Jump to content

User talk:Abecedare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Done12 (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 1 December 2009 (Hi again, sorry: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

.

India

Thanks. I actually did not know that there was an Europa version. Otherwise, i would not have added a pic of Nano Europa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talkcontribs)

Ok thanks

Ok, thank you very much my friend and apologized for the pile of questions.

A Greeting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralejo8 (talkcontribs) 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For you and your TP stalkers

Just got home, and I come to see that Satbir Singh (talk · contribs) is back as an IP evading his block and doing POV reverts on a wide range of articles as 67.161.176.99‎ (talk · contribs). I've done three reverts on Kambojas so I'm stopping now, despite the fact that this is patent POV pushing by an indefinitely blocked user. I also left a message on the IP talk page asking if they were Satbir Singh, no denial, just the usual gibberish about how no one else knows anything. If you (or if you're taking a turkey nap) or one of your TP watchers can keep a look, it'll be good. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)WP:SPI or Ani--NotedGrant Talk 05:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a request for CU, but it's likely not required as the user has refused to deny that they aren't Satbir Singh. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's his confirmation that he is indeed Satbir Singh. -SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for block evasion. Its admirable when IPs/users quack so loudly; we admins hate overusing our precious gray cells. :)Abecedare (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the minute I saw the edit summary on my watchlist I knew it was him. Finally got him to confirm! He uses a couple of PN Oak kinda sources to add all his POV in. Thanks for the prompt response, he appeared to have lost interest in the other articles and stuck with the main one after the first revert. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chap's back, would semi-PP be overkill since he's the only IP that's doing this nonsense? Although IP hasn't changed and he's clearly violating his block by socking. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a static IP, so blocked for a month. If he returns with a changed IP/account, will unblock this IP and semi-protect the article instead. Abecedare (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Also, can you take a look at Talk:Flag of India? There's a request for the BIS flag standards doc, don't know if you have that in your library? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have those. Searched for all titles with India+flag in their title and the only relevant titles I found were:
Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--Ok, thx. The BIS standards is too elusive. I have no clue why that's a paid feature unlike most other govt docs. Not at my local or the nearby academic library either. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 01:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two AfDs?

Hi there, For some reason, the Indian rebellion of 1857 page had fallen off my watchlist, so I hadn't really paid much attention to it for almost a year. I noticed yesterday that a "novel" Recalcitrance was listed in the See alsos. That led me to its author, Anurag Kumar's page. Both pages, in my view, are likely candidates for AfD. The author is an engineering professor at Bangalore, .... Not sure if that alone, or his fellowships, for example "fellow of IEEE" (of which there are thousands), qualifies him for Wikinotability. Similarly, not sure that Recalcitrance belongs either. Will defer, of course, to your take. (Also, it could be a big time sink. So, various tags might be just as effective.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, disregard the message above. Recipe for more time wasting. The tags should be enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct is that the article on the professor will perhaps be justifiable, while the novel will not (in which case it can be merged into the former); but all depends upon the availability of sources, since neither subjects are obvious keeps/deletes. Will try and take a look this weekend (the commonness of the names will make the job non-trivial!). Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem on this one is that the editor of the book keeps inserting junk about the author in the professor's article (they are two different people). Anurag Kumar is a professor at IISc who passes many elements of WP:PROF, but he is not the author of that book. Two different chaps that were confused by people during the earlier AfD. That book should go to AfD.-SpacemanSpiff 08:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that substantially lowers the keep-worthiness of the article on the novel. The two author interviews are pretty trivial coverage in my opinion and do not "should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." (aside: it's amusing how the inext article simply spells out "non-historian", "First war of independence" etc in Devanagari instead of translating the terms to Hindi).
As for the IISC Anurag Kumar: WP:PROF lists "Fellow of the IEEE" as one of the qualifying criterion; that combined with the books he has authored should make his bio. an obvious keep. Abecedare (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated Recalcitrance for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped this image for a DYK. The cropped version is seen in Wikipedia:Recent additions 249, but not in Vamana, Onam etc. articles. What is the problem? --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I am pretty sure it is a caching/data mirroring issue; since simple purge doesn't solve the problem, I suspect the problem is right at the wikimedia servers level, rather than with the ISP caches. We can wait for say a day, to see if all the data mirrors catch up by then. Responders at WP:VPT may have a more specific explanation or solution (let me know if you post there; I'd be interested in reading the answers too). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat

