This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MangoWong.
I am a human being and an amateur. I have said wrong things in the past and I can't help being human or amateur. I have my limitations and work with them only. I do and say amateurish things only.MWℳ
i really appreciate your work done on[ [yadav]] page.now users can share and ask for their doubts on the page ,this wiki page has gone through a lot of vandalism.thanks again dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.215.82 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also really appreciate your contribution and firm stands on discussion with high moral ground than petty people. I wish to see more contribution from you. SeaHawkDan (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit at Talk:Yadav, you ask, "What procedure am I violating?" The relevant guideline you are bordering on violating (not actually across the line in my opinion, but approaching it) is WP:Disruptive editing. You are, as all of us are, a volunteer, so of course you are not required to actually edit the article, or take the issue to a noticeboard, or do anything you don't want to do. However, to continually make extreme claims, to imply that there are terrible problems and the sources are bad and the article is biased, regularly, in numerous different threads, but to simultaneously refuse to do anything about it, is disruptive. Raising the same points over and over again, but refusing to take the discussion to the next level, ties up the resources of other editors, and prevents other work.
Now, I could make all sorts of guesses about why you do this. The vast majority of them paint you in a pretty bad light. But I don't want to do that, because I reallly do believe that you really want Wikipedia to be better. You really do understand what systematic bias is, and how important it is to correct it, and how hard it is to do so. Now, this doesn't mean that I always (or, even, often) agree with the specific results you want, but I do believe you are not here out of malice. I cannot actually speak for the other part of my cabal of self-declared Wiki-Gods (as one editor referred to MV, Sitush, and I), but I will say that for myself, I too am not here out of malice. I really do think it's unfair that Wikipedia's core policies (especially WP:V) are actively detrimental to telling certain kinds of truths, especially the stories of the colonized or otherwise disadvantaged. But to work here, we have to work within the system (all of it--civility, reliable sourcing, neutrality, sockpuppetry, etc.). If I were to put this in the terms of my field (rhetoric), I'd say that while you can try to fight about the "facts" produced by this discourse community, and you can actually "win", you're almost certain to get nowhere by fighting the actual system itself (the rules of discourse). That type of approach only works when there is some sort of external body with authority (force) that can force shifts within the system, or when there are non-rhetorical methods that can force change in the system (protest, revolution, etc.). But Wikipedia is a self-contained, idiosyncratic community, that will likely never bow to an external authority, except those that can legally enforce sanctions against it, like the government of Florida and the US.
As happens to me often when I'm trying to find a way to express my emotions, I look up, and realize that I've been rambling. I swear, I promise, that what I am trying to do here is to help you be a successful participant in WP, and to successfully fight systemic bias. The approach you take very often takes you down the dark side of accusations, disruptive or tendentious editing, and instigating/"teaching" others to do the same. If anything I said here offends you, I apologize in advance. Feel free to respond, or not respond, or simply delete this immediately. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been protected for six months. I was explaining to the protecting admin why I think that IPs should be given an opportunity to edit if they request and why (IMO) it is not good to privilege registered users over IPs. Criticizing the article was not my main point there. After that, I was reqested to show some specific problems with the article and I did that. As soon as I did what I was requested to do, I began to get criticized. If folks did not want to see problems in the article, why request me to point it out? I don't quite see how this could be disruptive. If explaining to an admin why I think that the protection should be reduced (if IPs and new users request it), is disruptive, please show me the relevant policy which says so. If doing what I was requested to do is a problem, please show the policy which says so. Otherwise, please withdraw your comments.