Scotland Act 1921. The source you added to support the claim that the CoS is a state religion seems to be a book about geneology as well... could you please explain your reasoning for the change? Connolly15 (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Church of England website is a bad source for itself, like the various Indian caste websites, for example a caste could call itself X varna, reliable sources call it Y varna, the reliable sources description is used and not what the caste calls itself, so it isn't important what the Church of England calls itself, we look at good secondary sources as I have used. Referring a primary source is original research too.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Charles Dickens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John Rae


 * Girijabai Kelkar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Marathi


 * Marmik (periodical) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Organ

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Welcome back. AshLin (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh it is off and on Sir. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A question for you
Do you understand the policy WP:3RR and the guideline WP:GAME? If not, I suggest you acquaint yourself with them. I would not advise you to continue restoring the material under discussion until a consensus has been reached among the editors on the Dickens talkpage. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, the correct way to outdent is like this: . Tom Reedy (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Misreadings
Hello - I couldn't find any mention anywhere on the page of the phrase "raking muck" which you attributed to me. I guess that's another misreading. I understand though, because I too sometimes suffer from misreadings. My point was simply that context is important for avoiding bias. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain? I feel that I have been accused of "raking muck", "cherry picking"Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote in response to your following statement "... But we do need to identify appropriate quality sources representing different POVs (ones which aren't "fringe") and summarize those POVs appropriately (ie NPOV) in an appropriate space (preferably not in the middle of a summary of Dickens' life story). I think that would make a good starting point...", Dickens his Wikipedia article mentions was an influential person, sources mention that his views on India spawned a genre (so to say), Fagin is well known, and Franklin too, read a story in the papers that Dickens' descendant travelled to Canada to apologise to the natives, over a century and a half after he wrote what he did, Dickens views thus have contemporary significance, because of his sheer influence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing you, and I was trying not to sound accusatory. My reference to "cherry picking" regarded confirmation bias (not "muck raking", which is an expression I would not have thought of using here). Fallacy of quoting out of context is another article which I could have linked to, as it explains and illustrates one of the things I was trying to say about the importance of "context". Please do not think that I am accusing you of deliberate misrepresentation (as in the extreme examples given in the "Fallacy of quoting out of context" article). Rather, I think the issues that you are concerned about are indeed notable. But they do need to be contextualized appropriately both externally (historically, socially, culturally etc) and internally (within the structure of an encyclopaedic article which is primarily about the life and work of Dickens the novelist, and secondarily topics such as his cultural influence etc). That's why I feel that a separate subarticle might give more space for fuller encyclopaedic coverage of the issues that interest you. My 2 cents, —MistyMorn (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (1)Confirmation bias is a two-edged sword. I mean it cuts both ways. (2)Of course quoting out of context is mis-quoting, do my edits trip on that step? It has to be demonstrated. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on India. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 13:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Have I been chosen for this honour alone? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Aditi Banerjee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Outlook


 * Kolarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Dravidian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. lTopGunl (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * See talk page of article Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest
Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

& (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=481419438#Message_to_take_part_in_Assessment_Drive request] on Bot requests. The Helpful  Bot  01:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to The Telegraph


 * Urmila Pawar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Marathi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rape in Jammu and Kashmir
Help yourself to the content I had written I removed it after the article went south. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan
"A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article." Shrigley (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Brantlinger
YK, as far as I can see Brantlinger asserts that Dickens Perils had a significant impact on British response to Indian rebellion (which ought to me mentioned). (See "Orphan texts: Victorian orphans, culture and empire" By Laura Peters) But nowhere that I can see does Brantlinger assert Dickens "spawned a new genre" of hate literature.

As I have asserted before

1) Racist fiction existed before Dickens & racism was prevalent in the Victorian detective novel.

2) Notable subsequent examples of racist fiction (for example in America The Klansmen or in Germany the racist element in Richard Wagner) are not particularly influenced by Dickens.

Ergo, I don't think we can assert this.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't "spawned a new genre: hate literature" as you read it, but " a new genre of hate literature". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm reading exactly as you say I read it, as should be clear from the last sentence of my first paragraph.) In what sense in Perils a new genre of hate literature?? And what is the exact quote from PB??
 * Genre is not the same as style (or method).--WickerGuy (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In The spirit of reform: British literature and politics, 1832-1867 p. 117 Brantlinger explicitly describes Dickens as an advocate of social peace.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the context? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Genre refers to a species or a type of text, a poem, a horror movie, a commercial or some other kind of text. Is there a limited number of text types? What is it that defines a genre? Is it a question of some formal qualities of the text itself, or merely of the caterorizer's owm suppositions? Genreric convention is continually shaped by the production and dissemination of texts as well as the reactions of audiences. Genre is not something that exists outside of its manifestations. Genres are abstracts, classifications made by the examiners of a number of certain kinds of texts. Genres produce expectations which in turn affect how the text is read and understood. Genres are similar to trade descriptions. Genres help dismantle the differentiation between text and context. (Mikko Lehtonen (2000). Cultural analysis of texts.  pp. 128–129.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is true that the concept of genre is fluid and flexible, but here we should stick to the most general sense of genre (as well as to exactly what Brantlinger says). In general usage, genre refers to things like comedy vs. tragedy, novel vs. play, detective stories, science-fiction, historical epic, etc. I cannot see any meaningful sense in which Dickens "spawned a new genre of hate literature" and want to know exactly what Brantlinger said about it.
 * Brantlinger was deflecting Harriet Martineau's criticism that Dickens seemed to advocate that the poor resent the rich in the quote I supplied.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, "spawning" implies widespread influence on subsequent literature. Does Brantlinger say Dickens did that?--WickerGuy (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (1)That is what I read from Brantlinger, moreover we seem to agree, you write "YK, as far as I can see Brantlinger asserts that Dickens Perils had a significant impact on British response to Indian rebellion", I am happy with that. (2)Will you please supply the paragraph, page from which the quote is extracted? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider the quote from Brantlinger germaine to this article. I only note it here on Talk to observe that Brantlinger's view of Dickens is fairly nuanced, and he also regards Dickens as layered and complex. Thus not too much should be read into PB's statements. It is, as I already said above, on p. 117 of the book. It reads "For many middle-class writers the desire for raprochement between classes places them in the awkward position of stressing what they wish to overcome. Harriet Martineau is not alone in accusing Dickens of being a "humanity monger" and of making the poor hate the rich instead of love them. But Dickens sees himself [Ah, perhaps I misquoted-WG] as an advocate of social peace and criticisms like Martineau's must be balanced by the assessment of the Hammonds, who declare that Dickens did "more to draw English people together than any other influence in the time."[footnote] In any case, when "humanity mongers" can be perceived as dangers to the state..."

