User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Favour

Can you salt this template mate? It keeps getting recreted by sock of Yasir72.multan, it was his IP socks giving SMS so much grief you had to protect her talkpage. Maybe if he cannot create it again he will give up )Darkness Shines (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. --regentspark (comment) 11:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers mate, with any luck he will get bored and go annoy another site. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

• News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community

• Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish

• Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia

• Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more

• In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: Elements of the world

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you make sense of these?

If we start with Dooars#History, specifically the bit that was added here and subsequent additions credited to a minor academic[1]. This says " According Sailen Debnath the Dooars was the seat of the medieval Kamata kingdom.[sourced to Debnath] Kamatapur emerged as a sovereign state from the middle of the seventh century. I'm already confused. How did we start with the Kamata kingdom (which has no mention of the Dooars) and suddenly get to Kamatapur? Which I assume is Kamtapur (also see the material I deleted there). Then look at Kamata Kingdom which is a mess - sort of 2 articles together. (I deleted some stuff at [2]. And we have Khen dynasty and Kamarupa kingdom - no Debnath stuff in them but I mention them as related. It does seem as though some kingdoms had various names- [3] isn't an RS of course, but seems to confirm what I suspect from my research, bad as it's been. My head hurts. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Sailen [4] is a professor somewhere in North Bengal and a quick search on Wikipedia [5] shows that he is much cited here. I wonder why. I'll take a look later but I'm close to giving up on India. Anything that is not a mainstream article is stuffed to the gills with pov material. Wikipedia needs to hire a few people full time just to clean up the mess. --regentspark (comment) 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm as lost as you are. Apparently, there was a Kamata Kingdom with Cooch Behar as its capital. Before that, there was the Kamarupa Kingdom but that was in Assam. The Kamata Kingdom was followed by the Koch Kingdom. I guess the first question to figure out is what the geographical boundaries of the doars are. They look to be a fairly small region east of Siliguri and west of Gauhati but the article has no map so that's not very clear. Then, the next question would be whether these kingdoms actually existed and whether they were centered in this region or elsewhere (Assam or Bhutan perhaps). Anyway, I've gotta go for now so this will wait (unless some kind talk page stalker saves us all the trouble by figuring things out!).--regentspark (comment) 19:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Debnath is an associate professor - head of a tiny department.[6]. His article here was deleted for lack of notability. Thanks for your help so far. Please don't give up on Indian articles, we need people actually from India who have a head on their shoulders! Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Forgot - his article was created by the editor reverting me at Dooars (who is also the IP). Interesting discussion on his talk page. If I remove his name from an article I'm guilty of copyright violation. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this on my WL, and felt like clicking through a couple of the links above. This author has been used to cite varying topics in various articles and that doesn't make sense at all on first look. Very rarely would we consider someone an expert on Culture of Europe, Yama (Hinduism), Shiva, India–United States relations, and Bengali renaissance among others. Is this just a case of him coming up first on google books searches that caused this or is there some other reason? Of course some of the statements sourced to him are attributed points of view, that would be ok if his h-index existed outside of WP but it doesn't appear to be the case here. —SpacemanSpiff 22:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

