User talk:Abecedare

.

SLIET

Hi, Abecedare - I've bitten off more than I can chew by volunteering to help improve the following article before I looked at it: Sant_Longowal_Institute_of_Engineering_and_Technology. I'm okay with copy editing, but this one needs far more information that is way over my head. Any suggestions? Atsme^📞📧 20:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that additional sources would be helpful and often are hard to find for such educational institutions, which are often mentioned in the press but seldom have anything comprehensive written about them (unless there is a controversy). That said, it would be good to simply clean-up the article to read better and remove whatever is excessively promotional, or unverified/dubious. That way we (and the reader!) have a clearer picture of what is truly known, and even if we are unable to find sources and expand the article ourselves, the next person who comes to edit the article will have a better base to start. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

RamanujaDasa

I suspect RamanujaDasa is WP:NOTHERE. Look at this foolishness: "rev not adhering to Wikipedia policies WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Verifiability. WP:NPOV". Reverting properly cited material (flattering material to boot) about his guruji and labeling it as all kinds of BLP rulebreaking. @Soham321: is definitely not breaking those policies. Ogress _smash! 07:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that they have been blocked for a week. I don't think it is an issue of sincerity but ability to edit neutrally in this area. A topic ban is likely to be needed. But lets wait and see if they change or voluntarily desist from the articles on their return. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Blurbs

Hello Abecedare I had a question ,is blurb of author is reliable source according to Wikipedia?Honi02 talk 17:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Honi02: Depends exactly on what author, book and blurb you are talking about, but in general, blurbs should be treated as self-published and promotional material, ie, ok for non-controversial facts (author was born... has written two other books... etc; basic plot or thesis points) but any excessively promotional details should be taken with a pinch of salt, and they don't contribute much to establish notability. You can also look at previous RSN discussions on the topic; I haven't browsed them myself, but would be surprised if they say anything too different.

PS: The yellow in your signature is very hard to read on white background, which is common on wikipedia talkpages under default settings. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

HeyAbecedare what if blurb contain early life,education and other little personal stuff about author .Can Author autobiography at Wikipedia can be cited with blurb information about his personal life.

I am soory if you find yellowish font unconfertable ,I hope now you must find it much better?Honi02 talk 05:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the conditions listed under WP:ABOUTSELF are satisfied. Of course, more independent sources are preferable. Also note that besides reliability, there may be concerns about due weight, ie if no secondary source has bothered to note a detail, whether wikipedia should mention it. Judging this requires greater context than I have from your question, and if contentious, the issue is best discussed on the article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Your edit here stated possible sockpuppet. A "new user" has started restoring the same outdated and unreliable sources to the article, Portuguese conquest of Goa. Would you care to take a look? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Looks like Mughal Lohar. Pinging @SpacemanSpiff: to see if an SPI is required or if the account can be indeffed directly. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thank you! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a duck block should be fine but an SPI may be needed if he starts using another account -- I think in the past he's created multiple accounts in one go for sequential use, but I could be confusing that with someone else. Alamgir II and Third Battle of Panipat are giveaways as they are two of his favorite articles. Also, some sort of clean up behind the IPs is required too, as well as protection. I don't have time right now to do either, but I see that @Drmies: has blocked the account currently, so if any protections are needed either he or I could do it later. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• The third or fourth IP in that Goa article overlapped on another article with the now-blocked account, if I remember correctly. An SPI may well be worth it, if only to archive the IPs and their interests. Spiff, I'm making Tres Leches cake, and Mrs. Drmies whipped up some curry-flavored hummus. Come by for swimmies and snacks, if you like. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like I missed the lovely food Drmies but it appears that we're being served Mughlai cuisine by the sockmaster here. —SpacemanSpiff 06:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the entire list, but I'll have Korma for lunch, please. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If only I knew there was such a feast on offer, I would have been here sooner!