I insist there is no significant body of later hate literature (novels or plays) influenced by Dickens, and I serious doubt that Brantlinger declares that there is. That is what "spawning a genre" would imply. None of the prominent examples of American racist literature (novels or plays) reflects any influence of Dickens at all! You are, I think, projecting something into PB which is not there, or else don't understand the implications of the word "spawned".

As for Brantlinger's view of Perils I am mostly going on what second-hand sources who cite PB say about him, mainly Grace Moore. I am at home rather in the library where I left it. I don't have the quote handy. However, see "Unequal partners: Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins, and Victorian authorship" by Lillian Nayder on the contrast between Dickens and W.Collins. I quote from p. 167 "As Patrick Brantlinger notes in his study of mutiny literature, British writing about India before 1857 generally suggested that the natives "might be helped to progress in the scale of civilization" but denied these "hopeful but obviously ethnocentric problems" after the sepoy revolt depicting the Sepoy Indians as inherently violent and superstitious. Yet Collins not only feels the mutineers can be reformed; he feels that reformers should look to oriental rather than Western ideals in accomplishing this ideal. Instead of preaching to the rebellious Indians from a Christian text, he draws from one of their own- from the lesson delivered to the seventeenth-century Muslim emperor Shah Jehan by the wise man Abbas...Collin disassociates himself from Dickens [emphasis added-WG] who expressed the desire to "exterminate the race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested" when writing....about the mutiny. Whereas Dickens writes of a race "stained" with "cruelties" whose members have "disfigured the earth with...abominable atrocities, Collins suggests that the Indians are as capable of moral goodness as the British"" A couple pages later, Nayder suggests that in Collins' play The Moonstone, Collins conveys his sense that it was really Indians rather than British on the defensive in 1857.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (1)Brantlinger wrote about Dickens engendering a certain response to the events on 1857 in Britain, now we cannot go scurrying around rummaging, to verify primary sources, that is what Brantlinger said, that bloke is not FRINGE, and is RELIABLE and NOTABLE, (uppercase used to denote WP terms, in place of providing links, which become tedious). If you disagree with Brantlinger, you would need to find someone (RELIABLE etc) who agrees with you. (2) You are right about Collins, I read that the chapters in "Perils" that he wrote are used to caricature "whites". (3)Your edit "However, in his subsequent Noble Savage essay, his attitude towards Native Americans is one of condescending pity, tempered with some reflections on the arrogance of European colonialism," sorry to say was very confusing, "tempered with some reflections on the arrogance of Eurpean colonialism", however now "... by a counter-balancing concern with the arrogance of European colonialism." makes the statement clear as daylight. We can never be too careful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nayder in commenting on a later work by Collins "A Sermon to the Sepoys".--WickerGuy (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Important note
 * Scholar: Comes across as PEACOCK. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is there to distinguish from "journalist". As there are both bad and/or controversial scholars, there is nothing peacock about it. Peacock is descriptions like "brilliant", "eminent", "famous". Given that so many Americans think that scholars are over-occupied with micro-analyzing minutiae to the point of missing the big picture, there is nothing peacocky about "scholar".--WickerGuy (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Wasn't "journalist" an afterthought? Anyways adding professions before the sources we quote, is as far as my experience goes a little rare on Wikipedia, please take it off, no I won't do it myself. If someone needs to know what Brantlinger does to pay his mortgages, a few clicks and a few seconds are all that it would cost them. (2) We need to put RS to the sub-section, or it would be soon marked as un-referenced, I request you to do so as most of the section is your creation (in its present form). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Often (but not consistently) subsections that are summaries of an article elsewhere (effectively acting as a preview of a lede) on WP don't have references, but we could certainly afford to put a few in. Will do. Please continue discussion on SUBarticle Talk page to where I have copied this.
 * Incidentally, WPedia does indeed prefers citations from scholars over journalists in spite of a prevalent anti-intellectualism in American life (Americans in general often view reporters as really being in the field, while they see scholars are locked away in their study).
 * Please continue discussion on SUBarticle talk page.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Would it not be better to say all of the above on the article talk page? I know from experience that YK will not budge from his anti-British ideas and WG seems pretty adamant that YK has got it wrong. So the pair of you will surely need to seek consensus by drawing on the thoughts of other parties. OTOH, if you both want to continue here then I guess that is your business. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Need help on the A2Z Group Article
Hello, I am trying to create an article for an Indian Organization, A2Z Group that is invested into Energy generation from renewable sources of energy like waste, biomass, etc. It's efforts have therefore helped our country a lot. Unfortunately since I am new to Wikipedia and since A2Z Group is an Indian company the wikipedia editors haven't been able to verify the 'notability' of the company.

Could you please help me with improving the Article and with convincing other editors/administrators about the notability of the Company? Thanks!