He is a prolific writer and has written on a number of topics. But, I suspect, the citations are likely the work of one or a group of editors intent on promoting his work. I'm trying to read up on the history of assam and it looks to me as if the Kamata Kingdom is likely made up. According to this article, nothing much is known of pre-Mughal times Assam. The Koch Bihar Kingdom was the first major kingdom in the area and it was followed by the Kamrupa Kingdom and the Ahoms. Kamata is mentioned as a medieval town. This reference identifies Kamata-Koch Bihar as being a single kingdom whereas our Kamata Kingdom subsumes the Koches under itself which doesn't seem right. There are a couple of books on the History of Assam but that necessitates a trip to the library. Perhaps tomorrow. Still looking. --regentspark (comment) 23:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll need more coffee before I can even begin to understand the content issue Doug and RP are discussing, but to Spiff's question "Is this just a case of him coming up first on google books searches that caused this or is there some other reason?" See Sailen Debnath (talk · contribs). The formatting style shows that the 117.201.114.201 (talk · contribs) is the same user, and the references are not "magically" appearing on wikipedia. As for whether they are reliable... unlikely, but I don't want to make a rush judgment while experiencing caffeine deficit. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(off topic question) So, you cleaned up parts of this mess in November 2009, took a break and allowed it to creep back in, and are now going to spend November 2013 cleaning it up again? —SpacemanSpiff 23:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I totally didn't recall that, and even now, while I took a look at his contribution list, I didn't even check his talk page till you pointed it out. :) Abecedare (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is what happens when people take breaks. Breaks shouldn't be allowed. Everyone who has any sense, knowledge of policies etc should be required to spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week on Wikipedia. They should accept that their compensation - "free beer tomorrow" - will at some point in the next millennium become "free beer today" and that they will have been unfrozen in order to enjoy it. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Admins get free beer (and peanuts) in the admin lounge. What do you think Doug, Spiff and I do when we're not online! We also get to watch The Day of the Doctor at a special admin only prerelease a month before the punters (Wednesday night). Sure you don't want to join the club?--regentspark (comment) 01:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen more than a couple of minutes of any Doctor episode, so there is no particular attraction there! I've rather gone off beer also of late - doesn't mix well with my meds & I've got another big op coming up at some point. While demonstrating such increasingly miserable tendencies such as these probably makes me ideal admin material, my other significant tendency - to let fly at people - means I'll be blackballed from the club. No one likes me, I don't care! - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with your op Sitush. Anyway, I've raised some of this at Talk:Kamtapur. It's interesting to look at [7] and [8]. I don't know if anyone has actually looked at Parnashree (talk · contribs)'s talk page or contributions. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess the two histories to look at are the ones by Gait and by Sarkar (I'm no expert, but those are the only two "Histories of Assam" I can find in my library). It looks to me now that the Kamata and Koch kingdoms are one and the same thing but need to see a definitive history to be sure. I also assume that Parnashree is likely Debnath. I don't suppose a checkuser is much point though. Sitush, good luck with the op. I hope it's not as serious as it all sounds and do keep us posted. --regentspark (comment) 18:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

When created, by a fan of User:Abecedare's, it was solely about the proposed state.[9] I've suggested at Talk:Kamtapur one solution is to roll back to an earlier version. Dougweller (talk contribs) 05:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Also see[10] - the diff shows the difference between the version Parnashree created and my editing. He claims he isn't here to promote Debnath, but virtually everyone of his edits does just that. I particularly like "Sailen Debnath after a meticulous research" but I'd also like my edit reviewed in case I'm way off base. If I'm not, then this is more evidence we should be removing Debnath sourced material. And we have Alipurduar whose history is based on Debnath and whose college " Alipurduar College has the credit of copyright to a very important book of contemporary history entitled, Social and Political Tensions in North Bengal Since 1947 edited by Sailen Debnath. Apart from this, the college has published so far two books and two anthologies. The books are: 1. Philosophical and Political Thought of Subhas Chandra Bose, 1998, by Sailen Debnath; 2. A Compendium of Gandhism, 1998, by Sailen Debnath; and the anthologies are: 1. International Year of Physics: Approaches & Understanding,2006, with a preface by Sailen Debnath; and, 2. The Need and Prospects of Vocational Education in Undergraduate Colleges in West Bengal,2008, edited by Sailen Debnath." Of course, now we know that 2 of his books are more or less self-published. In fact I think more may be but I need to check that. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that says copyright, not published. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sailen Debnath edited in 2010 and was silent till June 7, 2012[11] when he made one edit. Then, on June 16, Parnashree took over and we haven't heard from debnath since then. Quacks like a duck to me. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - I hadn't noticed the dates. We really need to get rid of this as among other things it's not just made a mess of some articles, I'm not at all convinced that it isn't adding some pretty inaccurate stuff to articles, or adding speculation as fact. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