Hi Abecedare. I forgot to say this quite a while ago, but I remembered that I noticed that you offered to address sightings about him on YM's talk page. Just to inform you as one of the current people keeping an eye on him, I think he's moved on from the usual IP edits and is now moving towards creating multiple accounts from what's been happening recently. There's key tip-offs that he always does and I wouldn't mind sharing more info about him if you wanted to. But I think I'd have to e-mail you the info because Nangparbat I know also keeps an eye on YM's talk page (this is probably why he hasn't been editing anonymously) and he might change the way he acts. Your help would be appreciated especially since the current CU's and admins who deal with Nangparbat are either very busy or inactive. Regards. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid, as I stated on YM's page, I can lend a hand in blocking Nangaparbat socks, but since I am not really familiar with his editing pattern I'll restrict myself to IPs and obvious sock accounts for now. If you could email me Nangaparbat's telltale signs, hopefully I'll be able to recognize more accounts as "obvious" socks. It would be best to report Nangaparbat sightings on YM's page; it is on my watchlist and I'll keep an eye out for such reports - that way, I can handle the easy cases when I'm online, while YM can use his greater experience in the area and the CU bit to deal with the others. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The latest report I did report it to YM and actually to Hersfold, the first admin to deal with Nangparbat. But they seem to be busy at the moment and have been unavailable. Hopefully this e-mail that I'm going to send is helpful to you. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll wait for your email. Abecedare (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed and blocked Radar1X‎ (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and e-mail sent. Sorry it took so long. I had to dig through a bunch of sock edits and find some hopefully good examples. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Article being discussed is now at Invasion of Kerala by Hyder Ali and Tipu. Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