Btw, not reporting DurChalen123 at SPI for now since the master would have probably moved onto another account by now (which in the past SPI have have not helped locate). For the record, 182.182 (Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan) is a known Mughal Lohar IP range since at least 2011, so will be a DUCK case if they ever start reusing this account. Abecedare (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• @SpacemanSpiff and Drmies: Back as 182.182.87.195. Should we continue playing whack-a-mole, or is there a better solution to this LTA? Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, sure. Murder. Jimbo's traveling hit squad. Semi-protection all over the place. Edit filters. In short, probably not. Spiff, are these edits bad? The best thing is always to improve articles irreparably, but this is well outside of my field... Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

On the first: alas. On the second question: A couple of months back I had looked at and dicussed the edits of a bunch of the Mughal Lohar socks (before I had realized that they were socks) and found that the user's edits are despite appearances:

• Usually WP:OR supplemented with random gbook/web refs added to make them look legitimate; some of the OR has persisted so long that we now find circular refs on the topic; and
• invariably tilted to make the Mughal kings look benevolent and great, and their rivals corrupt and weak. Of course, there are rival camp of editors intent on portraying Shivaji, Hemu or Rajput kings as the great HINDU saviors protecting India from the foreign Muslim scourge... which makes improving the Maratha-related articles a task that not even User:Sitush would attempt. :)

Guess WP:RBI it is. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but a fair bit of protection should also be done except the two above as they can be used to id the socks. Most of these pages don't get any edits except for ML or Sridhar Babu anyway. —SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: To give an example of the two issues: This edit includes text copied from the Pindari page (the copying is obvious since even the refname "autogenerated340" was copied), but while that wikipedia page says, They were composed of different tribes who congregated solely for purposes of plunder., the new text citing the same source is, They were composed of different villagers who congregated solely for purposes of plunder, rape, arson and are known to have committed communal acts of genocide where I have underlined the added text, which is not in the original 1879 source (which shouldn't be used as a reference in the first place!) Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Just filed an SPI and then noticed your block of the user (any reason it is for edit-warring and for a week, instead of for socking and indef?). In any case, y'all are welcome to comment there. Btw, see this edit by user. It's not just a duck quacking, but babelfish translating the quack as "Hi! I am Mughal Lohar" :-) Abecedare (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted that same edit over there while you posted here. It's a duck by me, but just wanted to get confirmation from someone else since it's been ages since I've done blocks on/protections due to this farm. —SpacemanSpiff 23:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• He's back, I've reverted some articles, blocked the newest IP and protected a few. If you or Kansas Bear can take a look at the rest, it'd be good. —SpacemanSpiff 12:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You got all of the 182.182.45.212 (talk · contribs) and 182.182.68.247 (talk · contribs) edits. Were there any other IPs used today? Abecedare (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Not today, but there could've been yesterday or the day before. I've kept Alamgir open as that's a common point of entry, and should help in identifying. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Checking the contributions for the 182.181.0.0/16 range shows that the prvious two IPs used were 182.182.29.136 (talk · contribs) and 182.182.87.195 (talk · contribs). The latter needs some reverting, which I'll attend to. Abecedare (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Done (left a couple non-controversial edits untouched). Btw, while I was on the fence before, this sequence of edits (which matched similar edits at other pages), have convinced me that 119.160.116.131 (talk · contribs) is also Mughal Lohar, using his mobile phone. Worth noting for spotting future socks. Abecedare (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is why it took me so long to do that article, I had to waste some time checking individual contributions from that IP to see if there was a pattern match. —SpacemanSpiff 14:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it is difficult to determine what version to even revert to since though an article edit-history may show numerous contributors, they all turn out to be Mughal Lohar socks. Case in point: Muqarrab Khan, where all substantive contributions are by the guy, and while the article cites some ostensibly reliable sources, as I have found previously with ML's edits, that means nothing. User:Sitush, care to take a look? Abecedare (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, can you take a look at Harappan language? There was some constant copyvio of a Current Science paper into the article and some repeated changes to sourced content of opposite of what the sources say. I've cleaned out the copyvio and blocked the editor, but I think it's an ignored article with no regular editors going there, and not in my reading area either. I've left the link to the paper on the talk page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted Harappan language. I have some only very high level knowledge of Indus language and script, and based on that the current version of the article does not raise any obvious redflags for me (which does not mean that it is correct or complete though). The Current Science paper on the other hand, though published in a normally RS periodical (though not specializing in this area), is very much fringe. The claim that the Indus script is linked to Dravidian scripts itself is a minority view, based essentially on geographical closeness, which has neither been verified nor definitively debunked (that is basically the case for all theories of Indus script), but Clyde Winters (who seems to mainly self-publish online and through Lulu) starts from there and adds heavy doses of Afrocentric pseudo-history to it. The paper is not worth citing, let alone basing the article on. Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to start with the Khan article. There appear to be several people who bore that name, all of them seemingly notable for single events. I've noticed this before but never made the ML connection. Perhaps with some digging there might be good cause to create List of Mughal commanders, which includes a field for their main claim to fame, and redirect a lot of articles to that. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Richards only mentions him briefly as a Golconda turned Mughal nobleman. Not sure if there is enough material to deserve an article. Not sure of a redirect target either. Is there any source that discusses Mughal commanders as a category? Else, I am afraid it will become another dumping ground for OR. Abecedare (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: PiedPiperofAgra321 duck or case for SPI? Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it, but no Alamgir, freshly created account though. My eyes are still hurting from the Tobias Conradi mess, so I'll take a better look in a day or so if you or the absent RegentsPark don't beat me to it.—SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I am being (perhaps overly) cautious in using my admin tools here since I once had a content discussion with two of the socks at Talk:Flag of the Mughal Empire, before I even knew of the existence of Mughal Lohar. But perhaps that is a too officious interpretation of WP:INVOLVED given that the issue is persistence sockpuppetry and not any particular content dispute, and overwhelmingly involves articles that I have never otherwise edited. Will give it some more thought, but in the meantime will lean on you and others admins who recognize the sockmasters patterns. Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarama

Hi Abecedare, there is a funny kind of slow edit war going on at the Sarama page, regarding the literal use of the word "bitch". What can we do about this? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be routine back and forth, which I am sure the editors can settle amongst themselves (ie, if they even decide to debate it any further). As for the content issue itself: as usual, best to see how sources address the issue. Abecedare (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Paper spamming

I came across this edit and then on looking at the editor's contributions it appears that they've been spamming pieces by the same author across multiple articles. Not sure about the site, it claims to be a non-profit think tank. But the same author's writings have been spammed as references from Hinduism to Eve Teasing to Forecasting, can you take a look? —SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I got my answer here: TK Rajesh is a R&D engineer based in Bangalore and writes on the ‘convergent triumvirate of Indian nationalism, Indian culture and Indian religion, so quite obviously these have to go.—SpacemanSpiff 02:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The South Asia Analysis Group (guess who started the article), is essentially a glorified group-blog run by some ex mid-level government bureaucrats (on second thought, that well may be definition of a think-tank :)). Some trivial mentions in the media of the form "X of the SAAG, said that...", and some (fringey) media claims that it is a RAW outfit etc, but didn't find any real write up about the group. A few of its papers that have been independently cited may be usable as references on wikipedia, but most of the references are likely to be refspam. Abecedare (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course he did. Coming to think of it, do you think OccultZone could be Kelkar? —SpacemanSpiff 03:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Too far back for me to recall Hkelkar's editing style and make a match. But wouldn't be surprised. Abecedare (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is getting a little weird: this editor adds the refspam, then this one adds a second author. There's obviously something that doesn't meet the eye around this. —SpacemanSpiff 03:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think COI is a given under the circumstances, and seeing the similarity in the (narrow) focus and usernames, I would guess that the Quantres and Datawhiz are sock accounts. Btw here is the author's website, which shows no education or peer-reviewed publications in the fields he is being cited on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Kelkar has been mentioned before in this regard; I dare to be quite sure that OZ/B goes back many years. With all his shortcomings, he was a way too good editor to be a simple beginner. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Flag Flag

FYI, Flag Boy might be back. It might also be worthwhile looking into this chap who has interests in Islamic flags (amongst other subjects) and shares a similar username pattern.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Calm321's edits are certainly an issue, but he may not be a sock of Mughal Lohar, but just another editor who added the images in good faith. Can try reverting and exaplaining the issue to them (can point to the discussion at Talk:Flag of the Mughal Empire), and see if they choose to acquiesce/discuss/edit-war... Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for looking into the matter.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tamils

I think it's high time the article goes to FAR and I plan to do so, albeit four years after Dana and I agreed to list out problems to take it to FAR :) I've posted a high level problem list on the article talk page, and am doing a detailed problem analysis here. Feel free to chime in at the talk page and/or add to the list. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A two minute check confirms the issues you pointed out (see my comment at article talkpage). Are there any active editors in the area who are able/interested in improving the article during FAR? If the process ends up with the same article, only with the star removed, that will be unfortunate. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, this is what got me into the Gyan mess unfortunately. I doubt it, there were tons of image copyvios until a little while ago when I noticed it, and they were in and out until a few days back when I had them deleted. I've also asked dab to comment on it, as he will be quite brutal on all the poppycock that has crept into the ethnicity sections. Unfortunately not, I think. While it can be improved during FAR/FARC (and I hope to do a bit), I don't think it's a sustainable FA in the sense that there's no one to manage it, unlike India, Kolkata, Preity Zinta etc etc. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Main_line.2C_Sections.2C_branch_lines