From Parnashree, I am appalled to see all these attributed to me. You please know it for certain Kamta or Kamata in fact is the same name of Goddess Kamaksha; and the kingdom that came into existence with the dissolution of Kamrup was named Kamta or Kamata Kingdom. The Koch kingdom came into existence after the destruction of Kamta Kingdom otherwise known Kamtapur. As you say Sailen Debnath is a 'minor academic', therefore, references to his books must be deleted; you are at liberty to do that; but along with that you must delete the portions inserted from his books into the Wikipedia talk pages edited by me. I don't want dispute with anybody or academic fight with anybody for Sailen Debnath or for any other writer. Whatever I did, I did for the updating of Wikipedia talk pages on historical topics of North-Eastern India. As I read his books, I found some new information on Kamta Kingdom and Dooars. It is nothing more. You need not worry to clean the mess edited by me; I myself shall do it as you have raised the dispute. I do promise here not to edit any new talk page of Wikipedia today onward.Enough is enough. I am really aggrieved for having emotionally associated myself with Wikipedia. I want the end of it. I have other academic works to do. But I ask you - what have other people in collaboration with you have done? The introductory portion of the Culture of Europe was edited by me; and therein I inserted a few lines from the book of Sailen Debnath (Book entitled, 'Secularism: Western and Indian' published by Atlantic Publisher, New Delhi). Here I find, in the name cleaning, references to Debnath's book has been removed while the portion from his book has been well kept in the talk page. Is it not a kind of plagiarism? If you can not find out the lines derived from Debnath's book, allow me to remove those lines in order to save such a rich page on the Culture of Europe free from plagiarism.--Parnashree (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If the material in Culture of Europe was copied verbatim from Debnath's book, then it is a copyright violation and should be immediately removed. If the material is paraphrased from his book, then it is from an unreliable source and should be removed. So, yes, please remove it. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2

--> Commented-out the template - it must be malformatted because it is causing subsequent sections to be wrapped within it. Hope you don't mind. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Bisen

I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on Bisen. I am on three reverts (plus a reverted page move) and I doubt that the other party is going to go stop. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

... and indeed they have not stopped! - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Jain-Hindu relations

The consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Jain-Hindu_relations seems to be against the deletion of the article without proper AFD. In any case can you give its content? Rahul Jain (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The article did not duplicate any existing topic. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That article is essentially similar to the one deleted by RAHaworth [12]. Not to mention that the material is the same, rephrased, as the various Jainism and Hinduism articles that you've created and that have been deleted. I have no comment on the material - perhaps we need a suitably titled article on the subject - but you can't go around trying to endgame the system by adding the same material under different titles. My suggestion is that you incubate the article in user space - I'll be happy to restore it there - and then get some consensus on whether it should be transferred to article space. You might want to consult with User:Fowler&fowler, User:Sitush, and others to get some input into the structure or suitable sources for the article. But, as a one person effort, this isn't going to fly. Sorry. --regentspark (comment) 18:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please restore it to my user space for now. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Done User:The Rahul Jain/Jain-Hindu relations

Thanks. The previous articles was speedily deleted for reasons which I don't think apply to this one. Criteria A10 says that it is "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". But the article does not duplicate any other topic as far as I understand. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See RAHaworth's comment when he/she deleted the article. The point is that merely retitling it with the word relations, but keeping the same essence is not going to cut it. I suggest working on it in user space, getting input from Sitush and/or fowler, and then moving it to article space. That way, it'll stay there. If I'm correctly understanding what you're trying to do with all these articles is to show the commonalities and differences between early Jainism and early Hinduism. If yes, then the way to do that is to find one source (a peer reviewed article or a book) that focuses on this topic, use that to build a skeleton article (taking care not to plagiarize or copyvio), and then add other references to flesh out the article. If you can do that, the article will stay and we'll put an end to this cycle where you create something and it ends up deleted. --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jain-Hindu relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jain-Hindu relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rahul Jain (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Commented there. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 12:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

• Traffic report: 200 miles in 200 years

• In the media: Rand Paul plagiarizes Wikipedia?

• News and notes: Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?