Any ideas? Looks like WP:OR, POV fork, etc. etc. to me. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also check for copyvio, Kerala Forest Research Institute by the same author is a copyvio, but he's posted on the talk page that he's got permission to copy the website. I just had a run in with him on a CfD where he accused me of hating Hindus (since redacted) and hating forward class people (not redacted). He has also created two other articles on Tipu's individual wars in Kerala, covered in detail that I've never read before. I'll let you two deal with how to get rid of some of these :) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list the other articles here as well? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, a list of his recent new articles. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 14:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted one redirect (Persecution of Hindus by Haider Ali and Tippu) as implausible and simplified a second article (Edachena Kunkan). Islamic invasion of Kerala is problematic because the title is OR (as is a lot of the material in the article itself). What about the three battles articles? Do you guys think that these battles are genuine or are they also OR? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also tagged this file as F9, {{PD-self}} for an image from The Hindu. He's also uploaded some other files with incorrect attribution -- an image from Commons cropped and uploaded as PD Self etc. I really don't know much about these wars, will check some books today, but these were technically not wars but battles IMO, and should all be part of one big article, if at all. Given the editor's user page and contribution history, I'm finding it difficult to believe that these would be neutral versions and/or reliably sourced. -SpacemanSpiff 17:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You people are having some problem with me around here? You want proof for the wars? Go here: The first battle (Not in much detail) can be found from pp.370, 379-382. The second battle can be found in pp.387-398. And for the Malabar part (The first 3/4ths of the article), try this one, from pp.402-476. A more detailed description can be found in Tipu Sultan: As Known in Kerala, by Ravi Varma. I am a bit outstretched at the moment as I don't have all my sources in Softcopy or online. I'll try to scan some of the books and post them online. By the way, a large part of the article is based on biography of Tipu by Islamic scholars. If anything biased is in fact there, it should be in favour of Tipu, not against him. And explain where I have done OR and POV in the article, as I have only compiled the facts published by respected authors like Logan and Nagam Aiya. Stop targeting people repeatedly who are contributing to Wiki. Axxn (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You need to dig up modern secondary sources for these wars. You also need to provide reliable sources that characterize the material described in [[Islamic invasion of Kerala] as an islamic invasion. (For example, the first citation in the article is a tourist information site that doesn't even mention the word islamic.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An incident in which 400,000 people were forcibly converted doesn't seem like Islamic Invasion to you? I had given modern sources also, like those by C. V. Raman Pillai and K.M.Panicker as well as the articles published in the Mathrubhumi. Agreed that the first reference should be removed. Axxn (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Spaceman Spiff used his IP (117.204.83.56) as a sock to edit the article Islamic Invasion of Kerala. Axxn (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do a check user or sockpuppet investigation. You can start one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you feel someone is socking for disruptive purposes, it is imperative that you do so. -SpacemanSpiff 17:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I don't want to discuss anything with anyone like you who harass me 24 x 7. If there is someone neutral here, I am willing to discuss. Axxn (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess! The title and (at least) parts of the article have clear OR and POV issues. Don't know ehether the article should be moved and cleaned up; merged with existing articles, or nuked. Have asked F&f to chime in too. Till then, I think it would be good to tag/cull the problemetic parts, so that it becomes clearer what is worth retaining. Abecedare (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag the problematic parts. I will replace the bad references with the good ones. Axxn (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I haven't taken a look at the article deeply, but it seems to be mainly based upon 19th century sources, which is not appropriate for the subject. Also some parts (including the article name and lede sentence) are completely unsupported by any sources as far as I can see, while other parts have apparent synthesis and POV issues. If you can can deal with these problems and write an article consistent wiki wikipedi'a content policies (particularly WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR) then it may be worth retaining; else it would be better to stub it or merge it into existing articles on related subjects. The comments also apply to other articles that you created recently:
Abecedare (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Give me some time to do it. Axxn (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything I need to change in the lead sentence? As you need material based on JSTOR, I think I will take some from this. Right now, having some difficulty in accessing JSTOR. Axxn (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first thing you need to do is to either find a citation for the title or change it to something else. Islamic invasion implies one thing and an invasion by Tipu Sultan is another thing. The jstor citation above doesn't refer to an islamic invasion of kerala (though it does mention a Tipu invasion and a Mysorean invasion). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi... I changed the title. Does it suits now? Axxn (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the title: are these two campaigns linked by any source ? Also do the sources refer to the Haidar's invasion of Malabar and Tipu's invasion of Travancore as invasion of Kerala ?
  • About the EPW article: Not sure why you linked it here. In case you haven't seen it yet, it is a book review for the Dale's book "The Mappilas of Malabar 1498-1922: Islamic Society on the South Asian Frontier" and in the only bit relevant to this article, the reviewer considers Dale's interpretation of Tipu's invasion through the religious lens as untenable. If anything, it weekens the claims made in large parts of the current article