A2Z Group as the name suggests is a group of business units and therefore you will find a lot of references for each of its business units namely:- Willonthemove (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd. :
 * A2Z Infraservices Ltd. :
 * A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. :
 * A2Z Powercom Ltd. :
 * A2Z Powertech Ltd. :
 * A2Z Water Solutions Ltd. :
 * A2Z E-Waste Management Ltd. :
 * A2Z International Ltd. :
 * A2Z Admire :
 * A2Z Travel Solutions :
 * I am happy that it is doing a lot for our country, but it would be difficult to establish its notability, see WP:CORP: (1) No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. (2) Also regarding Jhunjunwala : An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. (3) Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product.  (4) Sorry for being rude but your contributions look like a wp:SPS, some one may even smell a wp:COI. I would have voted delete, but since I didn't find the Articles for deletion/A2Z Group myself I am abstaining from the vote as a matter of courtesy. No hard feelings please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your inputs on this, I really appreciate it. I know I must be doing something wrong in presenting the facts. A2Z Group is a huge organization at par with Jindal Steel and Power. I am determined to bring as much information as is available into the light. I have a question though - aren't newspaper clippings acceptable? I have used all the major Indian clippings like Times of India, The Hindu, Pioneer, Hindustan Times, etc. Also since they are an Indian company most of the press coverage they have received is in Hindi and thus they are not available as online links nor can I use their scanned pdf copies. Thanks again for your help, I will let you know when I meet with any success in publishing the article. by William Emmanual | Send me a Message 05:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Brantlinger, Dickens...
(1) I am not referring to the lead, I am referring to the sub-section in the main article, we need to have the sub-section well sourced. (2)I would prefer to keep our discussion here, as our discussions may not be of interest to everyone. (3)Your writing about "humanity hounding" or "peace" are well-known aspects of Dickens, I have used "well-known" and not "notorious", as these are notable as positives, whereas the way they appear in the paragraph, do come across as more grey than fair. It seems for all his humanitarianism, Dickens wanted peace between the classes (and not races as you have rightly remarked earlier, this quote isn't germane to the racism sub-section, conforming my instincts, which pushed me to request the context of the quote, so as I understand Dickens didn't consider himself to be a radical, we could have this quote somewhere in the article, comes across as very interesting.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand you meant the sub-section of the main article. I meant that it metaphorically functions as a quasi-lede into the sub-article.
 * To the degree that I understand you, I think I agree with the rest of what you say. You mean "confIrming" not confOrming". However, at the end of The Noble Savage Dickens pleads for an cessation of cruelty to or exploitation of the "Indians" (Native Americans). On the other hand, he never suggests just leaving them alone. Cruelty to the natives, bad. Civilization, good. This is reflected in one of my most recent edits with the edit-summary "qualification of Moore".
 * To the degree that we are discussing the future contents of the article, this discussion is more appropriate to the article's Talk page--WickerGuy (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks! I did mean confirming. Yes also sorry! Also the red links, act like a to-do list, is that haraam? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Professions
 * Frequently, WP doesn't even cite the name of who is being cited in the main body at all. However, in the rare cases when it does (usually in order to cite an opinion rather than a fact), the profession of the writer is quite often mentioned. In addition to the opinions of scholars and journalists, there is the opinion of...other novelists, and specifically also of biographers. See the section Richard_Wagner in which there is reference to "biographers" and "Wagner critics". (On the other hand GB Shaw is not identified as a "playwright". It is presumed most folk know who he is.) Until recently, the article on Narnia distinguished the criticisms of novelists from those of literary critics. This was recently deleted. However, I may be overdoing it. It's my style of writing to identify the profession of someone expressing an opinion. I myself usually want to know if it is another artist, a literary critic, or a historian. But I'm not promoting the superiority of any profession over another- each has its perspective.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Red links are OK if you are going to create the article fairly soon.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Brantlinger is a university teacher, the Indiana University site describes him as a cultural historian, and has a list related to the Victorian age. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good then to replace "scholar" with "cultural historian". Should get more specific about Grace Moore as well.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * GM is identified as a Dickens scholar.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the Indiana site the best source for Brantlinger? Can we put people in compartments like that? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If Brantlinger self-identifies as a cultural historian and/or his employer lists him as such, there should be no problem. WE are not creating the compartment.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Shallow: The Dickens' article doesn't give him the scrutiny manifest in the following paragraph, thus its depth remains shallow. (The paragraph is not about Dickens' in particular, it is about English literature of the time it was an empire) "...literature as a historical and ideological category... made a subject of instruction in the colonies... it was charged with giving the natives an appreciation of the greatness of England and engaging them as grateful participants in a historic civilizing enterprise. At home it would counter the selfishness and materialism fostered by the new capitalist economy, offering the middle classes and the aristocrats alternative values and giving the workers a stake in the culture that, materially, relegated them to a subordinate position... the more the universality of the literature is stressed, the more it may have a national function." (Wendy S. Jacobson (2000). Dickens and the children of empire. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 8) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can call myself a rock star? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can call yourself anything you like, but reliable authorities must also acknowledge it before it is stated on Wikipedia. Brantlinger's self-identification is widely acknowledged by the scholarly community.


 * The article as is remains more "sketchy" and survey-like than "shallow" I would say. (There's a difference between a good pencil-sketch and a mediocre painting. Without claiming this is really high-quality, I think what we have now is more of a sketch than anything else.) Jacobsen's point of view could should certainly be incorporated into the article, but I would say as one POV among several while keeping the focus on Charles Dickens.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. When you recently edited Charles Dickens: Racism and anti-Semitism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Rae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

My personal views on Dickens and Race
Yogesh,

I would like to share with you my personal view on Dickens' racism here independently of any discussion about article content.

First of all, it is all disturbing to me, but am ultimately glad to learn of it. I only recently learned from your contributions how extensive it was. I was previously familiar with the problems with Fagin and of his views on Native Americans, but until reading your material was unfamiliar with his responses to the Franklin Expedition or his response to the Sepoy Rebellion. Given how many American Dickens-lovers are entirely unfamiliar with this side of Dickens' material, there is on the one hand a need to make more people aware of it. On the other hand, I think we can be reasonably certain that the influence of Dickens' racism on 20th century Western culture was far slimmer than that of other writers who dedicated a considerable portion of their life and work in a consistent way to promoting racism.

As I note on the talk page of the new "fork" article, every opera fan is aware of Wagner's anti-semitism and its significant influence on Naziism, while the overwhelming majority of Dickens' lovers have never heard of his essay "The Noble Savage". As I also note on the Talk page, the online Holocaust encyclopedia has 5 articles that mention Richard Wagner, one that mentions Ezra Pound (an acclaimed poet who was also deeply anti-Semitic), but no mention if Dickens at all. To this date, not a single Wagner opera has ever been staged in Israel, but at least three Jews have created adaptations of "Oliver Twist" (Lionel Bart author of the musical "Oliver", Roman Polanski director of the 2004 film version, and Menachem Golan who wrote the Hebrew musical), one of which is written in Hebrew, and a fourth Jew has written a kind of counter-adaptation of Twist, although the David Lean film of "Oliver Twist" remains banned in Israel. It seems that the American Jewish community has entirely forgiven Dickens for Fagin (although not so much the British Jewish community). Fagin then remains both the most publicly known and the most forgiven of Dickens' indiscretions, while his response to Eskimos, Native Americans, and Indians remains wholly unknown to the American public.

In my personal opinion, Dickens in both good and bad ways had the mind of young boy. His execrable attitudes towards race are ultimately the response of an overgrown frightened child. English speakers sometimes draw a distinction between "child-like" (considered a good thing) and "childish" (considered a bad thing). Dickens, in my opinion (IMO) was both.

Dickens is most famous for his coming-of-age novels which are widely acclaimed largely because Dickens has a terrific gift for understanding the emotions of children and teenagers matched only by the (overall much better) author, George Eliot. It is this which largely accounts for Dickens' continued popularity. However, ironically, the same child-like/childish qualities which enabled him to write superbly about children also fed his execrable racist tendencies.

As currently noted in my contributions to the article, Grace Moore and Patrick Brantlinger disagree as to whether in later years, Dickens' racism abated. I certainly hope that Moore is correct, but I do not know it for a certain fact.