-MWℳ12:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't talking about the protection issue, I was talking about the support of re-discussing the same issues over and over again. That's what's disruptive. Just because a new user is raising an old issue again does not mean we have to have the discussion again. To give the most extreme example I know from another page, nearly once every few days, a new user shows up on Talk:Muhammad to tell us we need to remove the pictures of Muhammad because such pictures are forbidden in Islam. We do not debate the issue over and over again, because community consensus is extremely strong on this issue; instead, we just say "See the FAQ above and the previous discussions, along with WP:NOTCENSORED. I think that you were absolutely right to call for unprotection of the talk page; I just think you're not revisit the same discussion every few weeks just because someone "new" wants to raise it again. Furthermore, I think you're not right to say "These sources are terrible, unrelaible, etc.", but refuse to take the next step to gain outside input that would help settle the issue. You don't have to take them to the noticeboard, but then I think you also have to stop complaining about them. Again, as I said above, I'm not here to criticize you just to criticize, or to be threatening in any way...rather, I want to show you something I think you don't see about your own editing, something that I think prevents you from really utilizing your great enthusiasm and strong knowledge on the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for writing here but your note on the WP:3RRN is unlikely to get a response because the issue is effectively closed. You could always ask directly at User_talk:EdJohnston but in any event the block of Truefact1979 is for edit warring, not 3RR. You are correct that 3RR was not breached but that was not the point at issue. Hope that this helps to explain. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just have a random question: when you welcome new users (via Wikilove, I assume), you seem to often offer a bowl of strawberries. Is that a personal choice, or is there a special cultural significance to strawberries? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I know that there's a bunch of different food to choose from, so I was wondering if strawberries were somehow special for you. Most people I've seen use cookies or pie or similar desserts, or beverages of various types. I liked your choice of natural food. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had looked at your recent edits/comments on some other page and liked it. Then I hopped onto your talkpage and saw lots of notices there. I too have the intention to upload some pics, but the copyvio policy looks snaky to me. So, I thought we might discuss what sort of difficulties crop up in uploading images. Maybe discussing the issue could be beneficial for both of us. Maybe two heads are better than one? Interested?MWℳ13:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into your images. I think all of your images are self created, and you are allowing free distribution with modification etc. As such, they would be acceptable at Wikimedia commons. They have a nice upload wizard there. It makes uploading easy in the sense that you upload, and then fill out the form they provide, and you are done. Did you try uploading your files there?MWℳ14:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I found that thing later. thanks for that. Before i kept being messengers front his stupid bot, not realizing its only bot i was responding to it getting angrier. anyway thanks for your help much appreciated i gotta run off now dont wanna be late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some more ferreting on this. I think I have located what we need. Reading Help:File page seemed useful to me. It contains a link to this sample image [1]. This is supposed to be OK per our policies. Comparing what information this image has with your uploads may help fix them. It seems to have some more fields filled up. I think we need to add the part under the section called "Summary" in that image. If that is done, I think your images would be fine for WP too. After adding that part to one of your images, I think you could put up a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to make sure that it is OK. That place also looked very active and helpful to me. What do you say?MWℳ12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The transfer to commons thing is nothing to worry about. That notice is there because currently there is an ongoing drive to transfer as many images as possible to commons. If it gets transferred to commons, so much the better. It will be available for wider use, not just on english WP. You see, in some cases, copyrighted, non free images can be hosted on WP. But commons only keeps those images which are freely distributable and modification allowed. Your images fall in the second category. So, it can be transferred there. It can still be used on WP, and other places. Nothing to worry about there. Now, let us see how to fix what those notices are saying. This [2] is the diff of the image which you had uploaded again. Let us compare this with this image which is OK by WP rules etc.