By the way, we don't "need material based on JSTOR"; we just need material to be a fair representation of the most scholarly, modern, secondary sources that are available and recent articles archived on JSTOR are one venue to search. Abecedare (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Malabar and Travancore episodes were not separate. Malabar invasion was almost completed by 1767, after which Haider continued Southwards. (It was a continuation). At the time of his death in 1782, Haider was still at war with Travancore (The 1782-1784 war). So for the first part of the battle, Haider lead Mysore and after that Tipu took command untill he was defeated in 1784. Check this page It is given in the 3rd paragraph of p.206. The 1789-1790 wars were a result of the 1784 treaty. If you find anything incompatible, please notify me, and I will modify the article. Axxn (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I am not having access to JSTOR and can't search in JSTOR. Give me two or three days time, and I will be able to get a login. Axxn (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification about the how the two campaigns were linked. The question still remains whether they are referred to as invasion of Kerala (which seems anachronistic to me). Anyway, it would be best to discuss article related issues on the article talkpage. There is no real hurry here and we can discuss and resolve the issues over the coming days and weeks. By the way, I plan to delete the Islamic Invasion of Kerala as an implausible redirect; let me know if you have any sources that would justify that title, even as a redirect. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No probs with the deletion of redirect. Thank you so much for granting time. Axxn (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, can we move this discussion to the talk page of the article? Axxn (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect deleted. Yes, we can continue the discussion at Talk:Invasion of Kerala by Hyder Ali and Tipu from now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff, your initial instinct about checking for copyright violation was indeed right! I thought there were only POV/sourcing issues that could be remedied through discussion, but the whole article seems to be a cut-and-paste job from a POV source. The other articles created by the user need to be checked too. What a waste of time and good faith. <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I tagged the article as copy-paste and posted on the link to the book on the talk page, so I assumed you must've seen it, else I'd have stepped in to alert you. I was otherwise busy removing the copy-paste from Kerala Forest Research Institute, thinking that there was some salvageable content (I was wrong), and that left the article empty except for the See also links and an image; Eastmain came by and wrote something up after that, so the article didn't go G12. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how, but somehow I missed your post and link on the article talk page, and wasted so much time instead of straightaway G12ing it. I realized that it was all a cut-and-paste only when I googled "TIPU SULTAN: AS KNOWN IN KERALA" to find the bibliographical information for that source (somehow the book pages themselves are not indexed by google). As suspected the other articles created by the user are copied from different chapters of the book too, and I am in the process of deleting them. If I hadn't been invoolved in the above discussion with the user I would have blocked him too. Abecedare (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't modified some of the parts in Invasion of Kerala article. But the other three were not taken from that source. Axxn (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish, you can take the issue to deletion review and I'll provide comparative quotes there. I'd recommend that you drop the issue though, since you have already exhausted my (and possibly other editors') supply of good-faith and patience by blatant copyright violation, POV pushing, and misattribution of sources. Abecedare (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I give up. I didn't knew copyright is such a big issue here. Sorry for causing all the trouble. Axxn (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abecedare, could pls take a look at this article, and check if its worth a shot towards GA. Thanks. TheMandarin (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the article (it helps that it is short :-) ) and think that it is certainly worth nominating it for GA. If nothing else, you'll get useful feedback. A few recommendations:
  • Since the fantastical details of Trailanga Swami's life are intrinsic to his notability, we don't need to be shy about reporting them, but it would be good to attribute the beliefs as far as possible. The article already does a fairly good job on this front, but perhaps we can be a bit more specific in certain places add a sentence or two about the origin of such stories, available sources etc - if such information can be sourced.
  • The Bibliography section is confusing to me. Is it supposed to be a list of all the sources used in the article, or a list of references for further reading ? In either case, this section should not list the specific page numbers for books (which anyways don't match the page numbers in the reference section).
  • The GA reviewer is sure to ask about the length/comprehensiveness of the article. So try to make sure, as far as possible, that there is no significant source that is left out.
The article can use light copyediting and few improvements here and there (eg, clarify Benares=Varanasi); instead of listing such minor stuff I'll just make the adjustments myself in the next day or two. All the best with the GA nomination. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I will start incorporating them. --TheMandarin (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Invasion of Kerala by Hyder Ali and Tipu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Historical synthesis, unsupported by any reliable source. The events described in this article were part of a long and complicated history involving the kingdom of Mysore, the British, the French, and regions of Malabar, Travancore etc. Picking two events based on the geography of the modern Indian state of Kerala is both ahistorical and anachronistic. The topic is better covered in the articles on the four Anglo-Mysore wars, Hyder Ali and Tippu Sultan.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fittingly ironic. Thanks User:RegentsPark for "making" me the creator of this article! Perhaps I should just G7 it. :-) Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvasing: Reply

I'm just inviting users listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian history for discussion on the nomination of deletion. In initial posts there was request for support for Keep (due to copy paste) which was removed from subsequent posts. If invitation for discussion on topics to related/interested users is Canvasing, then I think it was unintentional on my part.

Current post:

Articles for deletion nomination of Recalcitrance


Article Recalcitrance have been nominated for deletion. It is an article which is about the experiences of Indians during the 1857 mutiny against British rule, by an author whose ancestors witnessed it. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for deletion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recalcitrance (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read policy on Canvassing. Actually one of the posts was due to copy & paste. It happens that project members don't take much notice of general notices at times but respond if they are contacted on their talk page. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 11:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to revert all my posts, plz revert any left post if they come into your notice. By the way the User who has voted for Keep of the Recalcitrance at Articles for deletion was never contacted by on this issue.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, sorry

Hello Abecedare, a taste to greet yourself again, Good I write to you requesting the previous same thing, an article creating to a Venezuelan band "Idonea" call, Good there are Venezuelan bands with articles as The Asbestos that are not relevant, acambio Idonea it is the band that is listened and has a single in YouTube.

Www.myspace.com/idoneamusic

A Greeting I wait that me autorize to creating it

--Done12 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]