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Main_line.2C_Sections.2C_branch_lines. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't know much about the topic (what are railway junction stations exactly?) Will listen in to the discussion and comment if I have anything to contribute. Abecedare (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Gurdaspur attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IST (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) 08:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Jim Carter 10:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Shakya

Well, I feel like today I might be running out of admins who know something of the problems re: India articles. Truth only 1 is quite obviously editing Shakya while logged out and their last edit summary shows they have no intention of stopping. There is discussion about the hatnote issue on the article talk page but this has been going on since 2013 (where the other side of the issue arose at Kachhi).

I know it is painful to read all the bumpf but perhaps you could at least look at the recent Truth only 1 + IP edits of the last hour or so at Shakya? - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Psshhw, 3RR + obvious sock-puppetry + edit-summaries such as this one (the last two sentences; the first one is par for the course) made this an easy one. :)

No opinion on the hatnote itself (I'll need additional coffee to even figure out the nuanced variations being discussed). Am confident that you + Joshua + MahenSingha will be able to resolve it amongst yourself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: What's the prior probability that an editor with "truth" in their name edit-wars to right great wrongs? 0.9? Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and yep! Although I've yet to come across any account in the Indic topic area that has that word in their username and survives here, so you may be erring on the low side even with that figure! - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Content discussion by block evading sock

Just want this to come to notice of editors The current hatnote is- “This article is about the ancient Shakya people . For the modern Kachhi community of North India using Shakya Surname, see Kachhi (caste).” If I am a regular (non-history professor) reader, then I will think “Oh this article is just about the ancient Shakya people. I guess they are all dead now. And well, Kachhis are using Shakya surname now. Since North India, Nepal, Tibet are all adjacent so if anyone says he is a Shakya then he must be a Kachhi. Yeah !” Now let’s look into some facts that there are Shakyas presently who are not Kachhis:- 1) Present Shakyas as higher caste ( https://books.google.co.in/books?id=P0RuAAAAMAAJ&dq=shakya+caste&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=shakya ) 2) Present Shakyas as priestly caste Page 42: ( http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/5413 ) 3) Just search for word ‘shakya’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newar_caste_system — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrections No.8395 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC) And these are just a few citations I found hastily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrections No.8395 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC) All I am requesting is this. Change the hatnote to reflect something like this "This article is about the ancient history of Shakya clan. For the Kachhi community of North India who also sometimes uses this surname, see Kachhi (caste)." This will remove all the ambiguity. This whole war is just to make this one simple correction supported by facts and logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrections No.8395 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not a participant in the hatnote discussion at Shakya, so you don't need to convince me either ways. You did have ample opportunity to make your case to other editors interested in the topic, but you have wasted it in edit-warring and sock-puppetry, over a period of several years. Now unfortunately you have run out of chances, and it would be best if you found another hobby. I trust that the editors on the page, who have shown exemplary patience and judgment while dealing with your disruptions, will be able to research the topic for themselves and arrive at a reasonable solution as far as wikipedia is concerned. Please move on. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thats not gonna happen. Will fight until we all know the truth and accept the facts and evidences without making a prior biased opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.228.43.134 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Please see this Shakya related edit at Ogress`s talk page. JimRenge (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You've been featured...

...in The Times of India -- [The Vandals of Wiki, albeit playing second fiddle to me! —SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

....clipping - NQ (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Congrats both of you for featuring in the news, its nice that national media is taking notice of your good work. It will definitely inspire whole community. Best luck and thanks. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Can now retire in peace. :) The funny thing though is that before clicking, I wasn't sure which side of the vandal-divide TOI-reporting would have placed me. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I was quite apprehensive at first too. To think I came across this when I was searching for a mirror. Thanks NQ for that, will come in handy to frame. Thanks Human. —SpacemanSpiff 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit protection

I have had some personal attacks lately on my user page and talk page, mostly redacted by kind editors, but if you wanted to partially edit-protect my page I'd be glad. Ogress _smash! 02:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I have left a message on India Talk Page regarding images for Ancient India section, do help me contribute to the article.