[3] The main difference I see is that your images do not have the description part. The part in which your username etc. will appear. You need not give your real name. The username will do. There are some other fields too. In the uploading link which showed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload/Own_work there was "File Description" -- "Summary" field for filling up that sort of detail. Actually, your username should have been filled up automatically. Why is that field not present in your image? You can add it now too. You can also look into the other image [4] to get an idea what it will look like. Just look at the "Summary" section in this image. You will have to fill different details, but the fields will be same. You can try opening the edit box of the summary section in the other image, copy it into your image at the appropriate place, change the details, and save it. While doing that, please be careful not to copy material which is not applicable to your image. The "This is a retouched picture..." part etc. will not be applicable to your pic. That should fix the issue.MWℳ14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a link to the Wikipedia humor page from your user or talk page. The apple v. orange discussion made me laugh. It has since become my favorite. Thanks for this as well as the various other links including the one to the welcoming committee. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drats!!! I am beginning to feel that the orange industry guys' conspiracy theory does have some value in it. Do you think I am becoming paranoid or that something might be having a rub-off effect on me? Do you feel that it might have something to do with some sort of culture? WP culture perhaps? I understand that some scholars have been doing some research on WP. Do you know anyone who has done some research on this? Maybe we should find someone who is planning to do a thesis on WP, and suggest that this could be the subject of their thesis?MWℳ07:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading that conversation, I too got the feeling that apples are more popular than oranges due to some excellent marketing and PR work done by the apple industry. After all, everybody's heard of "An apple a day...". Poor oranges don't have that kind of an axiom. I've recently enabled the reception of e-mail from other Wikipedia users. Please send me e-mail so I can send you links about the kind of information you are looking for. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, MangoWong. I'm Tristessa, an uninvolved admin and mediator who came across the AN/I thread opened by Sitush. I'm at your service to help as a neutral party here to give you advice on the issues that have been cropping up between you and other users on your interpretation of policies regarding coverage and use of sources. I hope you don't mind giving my opinion on what's been going on and I'll try to keep my comments as brief as possible.
In summary, what seems to be happening is that you are passionate about how you believe Wikipedia articles should be written (and how topics should be covered). This is definitely a good thing and your contributions to the encyclopaedia are definitely valued. To make sure that your contributions are accepted into article revisions by other editors, I'd like to give you some background on the way that Wikipedia policies, such as those that you have indicated issues with, are applied.
Community consensus means that editors decide on how to do things together, and this process takes place at both the Wikipedia-wide level in policymaking and at the article level in editing. Consensus policies that have become long-standing, and are considered very important for Wikipedia's content standards, include Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, et cetera, policies that I know you're already familiar with and you've been at issue with when interacting with other editors. I know you don't always agree with the way these policies specify articles should be written. What you must understand, however, is that the community has taken a decision that these policies apply to all articles and content in the encyclopaedia in the way that most editors accept it to -- and much as you may disagree with those policies, editorial changes and content that don't meet the guidelines can't be included. Just because you personally disagree with a policy does not mean that it isn't necessary for you to follow them in your editing, especially where those policies have become standard norms; and whilst I stress that Wikipedia policies are always guidelines, those that are considered core pillars of content standards, such as these policies, are less flexible.
If you think that policies should be changed, the answer is to discuss how those changes could be made on the policy talk pages, the village pump, or via a request for comments to the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia works by discussion, and by mutual decision-making on the basis of majority consensus, rather than on the basis of individual editors preferring to do things in a certain way. I want to reiterate that your contributions are valued and I have every expectation that, with a little more thought about Wikipedia's community editing norms -- WP:BRD is a page you might be interested in -- you will be able to work better with other Wikipedians and have a better time of editing.