I will now issue two apologies to you, but follow them with a criticism. 1) As a Dickens fan, I apologize sincerely for his statement advocating the "extermination" of the Indian race. I learned of this only recently (from you) was quite distressed by it, morally, aesthetically, and spiritually. 2) I apologize for a second time for the "good cop/bad cop" metaphor. Often in debates between opposing sides, the friendlier opposing party is called the "good cop" and the more vitriolic one is called "the bad cop", but no collusion between the two is implied. I have seen this metaphor emerge in debates between Christians and atheists. debates between Republicans and Democrats, debates about education reform, descriptions of right-wing or left-wing newspapers etc.. But when someone says that Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens are the good cop and bad cop of atheism, or the New York Post & The Economists are the bad & good cop of conservative newspapers, no one is suggesting a collusion between the two cops as part of a psychological interrogation technique. (However, it is true I am trying to work towards a solution that keeps both you and your opponents happy.)

However, I still think you are too prone to both extremist statements and somewhat irresponsible personal attacks. Honestly, if metapedia editors and Wikipedia editors both dislike you, it is more or less the equivalent of the fact that Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, and the Communist film-maker Sergei Eisenstein were all three admirers of Walt Disney's film of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves". They all were, yet the moral and spiritual frames of reference of all three men were all radically different. Please don't compare Wikipedians who attack you to those attacking you at metapedia.

I have found that statement you wrote to The Times of India at "http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Charles-Dickens-200th-birthday-Philadelphia-celebrates-the-occasion/opinions/11790013.cms" in which you state "just as Fagin created an intellectual climate that led to the murder of Jews, the Roma and others by Germany during the II World War, Dickens' continued popularity is a sign of the Western desire to demonise, dominate, destroy and digest the Other." Now here you really do seem to imply that Dickens almost invented anti-Semitism (in spite of your denials on Wikipedia Talk that you meant this) and you really do seem to lay the blame for the Holocaust at Dickens' feet which a fairly bizarre claim. On racism, Dickens was along for the ride, but not driving the bus.

Finally, it seems fairly self-evident that Dickens popularity is due to his prestige in writing sensitive coming-of-age novels about teenagers, his racism is nearly forgotten, and if anything his popularity is to a small degree due to his racism being close to unknown and/or forgiven by its most well-known target, the Jews. Now I'm not sure if you meant to say that Dickens is popular because' of Western desire to demonise...the other. If that is what you meant, it is certainly false. Racism plays a very marginal to non-existent role in Dickens' best-known fiction, far less than in say Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind, a novel whose continued popularity should be a greater cause for concern for anti-racist activists. Your exact phrase is that Dickens' popularity "is a sign of" Western desire to dominate and destroy. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "is a sign of", but again if you mean this is the reason for Dickens' popularity, you are surely wrong.

And, again, it seems clear to me you have read far too much into Brantlinger's criticisms of Dickens. None of the best-known racist novels of the 20th century show any evidence of having been influenced by Dickens. In France, there is "The Camp of the Saints". In America there is "The Clansmen" and "The Turner Diaries". In England (and on a smaller scale) some of the poetry of Rudyard Kipling and short stories of GK Chesterton (such as "The God of the Gongs") come to mind. But there is no evidence that any of this material was heavily influenced by Dickens, and I suspect Brantlinger makes no such assertion.

(Recently in America, a popular coming-of-age novel drastically declined in popularity when it was discovered that the author had under another name been a prominent member of the Ku Klux Klan. That book would by The Education of Little Tree by Forrest Carter. But unlike Dickens, Carter had deeply dedicated a major part of his life to promoting racist causes, including writing speeches for segregationist George Wallace. Dickens was never so dedicated to such causes.)

You can reply here as I am watching this page.

Regards,--WickerGuy (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied by email. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have read your kind reply, and agree with most all of what you say. However, to clear up some puzzling misunderstandings, the material I took to the talk page was taken there because it had a direct bearing on the contents of the article. The initial subject was how to cite Brantlinger in the article.
 * I have never claimed that anything about Dickens' racism was WP:UNDUE and have argued just the opposite and have tried to refocus the discussion on issues of WP:notability and space. This has been my consistent position in article Talk space (I'm fairly sure). Nor have I ever called the fork article one with "negative connotations".
 * You are right to focus the attention on why there is a "hush-hush" on Dickens' racism, and you are especially right (your best point really!!) to say "If you write that Dickens' racism is more subtle, it is more to worry about as crassness is easy to understand and maintain a distance from, whereas the subtlety makes it main-stream and more dangerous."
 * However, re my comparison to Forrest Carter, I meant in particular that Dickens never joined, let alone had a leadership position in any racism-promoting organization such as the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi party. Nor did he write any speeches for racist politicians as Carter did. This is what I meant by "Dickens was never so dedicated...". I do not deny his influence on English opinion.
 * I was only trying to point out that OUTSIDE(!!) of police work and politics the metaphor of "good cop/bad cop" is often used imprecisely and loosely in a way that does not imply collusion.
 * WP is far more concerned about Talk pages not containing ad hominem personal attacks (such as calling someone a fascist) than about expressing personal opinion per se. Extensive discussion of opinion on matters wholly unrelated to Wikipedia is discouraged, but standards on User Talk pages is a bit lax. Per WP guidelines, if you wish this section of your Talk page removed, it is better for you to remove it yourself.


 * Regards,--WickerGuy (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Will be in touch early next week (I hope).--WickerGuy (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saravask 11:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good reply
Hello Yogesh,

The comments from your viewpoint such as [| 1] are excellent.

If you want more views from my side, let me know on my talk page. Unless required, I would desist from the move that has become more confusing than voting I have come across. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Mumbai Meetup - 15
Hi, Wikipedia Mumbai Community 15thmeetup has been announced on 7 April 2012 @ Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, Bandra. Have a look at the event page here. Hope to see you :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Free Press of India
Regarding your citation at Free Press of India, the point is valid if it is in fact correct. It probably is but I have little faith, sorry, and will check it out via WP:RX. However, please re-read WP:LEAD. You know all about this this. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.15 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban
Per the consensus expressed in this discussion [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=485462061#Proposed_indefinite_topic_ban_for_Yogesh_Khandke], you are now banned from making any edits on the subjects of colonialism and Indian history, widely construed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to contest this ban? इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * When did this happen? The discussion is still on. That gang hasnt yet replied to my question of their biased behaviour. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He has also been sockpuppeteering. His puppet: .   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler, your comment makes it looks like since long he has been sockpuppeteering. To the contrary, my view is that he is never sockpuppeteering. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of a fortnight for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * SPIs are run by humans, but in this case obvious sockpuppet is obvious. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 03:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I put my editing privilege at stake, I volunteer for say an six month indefinite block, if it is me who is socking. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not possible. Salvio already did a WP:Checkuser investigation, and we don't have any technical means of testing the situation with any greater certainty than we already have. It would be quite hard to either disprove the accusation (even if in fact you were innocent), or to prove it to the level of certainty that your "offer" of a self-requested block could come into play. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio seemed to be pretty certain and Fut.Perf. summarises the overall issues well. I do feel bound to say that I was surprised at the outcome: When contributing at all, Yogesh is constantly engaged in argument that becomes quite heated and he has never yet resorted to socking in order to push his POV further. Given stylistic issues, I feel that I can say "never yet" with a very high degree of confidence. However, I guess that there is a first time for everything and Checkuser is the most certain test that we have. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh, there is no point in offering " an six month indefinite block" when it does not matter here. I would suggest that you don't take Wikipedia any more definitively than it is.