• Featured content: Wrestling with featured content

• Recent research: User influence on site policies: Wikipedia vs. Facebook vs. Youtube

• WikiProject report: Special: Lessons from the dead and dying

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anuj Dhar may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 7 November 2013 | author=Hugh Purcell}}</ref> Dhar is known for his two books on the death of [[Subhas Chandra Bose}}, an Indian freedom fighter presumed to have died in an air crash in May 1945. Dhar's work suggests

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you BracketBot, you deserve a barn star for your tireless work! --regentspark (comment) 14:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of SCB

I have moved Disappearance of Subhas Chandra Bose to Death of Subhas Chandra Bose on the grounds that the title presupposed that Bose disappeared. This is in keeping with the precedence set by Assassination of John F. Kennedy (as a repository of various facts, explanations, conspiracy theories, etc).

Earlier, Death of SCB was being redirected to Disappearance of SCB. Also, given that he'd be 116, the oldest living human on earth, and unheard or unseen since August 18, 1945, the likelihood of his being alive is between zero and nil. So, Death of SCB is not a biased title. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Man

Man does not seem to be available on JSTOR. I'm after Fürer-Haimendorf, C. von. 'Obituary: John Henry Hutton 1885-1968' Man 1968 66-7 Do you have access to it? If not then no worries - I'll ask at WP:RX. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Forget that, sorry. It is there but under another title. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruption

I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on User:Passionformusic. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Watching. --regentspark (comment) 15:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Query

Could you please tell me who are the other widely known and esteemed academic scholars apart from Jafferlot or Is it the only one on which we are obliged to believe?Thanx---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 08:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

One is enough. Add the various news sources and we have enough to qualify the claims about Modi and economic development. --regentspark (comment) 13:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi,Actually it's not about modi.I just want to know about others cholars for the sake of refrain myself from redundant discussions in future.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 18:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a laudable objective. Here's what I suggest. Go to the websites of the top 100 universities in the world. Look for historians with an interest in India - South Asian studies departments are a good place to start but you might need to look elsewhere as well since they hide out in many places - and build a list. That way you'll have a good starting point. --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough,Thanx a lot.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 20:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Also check out Indology and these categories:

• Category:Indologists
• Category:Historians of South Asia
• Category:Historians of India
• Category:Indian historians

Keep in mind that these list are necessarily incomplete; and some of the persons included in these categories are well-known quacks. A few good way to assess whether a social-sciences scholar is reputable is to check their academic qualifications and current/past position; see if they have written any book published by university/academic press; and search for their publications using Jstor. Abecedare (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC removal

I would request that you please cite the specific guideline you were referring to when you made this edit, otherwise I can only assume that you were editing in a disruptive and counterproductive fashion. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP. Also, you might want to ask yourself how sensible it is to ask for an RM review when an RM is ongoing. --regentspark (comment) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

there are two very separate matters addressed: 1) renaming an article; 2) the application of WP:HONORIFIC. Individuals are free to engage with either topic, I requested an RFC on the matter of WP:HONORIFIC, you are attempting to deny that right. I see nothing that states explicitly that editors cannot simultaneously request an article move and an RFC. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If you can't see that your RM and the RfC are the same thing, then I can't help you. I'm not going to revert it again but forum shopping is never a good long term strategy on Wikipedia. Waste of time for everyone and that's bad. --regentspark (comment) 18:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you view an attempt to engage the opinions of other editors as "bad" or a "waste of time." I cannot dictate responses, and there may be a majority of editors who will disagree, I'm fine with that, it's a perfectly valid outcome, what I find problematic is the lack of considered debate when it appears warranted. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The waste of time is when we're forced to indulge in the same "considered debate" in multiple places. But, like I said, I'm not reverting you. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

well, it was all in the same place before you deleted it! You also have not addressed the question of the possible misapplication of WP:HONORIFIC ("Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included.") or that if we were to actually apply such a guideline, in the context of "religious" figures, WP:NCCL would be more accurate. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to explain anything to me. I thought you were forum shopping, possibly in good faith, so I removed the RfC. You don't accept that and have reinstated it. Any discussion about what policy is applicable where should go in the discussion or, in this case, in both discussions. --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your explanation, odds are both the RfC and RM will amount to nothing anyway. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)