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
I'm not sure what you are trying to address in what I wrote above; I regret that I'm not psychic, and the allusion is too vague for me to decipher. --Tristessa(talk)01:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think our policies are fine. They are excellent. The folks who are writing our policies are doing a fine job of it. If someone thinks that I have disagreements with our policies, it is not necessarily their fault. I have a crafty bunch of opponents. It is likely/ possible that my opponents have created this wrong impression about me. I have found them to be making false claims about me (behind my back) on other occasions too.MWℳ00:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How could I forget!!!! Tristessa de St Ange and Zuggernaut, I do appreciate your interest and willingness to help sort out this issue. This has become a somewhat complex issue and does need more attention.MWℳ01:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should make some effort to explain my view of things. My opponents have a massive obsession with inserting defamatory material about Indian castes. They are continually grasping at straws to do so. They use complete misrepresentations, unreliable, off topic sources etc., and their favorite funda is to use passing comments from off topic sources etc. They have no problem in doing synthesis to depict various types of things as being "disputed", even when no such dispute in reality and not even among the secondary sources. Most/ all of these features can be seen in the present dispute at the talk:Lodhi.MWℳ01:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I still welcome here? I have some thoughts on the above points, but if you no longer want my presence at your talk page, I don't want to upset you. Previously I felt that we've been able to have good discussions, but after what happened at Lodhi, I don't know if you still consider my words to have any value. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you as having misused admin tools to fix the article at a particular version. You even claim that it is a version which I may like, even when it is a version which reverts my changes!!!! If you happent to think that I do not see much value in what you may say, you may be almost right.MWℳ02:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies on the version I chose; as WP:Wrong version explains, admins always make the wrong decision when picking a version to protect. I really thought, when I looked at the history that "Hmmm, after this edit, MatthewVanitas makes a big huge addition, and then an edit war erupted. Probably the best thing to do is to start the protection from before the edit war started". I was especially worried that if I protected the last version, you and F&F would be angry, because that was right after MV edited. But, really, the whole point of WP:Wrong version is that it doesn't really matter what version the article is currently on; all that matters is that the edit warring stop and people discuss the issue on the talk page. Note that if the edit warring starts up again after protection expires (I only set it at 1 week protection, so it's not like I was trying to permanently lock in any given version), I will not be re-protecting the article myself; instead, I'll ask someone else to do it (or decide if there's a better solution). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't fudge the issue. Your obsession with inserting S***** S***** S***** S***** into Indian caste articles is well known. You (alongwith two other users) have been hard at work inserting and reinserting this word into caste articles thousands of times. Here, you had edited it in again while using admin tools. It had already been taken down before your edit. It is only because of your edit that we have to discuss it again now. If you had not edited it in by using admin tools, there would have been no need to discuss it again.MWℳ01:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what this little exchange is about; please enlighten me, MangoWong or Qwrxian. I don't even know what this word is that you're referring to. But, MangoWong, I really do think that you have a proclivity to jump to accusations of editorial and/or administrative abuse of users who do not agree with your perspective, and to accuse them of organised character assasination, rather than actually considering what they have to say (ad hominem deflection of arguments). Much as it seems to be the case that other users have lacked good faith against you, that does not exempt you from the requirement that you assume good faith. --Tristessa(talk)01:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're (MW) kidding, right? I barely even know what S**** (Tristessa, follow the link to find what it means; I'm only censoring it here because I know it bothers MW so much and this is xyr talk page) means, much less trying to insert in into Indian caste articles. I can guarantee that I have never once added the S**** to any caste article where it was not previously. All I ever do is try to keep it there when the information is reliably sourced. This is the same thing I do to any info on WP that is reliably sourced, when it is removed in contravention of WP policy. Of course, at Lodhi, I just removed it per consensus at the article's talk page. Furthermore, I've just opened a discussion at WT:INDIA to consider removing all varna information from article leads. But, it seems that evidence won't convince you so I guess I'll just walk away now. 03:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