To Fut.Perf., do you have link to the page where the sockpuppet investigations were done? I am not aware if Salvio has presented any. Please also reply to an earlier question by me regarding contesting the permanent ban. About Sitush saying "Yogesh is constantly engaged in argument that becomes quite heated and".. that is his individual opinion.

However Salvio's judgement that "at least Likely, though I'd go as far as calling them a Confirmed" is indeed novel to me. When deciding on doubt on sockpuppet investigation, it is the responsibility of investigation (per me), here Checkuser (& not right of investigation) to have proof beyond doubt. Checkuser only indicates more than likely. However once the judgement is passed, and then decline of ban request, it is immaterial anyway. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to divulge any details as the relevant policy prevents me from doing that, but I'll say that, after running a check on Yogesh and Bob1781, I came to the conclusion that the two accounts are operated by the same person. I am reasonably sure of that; and on top of that, there is also the behavioural evidence: the only edit made a very new account is to a discussion regarding your topic ban on ANI. That's strange. So, in short, this is no miscarriage of justice, in my opinion; as far as I'm concerned, Yogesh has indeed socked. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) I don't understand this? Do those who are answering to this mean that it is not technically possible to find the IP address of the two contributors? And determine whether they (the contributors) are identical? I request a second opinion. I mean a review of the SPI. (2) I have checked WP:CheckUser, a statement there says "Disclosure of CheckUser results is subject to privacy policy, which broadly states that identifying information should not be disclosed under any but (emphasis mine) a few circumstances. These include: "With permission of the affected user"". I have no privacy issues in this matter, and I request the log to be made available. Salvio you have cited wp:CHK, my reading of the text, which has been quoted above is that the log can be made available with the permission of the affect user. Salvio as "affected user" I permit you. (3) The Bushranger, I wrote what I did because, to my understanding Socking is a black or white thing, either you are a sock or you aren't. So I said if I am a sock "hang me" (used metaphorically), if I ain't then, obviously due diligence hasn't been employed. I violated wp:NOTTHEM "Do not complain about other people, such as editors you may have been in a conflict with, or the blocking administrator." My bad. A fresh request: Would you please have another hard look. "I didn't sock".  Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhm, ok, I'm about to disclose some bits of info that, I hope, will clarify why I think the two accounts are operated by the same person; I'm not going to divulge any more, so it's no use asking. You share the same user agent as Bob1781 and your edits geolocate in the same general area (taking into consideration that geolocation is however somewhat imprecise). You operate on two different IP ranges, which is why I say that I'm reasonably sure and not 100% sure, but I think that the identity of user agents, the similar geolocation and the behavioural evidence make it clear that both accounts are operated by the same person. I'm going to make another check, however, just to make sure. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Salvio if the user agent properties that you checked is about the browsers then I am sure that there would be many more people from yogesh's geolocation sharing the same properties. Coming to behavioral evidence, Yogesh is an editor who has 1000s of edits to his credit, the pattern can be easily copied. --sarvajna (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue that Yogesh was framed, I know that user agents can be faked, but I think that it is rather difficult that another editor guessed his correct UA which, on Wikipedia, is only revealed to checkusers  and edited from the same general location. If you want to argue that this was just a coincidence, I find it rather hard to believe that the first edit made by someone, who has just created his account and happens to share some features, both technical and behavoural, with Yogesh, would deal with a technical proposal (most newbies would not know what a topic ban is) on a noticeboard where experienced users discuss administrative issues. I'm not saying that it's impossible this is either a coincidence or an attempt at framing Yogesh, but I think that the the most reasonable conclusion is that the two accounts are operated by the same person...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano: (Technical) Is there any information that I could volunteer which would be useful. (1) My ISP is BSNL, (2) I am editing from Khopoli. (3) I don't have a software background, so I don't know how this checkuser works. (Behavioural) (1) One would have to be really moronic to sock on his AN/I. This allegation would have been funny had it not been followed by the block. (2)I don't  think I was framed as user:Saravask's comment which so called "Bob1781" linked to "This is precisely why things like the London riots, litter, social dysfunction, declining cultural standards, etc are bringing down the West, as opposed to the pragmatically (perhaps brutally) strict East: worthless and talentless time-wasting scum are increasingly allowed free reign, both on- and off-wiki. If the FBI or MI5 or CBI instituted a program to track these users down in RL and euthanise them on the spot, let me just say that I wouldn't be phoning Amnesty International." is so sickening, makes my stomach sink. I don't believe anyone would refer to it except to help me, I don't think I was framed, unless the framer was very deceitful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Geo-location can point accurately for static addresses. For dynamic addresses, how accurate is Geolocation? BSNL by the way may have numerous dynamic IP addresses, just for one particular service, without divulging further details. That too could be just mapped to server that allocates dynamic IP address each connection. So how is this mapped as behavior by just one edit to make a judgement and a ban? I am here actually unsure of the usual practice.
 * "If the FBI or MI5 or CBI instituted a program to track these users down in RL and euthanise them on the spot, let me just say that I wouldn't be phoning Amnesty International." - another abusive message ignored without warning. Fawler's off-hand utterances are not hidden either, for one [| 1] (on 9 November 2006) and another [| 2] (on 17 March 2012). People do not even get an information message for such views while others are banned by requests and voting of same users. According to me, FBI, MI5, CBI etc could be the least bothered or amused by such utterances. I can only wonder why, though I would like to clarify if federal agencies such as FBI, MI5 are bound to come into picture for respecting views of citizens for what is its worth. I am not sure CBI can be involved here for such second rate remarks from foreign nationals, thankfully. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 08:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TT2011, you have been banned before for making comments that go beyond the bounds of our policies. The above is another example. It is quite clear that nothing is going to change regarding this block, although an alternative course was suggested to you and you appear not to have sufficient interest to pursue it. Whining here but doing nothing practical to resolve the situation only weakens your own position. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have provided links here that mention views of editors without sources over years, which is missed out completely here. It is about views of users, that I have mentioned the same with links. Please check the links. I actually avoided more such views from Fowler just to avoid this. About my edits, I have hardly made edits in contentious pages without discussion, which is perhaps missed out here from your side. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 08:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Salvio, I very much appreciate the response that you gave, however my argument is whoever created the account of Bob is an experienced user. He was very much aware of the discussion on the ANI and for the reasons that I cannot predict created another account and made only one edit on the ANI. The user account of Bob is very much a SPA. Coming to the technical part . 1) as per Yogesh he edits from Khopoli, it falls somewhere between Mumbai(One of the most populated city in the world) and Pune( One of the cities in India with high internet proliferation due to presence of many software companies) 2)In India there are only few browsers that are very famous  and most commonly used OS seems to be XP(it’s from my experience I say this, I don’t have a source) . I am not sure what the attributes of the UA those are available with Wikipedia but it can be fairly/technically said that the probability of Yogesh being Bob is very low (at least technically) .Coming to the behavioral aspect ‘’’I feel’’’ that it’s a very subjective issue one can debate on it but should not be considered in the SPI (Note: I have used bold faced letters and users discussing here [] would like to know if I am Bob and I am open for any investigation) --sarvajna (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this, Ratnakar, and, to tell you the truth, I do not consider you a suspect (during my recheck, I also ran a checkuser on your account and you are technically ❌ to Bob). That said, I have explained why I made this block; I consider my actions quite reasonable, but if you continue to protest your innocence, Yogesh, you'll have to ask to be unblocked, using this template . Salvio  Let's talk about it! 09:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sitush ThisThan2011 has a point, I am sure statements like "If the FBI or MI5 or CBI instituted..." are also against the policy, why dont you take a minute and caution those guys who are making such statement before advising ThisThat. If you have already done that then ignore my message --sarvajna (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Salvio: (Technical}: I have used Google Chrome to browse the net, and my operating system was XP when all the edits for the AN/I were made as all of them were made from my home PC, like most of my over 6000 edits. (Not during this edit, one of the rare edits I make from a public computer, because network at home is down, here it is Mozilla firefox and XP). Would you look at the data you have one more time based on the above information. Wouldn't it be easier for you to analyse the data you have rather than for another editor? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) My first edit is as old as January 2006, I have been editing for over 6 years, with over 6000 edits, I have participated in various Wikipedia discussions, such as AN, Reliable sources, MoS etc., there was a RFC/U which I had initiated. The purpose of mentioning this is I had to be seriously out of my mind to create a SPA, with One edit, on my AN/I.
 * 2) The SPA makes a statement "This cabal mentioned above has an orwellian zeal to maintain "NPOV" which makes it impossible for them to see the slightest criticism of their British heroes." I wouldn't have made such a statement as the "cabal" wasn't involved in discussion on Dickens. (user:Sitush discussed me but not Dickens) I don't see the Dickens article (especially the new sub-article) as an example of pro-Anglo/American bias, I see it as a shining example of a wonderful, well sourced article written in a scholarly style, (the credit for which goes to user:WickerGuy even though I created the article.) I have given the example of the Dickens' articles, as how I have been able to work collaboratively in a sensitive area I wrote "  The Charles Dickens' article is refered here - the result of my edits on that page was that we have a wonderfully sourced new article, whose major contributor has been user:WickerGuy, so much for non-collaborative editing accusation made by user:Spanglej, considering the sensitivity of the subject.", why would I contradict my own argument and undermine my own position? That I have demonstrated my ability to edit in sensitive areas and have been favourably commented on.
 * 3) Two IPs: one from Great Britain's, and another from Romania's edits have expressed feelings similar to SPA user:Bob1781, now it could be said that the IPs are me, but I've never ever been to Europe. It is obvious that my edits are being watched by both who view them favourably and unfavourably, and commented on. (The above comments were made less than two months ago) Now one of them who may be a Wikipedia editor, or may not, registered as user:Bob1781 and put in his comments to support me at the AN/I. Writing a comment that contradicted what I wrote in my explanations. Why would I sock and contradict myself?
 * 4) The two IPs who commented on my talk page mention Gandhiji, gandhi and Gandhi seemingly as a personification of India anti-colonialism, which I have reason to disagree, as even in the middle of the AN/I debate, I quoted a film critic on the talk:India 22nd June 1897 erzählt eines der wichtigsten Kapitel der frühen bewaffneten Unabhängigkeitsbestrebungen Indiens... Die indische Unabhängigkeitsbewegung ist im Westen nur im Zusammenhang mit Mahatma Gandhi bekannt, commenting that the Gandhi myth is well known in Europe. (Emphasis added now)
 * 5) Another subtle but important difference, is the "us" vs "them" attitude of the SPA, which I don't harbour, yes, believe-it-or not, I feel it is about competent and incompetent editors. The result is the Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism page. I had written on Sue Gardner's page correcting her when I came to know about her two Indian editors comment on FastCompany, regarding the Ganges vs Ganga debate, I wrote that it wasn't true, and that one of the editors, to my knowledge was European. as I considered that the issue isn't about Indian vs non-Indian but competent vs incompetent, at least that it is not just Indian vs non-Indian, as I say it is a subtle but crucial difference.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Indian non-Indian argument can be explained as thus, there are good edits and bad edits, there are good editors and bad editors, if someone did a bad edit, I wouldn't support it just because it they were Indian, in the same vein is an editor is criticised I wouldn't assume that the criticism is biased just because the editor is an Indian. I base my actions on merit. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as my experience is concerned Google Chrome to browse the net, and my operating system was XP is a very common combination these days and the difference in IP can technically point that Yogesh might not be Bob (IPs do change dynamically but the difference can be seen). I feel that good faith can be extended to Yogesh( Someone who has 1000s of edit to his credit) and the behavioral aspect should not be considered. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to know how to contest the ban but I think the admin who decided on the permanent ban is not answering, it is the discussion immediately above this one. Any idea how to go about it is welcome. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This was a community imposed ban. Editors who are banned from a topic area or certain pages but can otherwise edit, may appeal (and comment in a discussion) on-wiki, either at the administrators' noticeboard or at requests for arbitration. It's much too early to appeal at WP:AN I'd think, as you had a chance to defend yourself just recently when the ban was being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doug would you have another look at the block pl.? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Second unblock request
{{unblock reviewed | 1=The previous admin dealing with my unblock request wrote "socking wasn't obvious", however he declined to unblock, as the unblock request was badly written by me., I admit my request was bad. It was bad because my regrettable lack of understanding of the process. I hope this one is better. I am not user:Bob1781, detailed explanation is as follows, kindly unblock if convinced. Please ask if my explanations need clarification.