MangoWong: (Wikipedia is not censored, as I think you know, and I do not intend to redact my reply to you that follows.) The word "shudra" appears to refer to simply a concept that you are opposed to -- not to any sort of profanity or insult. To be more precise, it does not appear there is any offensive content in the word itself, simply that it expresses a religious segregation of components of society that you don't agree with. This is fine, but you can't expect other editors to treat mere inclusion of a non-invective term used to describe a philosophy that you don't agree with as though sensitive material. Either the Shudra article is missing something vital in failing to point out that it's used as an invective/is profane in some cultural fashion within India, or you are expecting editors to cater to your whims in an unacceptable fashion. I'm saying this as an uninvolved, external editor with no involvement in India topics whatsoever. Let's be grown up about this, please. --Tristessa(talk)04:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, alright. Done a bit more research. I'm going to make a wild guess here: that it's insulting because it refers to the "servant/bottom" class and is used as an insult in this fashion, similar to English insults that refer to class/status. But I think this use of the term doesn't really seem to be primary. Am I correct? If so, why the offense? --Tristessa(talk)05:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you, or anyone else can continue to use that word on this page. I do not use it and did not want to show the reason for not using it. Using this word may have legal implications in some parts of the world. But as soon as I say this, it gives a clue to my location. I do not like to give out any clue to my location or any other sort of personal info. But merely avoiding to write that word in full is also becoming a reason for suspicions that I am against "WP is not censored". So, I am having to compromise with some personal info. I have no problem if this word be used in a policy compliant way. But, is the use of this word exempt from policies like WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE etc. I only object to things which are against WP policy and these caste articles seem to operate as if these policies do not exist. You can take a look at talk:Lodhi and get a synopsis of the situation from there. I have been deleting some policy non compliant material from Yadav and Kurmi articles too. You can take a look into the histories of those articles too. I have also been deleting policy non compliant material from lots of other articles too. I don't see why the policies should not be applied to caste articles only. I am only trying to apply WP policies on caste articles, as I do on others. Is that wrong? I keep getting accused of meat puppetry &/ socking &/ being a caste warrior &/ wikilawyering &/ not knowing English &/ not knowing policy &/ among tons of other things. This started before I ever landed on caste articles-- simply because I mentioned them elsewhere. And this became even more severe as soon as I started editing them. When I started editing Kurmi article one admin reverted the "cn" tag which I had put up on an unsourced lie, and reinstated a misrepresentation which I had deleted, but continued to be an admin on that article. So.... But I do not hold this as a generalized view of admins. There should be no confusion on that point. I know well that admins are also users like me or anyone else, and are here mainly to do editing, rather than being admins. That they devote their time and energy in admin functions because it is necessary to maintain WP properly. Did I miss anything which I should have explained?MWℳ13:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply on Yadav, and the caste-editing issue in general
The "OR lie" is a pretty fair summary of the varna situation, even per the current version of the article: Their association with cattle has impacted on their commonly viewed ritual status (varna) as S*****, although the community's members often claim the higher status of Kshatriya. I agree the source at the time was insufficient, but the overall article now supports that overall statement. However, I do agree the statement is too general and un-nuanced, and a great illustration of why varna in infoboxes is a bad idea (also provokes endless vandalism). The "misrepresentation" had some weak sourcing, but is supported by the better sourcing we now have. The "undue" is not at all undue (except for the 2005 attack anecdote), and info on Yadav involvement in the Maoist movement will be an excellent and fascinating addition to the article when we come back to it.
I'm glad we're talking more, and your arguments have been much more specific and helpful in the last few days, and you've made some good points. That said, if you were a neutral guy who was just a real stickler for policy, it'd be great. If instead of spouting about "OR lies! Defamatory material!" you were saying "Hey, this sentence's source refers only to Bihar, and it doesn't explain who is giving them this label, I think we need to remove it until we find a better source" this stuff would go a ton smoother. Further, though you are not obligated to spread your attention across all issues (WP:OSE) it is less than reassuring that your work on caste is almost utterly confined to attacking "defamatory" material, and quite frequently on purely technical grounds. I expect in your heart of hearts you know that many of these castes have been labeled S*****, but go over every such mention with the finest tooth comb in a misguided attempt to address the ills of the caste system with a coat of fresh paint. I do not simply contradict caste glorification, and indeed I source highly "positive" material about castes when actually verifiable in RSs. If the Foos claim to be Kshatriya and have never submitted to the British, then heck, I cite that puppy. If they're maybe Kshatriya but maybe Vaishya, and most of them fought the Brits but the Rao of Chao fought for the East India Company, then I'm going to nuance and source both those arguments. Your efforts, on the other hand, have had an uncomfortable tendency to sea-lawyer anything "negative" and turn a blind eye to the massive amounts of terrible (and often uncited) info on Yadav, as well as lend your constant moral support to sockpuppets like Bill, etc.