Technical

 * 1) The technical details are for the admin who is going to look at this to judge viz. checkuser results etc. I inform that I live in Khopoli, use Google Chrome and my OS is Version 5.1 (Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158: Service Pack 2) Microsoft Windows XP Professional (I got these details from Help - About Windows) This edit is made from the same system, using the same configuration. I understand from the discussion on this page that checkuser pointed to common User agent and Geo-location, which I understand are very wide characteristics. I am not SPA user:Bob1781. If more details are required I will furnish them. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:21 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)
 * 2) Providing whois data created because of a login accident.

Behavioural

 * 1) I would have to be completely moronic to create a Single Purpose Account and use it to stack votes in my favour. An SPA with his first edit as a vote would have been discarded, even if the SPA had voted from Antarctica, also the involvement of a new editor in an AN/I making a maiden edit is highly suspicious, if he is not a sock, he surely is a meatpuppet. I've been here too long to make a stupid mistake like that. #user:Bob1781 undermines my own argument - He writes about a "cabal" that "cannot see the slightest criticism of their British heroes". He contradicts my own argument that I could work collaboratively. On the other hand I mentioned Dickens as evidence of successful collaboration, where I received accolades, why would I create a sock to undermining my own argument - " The Charles Dickens' article is refered here - the result of my edits on that page was that we have a wonderfully sourced new article, whose major contributor has been user:WickerGuy, so much for non-collaborative editing accusation made by user:Spanglej, considering the sensitivity of the subject." #My page has received visits from 2 IPs in the recent past, both from Europe (so they are not me), who talk about Gandhi as a personification of anti-colonialism. user:Bob1781 too mentions Gandhi. I on the other hand in my last edit to talk:India, have written that India's freedom movement isn't exclusively about Gandhi. #user:Bob1781 presents a diff of a very violent comment made by user:Saravask, a comment that perhaps underlines the motive behind the ban proposal, I wouldn't waste such an important argument on a sock. #I have received support from strangers-3 IPs have written on my page, two from Europe and one from US, all in the last few months. user:Bob1781 is another such stranger who supports me, he may be a sock, but I'm not his puppeteer. #user:Bob1781 writes The Wikipedia system/ANI is setup in a way that some people will never get fair treatment. Why would I say something like that? The AN/I was in progress, why would I assume that I wouldn't be treated fairly? user:Bob1781 is perhaps someone who has a perceived bad experience at AN/I. It's not me. #At the AN/I I write how editors get stonewalled, then sock and find themselves blocked[point no (6)] Would I fall for the same trap? #These are the important arguments, I have presented a few more earlier on this page, all explaining how I am not user:Bob1781. #If further clarifications are necessary please ask, do not assume. #I will be back later this evening, (it is 3.30 am here now) to answer any questions. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) | accept=Between Yogesh's request and the comments below, I have decided to AGF and unblock. I can see why the block was made and it is possible that Bob1781 was a sock (although I agree with Boing! said Zebedee that he was more likely to be someone close to Yogesh), and Qwyrxian's comments are spot on and I endorse them. Yogesh, take Qwyrxian's comments to heart and let this block and the ban simply spur you to become a better editor. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)}}
 * I don't have access to Checkuser data - but by behavioural evidence, I don't think it was Yogesh socking as Bob1781. Yogesh makes some fair points above, but what swings it for me is that he's just not that stupid. Whatever one thinks of Yogesh's editing here, he is clearly an intelligent person, and the Bob1781 sock was perhaps the clumsiest and most stupid attempt at a !vote I've seen. The style of English just doesn't look the same to me either - Yogesh's English is very good, and even when he gets passionate, he remains quite eloquent. Bob1781's English in that edit was not up to Yogesh's, in my opinion. As I say, I can't see the Checkuser information, but my suspicion is that Bob1781 is more likely to be someone close to Yogesh who was trying to support him - albeit in a rather clumsy way. And if the Checkuser information makes that a possibility, I think we should give Yogesh the benefit of the doubt and unblock him. So, I think we need another Checkuser inspection to see if such a scenario is plausible. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Second this. Can we get another CU inspection here? Failing that I think we should unblock. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in no way opposed to having a checkuser run another check, but the results will be the same I got (I already ran two checks): same UA and similar geolocation, different IP range. For me, given these technical data, what made me conclude Yogesh had been socking was the behavioural evidence. If other admins/checkusers think that it's unlikely, based on behaviour, that the other account was operated by Yogesh, I'm willing to unblock assuming good faith or have someone else unblock, though I personally still think that the probability that Yogesh did indeed sock is quite high. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If two people were using, say, computers supplied and installed by the same organization (eg used by two work colleagues), would they not be likely to have the same UA? (The last time I used a company-supplied laptop, for example, they were all identically configured but used in different locations). It's not another actual Checkuser check that I'm asking for - just an evaluation of whether the scenario I suggest is plausible based on what is currently known. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhm, yes, you're right; that's possible, in my opinion. I still find it unlikely, but I'd say it's possible. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, there's probably no much harm in unblocking, since the topic ban still stands. Since there's never been any evidence of previous socking, and given Salvio's description, I'm willing to accept that while the socking did appear to be Yogesh to Salvio, there is sufficient doubt to unblock. No blame is laid on Salvio--that Bob account is obviously a sock of someone, and the CU data made Yogesh seem like a likely candidate. I think Boing!'s analysis nails, post facto, the most likely type of person to have done this. In any event, it seems that this block isn't actually preventing harm to the encyclopedia anymore.  Lastly, I'm actually interested to see Yogesh get back to editing outside of the wide scope of the topic ban, to see if his skills will actually improve the encyclopedia once their focused on other topics. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mind YK being unblocked as a good faith gesture, and would support unblocking him, but let's be honest here. The odds that Bob1781 is YK are extremely high based on the checkuser investigation. For Bob1781 to be someone else, it would require that that someone else be close to YK (same organization or geographic location), that that someone is aware of the ANI debate, that that someone has followed YK long enough to use a similar editing style, etc. Of course, all this is possible. But, likely? I don't think so. The most (and highly likely) thing is that YK socked in a moment of weakness. --regentspark (comment) 13:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you Dougweller for trusting me and unblocking me. Thank you Boing! said Zebedee for considering my arguments reasonable, and the compliments you made about my English, yes I would have capitalised the O in "orwellian". Thank you Salvio for not opposing the unblock, trust me Bob1781 is neither my sockpuppet nor my meatpuppet, his/her behaviour though apparently similar is fundamentally different, the checkuser data that indicts me, seems to be the manifestation of an indication of the limitation of the exercise. I agree with Qwyrxian that Bob1781 is someone's sock/meat puppet, I thank him for supporting the unblock. I thank RP for supporting the unblock. Thanks User talk:Thisthat2011 and User:Ratnakar.kulkarni for your support here, I can assure that you were on the side of truthfulness. Thanks User:Sitush for your comments, thanks User:The_Bushranger for your suggestions, actually they helped me in framing my second unblock request. Thank you User:Jéské Couriano for bothering to look at my request. I apologise for making this look like an Oscar acceptance speech, I am really relieved. @Dougweller: we have interacted with each other on the Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar page, there were considerable disagreements, yet after sometime we could agree on a stable version. Do you consider my editing bad? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just for your own protection, you can't discuss that last mentioned article here (Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar)--the topic ban extends to all parts of Wikipedia, even user space. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Khadilkar literature or history? A general question as these are the first few hours into my ban. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification though, it is going to be useful. What about sand-boxes?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "All parts of Wikipedia" means, erm, "all parts of Wikipedia". Articles, talk pages, sandboxes, edit summaries ... Everything. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Violating the ban already
Notwithstanding Mr. Khandke's newly found eminence as a master of English prose, he is already violating his topic ban. The ban says "Indian history and colonialism, broadly construed." Mr. Khandke has been busily editing the page Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy, a Marathi language play based on a book by Gopal Godse&mdash; the brother of Nathuram Godse and co-conspirator with Nathuram in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Gopal Godse, moreover, was a Marathi Hindu nationalist of the ilk that Mr. Khandke has routinely and tendentiously talked up on Wikipedia, behavior that has garnered him his topic ban. I believe these edits fall under the general topic of Indian history broadly construed. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit also looks somewhat suspect. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy is based on a book by Gopal Godse but not written by Gopal Godse, its just another play, are you saying that if there is any movie released in coming future based on Gandhi's life YK cannot edit it? Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy is not a chapter in Indian History, its just a play based on a book written by someone who is now part of Indian history.--sarvajna (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Yogesh might be on dodgy ground if he did edit an article about such a hypothetical movie. It would certainly be best for him to seek clarification before doing so. I seem to recall that he is aware of, who hit similar problems. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying that Mr. Khandke cannot edit any pages whose content broadly overlaps with the topic of Indian history. The play Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy's content indubitably does, as will likely that of any future movies made about Gandhi's life.  Gandhi is a pre-eminent figure of modern Indian history, any movie about him cannot help but tread on historical ground.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But if you see every place is a somehow associated with history, every person who gets a mention in encyclopedia is in one or the other way a historical character. It would be helpful if sitush and fowler clarify what YK can edit, can he edit any article relating to India project?--sarvajna (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, articles on geography, flora, fauna, the sciences, technology, infra-structure, education, ... would be OK; there are many topics.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh, Sitush's link shows you added something about " injustice heaped on the dalits through centuries of upper-class oppression and deprivation" - this is clearly history. I unblocked you, now I am regretting it. If you don't accept the ban you'll have to be blocked indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to add a suggestion about YK staying far back from any closely related subject to show a good faith effort, but ran into an edit conflict. Brace yourselves everyone for the acrimony when YK gets himself blocked despite all the warnings and WP:ROPE.  JanetteDoe (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

To Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  You suggest infra-structure and education as two topics that YK can edit. Can he seriously write about Indian railways without mentioning anything about the development of the rail network during the British raj? Ditto for education in India. Science, flora and fauna, perhaps, may be less challenging as far the ban is concerned but even here it is possible to tread on thin ground. It would be good if administrators can clarify what he can edit. Regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If in doubt regarding permissibility then seek clarification, but the edit I noted above is a clear infraction. There is a whole world outside India and with no connection to India. I know that some people can be inventive and create connections but, honestly, it is not difficult to avoid the entire country, let alone its history, colonialism etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Jonathansammy, Seriously, does every topic on the Indian Railways require the history of the railways going back to the British Raj? Of course not.  Mr. Khandke is not so naive that he doesn't know what is POV and what is not.  After being topic banned from Indian history, in part for his relentless and predictable Hindu nationalist bias, what does he do?  He creates a new page about a controversial play which attempts to understands Gandhi's assassination (a major event in Indian history) from the point of view of the assassin, Nathuram Godse.  Moreover, the play is based on a book by Gopal Godse, the brother and co-conspirator of the assassin, and Hindu nationalist admirer of Mr. Khandke's much edited, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.  It would be as if someone were topic banned from American History for POV pushing the old Confederate ideology, and the first thing they did after the ban went into force was to create an article about a new play that explores the assassination of Lincoln from the point of view of John Wilkes Booth.  I think most people would think that the banned editor was thumbing his nose at the WP community.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Another point: I'm not saying you are an apologist for Mr. Khandke, but one of the favorite ploys of apologists is to ask for an exacter than exact delineation of the ban. When such delineation cannot be provided, as is usually the case with broadly construed bans, they cry foul.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Johnathansammy, the ban, a community ban, says "widely construed". Administrators (I'm one) can't change that to be more specific, that would require a new community discussion and I doubt that it would be able to be more specific. It's pretty clear he's broken the ban, the only issue right now is if he is going to recognise that. Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Donner party
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Donner Party". Thank you. --Jswap (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your behavior at Talk:Donner Party
Please consider that the best way to advance articles is via collaborative discussion. Your targeting of specific editors in section headings, combined with intransigence in answering direct questions relevant to the discussion, is not conducive to a collaborative environment. Please engage in good faith discussion; perhaps you can answer the question before Moni3, who has all the sources, weighs in to review. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Answered on article talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever; looks like misrepresentation, obtuseness, refusal to answer a direct question, mucking up a talk page to make it indecipherable to future readers, bolding against WP:TALK guidelines, and more talk page disruption from where I'm sitting, but what do I know. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Geez, Yogesh, don't start messing with Malleus & Co. You will not prevail and quite likely will just gain yourself a still longer list of people who would like to see you site banned. -

Sitush (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Titodutta
You can post here User_talk:Titodutta --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I talk page owner explicitly allow you to post in talk page! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Titodutta, you can't override the community assessed topic ban, and asking Yogesh Khandke to violate the ban is actual harmful to him. You may be unfamiliar with bans, but when the community agrees on a topic ban, it applies throughout Wikipedia, including on user talk pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I liked "Sw(ine)-Me We-Way-Ca(r)-None-Thu(s)". This is real useful than that IPA or whatever. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And wrong too! --Tito Dutta (Message) 14:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest using both, Swami Vivekananda and Swami Bibekanando. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion is getting fragmented in multiple places! --Tito Dutta (Message) 15:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is gonna implement whats being discussed here. This is just for timepass. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)