If I've lumped you in with "caste warriors" that was excessive in your case (as I don't think you're promoting the interests of a particular caste), and I apologise for that term though I do maintain concerns that your emotional interest in India and/or chip-on-the-shoulder regarding Endemic Bias have resulted in some unconstructive editing and some confrontational attitude. I don't believe you've ever socked, and though I'm confident you've held strategy sessions off-wiki, that's legit and I don't think you've meat-puppeted, though I do think you've publicly given IPs and new editors/SPAs/socks advice which encourages negative confrontation.
Fundamentally, you have a great read on WP policy, though I and others think some of your takes are skewed. You and I seem to have a major disagreement as to how caste should be portrayed overall, and I submit that up to this point you have sometimes erred in making sweeping criticisms vice specific points, and in using policy to support your socio-political goals regarding caste, vice attempting to give the most accurate depiction. Likewise, I have erred in contradicting glorification and sometimes only taking a first step to improve sourcing/summary, when instead I should have done the full deep dig so I could have unassailable sources and a clear depictions of the complexities and nuances; though I have always sourced, and even when my sources weren't great the balance of evidence has been in my favour, but I have written too categorially "Foo is X" in several cases when the complexity of the topic merits a more complex description.
I hope that we can come to some sort of arrangement now that we've got a good thread going on WP:INDIA, since I think we're both bringing in positive skill-sets that have not been put to best use due to these contentions. I'll agree to give specific source-based counter-objections vice accusing you of "caste warrior" edits, POV-pushing, etc, and hope you'll agree to give neutrally-phrased specific source criticisms vice "garbage sources", "OR lies" etc. We still have a fundamental disagreement about depicting caste, which I hope we can work through. I submit that avoiding "defamatory" material is whitewashing history, and that many caste articles which tiptoe around uncomfortable issues are doing a disservice to the readership and even their own communities in question. Though I think your (positively employed) skills in critiquing sources will help uphold high WP standards, provided those skills are used to improve the article overall, not just single out one aspect with which you have socio-political concerns. In any case, that's my bit, but at least things are going a lot smoother. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lie is a lie. I have explained to you on several occasions that this word is banned in India, has gone out of general use, has become a taboo word, and thus, nobody in India is a S*****. If nobody can assert this word on anyone in India, there is no way anyone in India could be a S*****. But you arrogantly continue to write as if Yadavs are S*****. You have fished out a 1970 source to do so. IIRC, this law banning the S***** word was passed in the mid 80's or sometime nearby. So, regardless of whether the source was correct or not about it at the time when he said that, it should have been clear to you that it is a lie at present. You know that what you have inserted into the article is misleading info and is in direct contradiction with reality. A section saying Yadavs are criminals would also be in contradiction with reality. No studies have been done about crime rates in the Yadav caste vice other castes in India, and there is no doubt that you would whip up another coatrack from random opinions of racist victorian era sources or opinion pieces of ill informed or motivated or non expert sources etc. The solid secondary sources do not speak of Yadavs being a criminal caste. That you think that a section like this would be fascination is no reason to create such a section. What is/is not valid material for an article depends on WP:DUE. And it fails DUE considerations IMO. You were inserting stuff on Indian castes because people were inserting rubbish OR kshatriya claims etc. It has already been clarified to you that this is no reason to insert stuff on Indian castes. But you show no signs of changing direction. OTOH, you show signs that you will only continue driving in the same direction as before.MWℳ13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seven hits for the term "Shudra" in GoogleNews for the last week, including The Hindu and the Indian Express. And further, regardless of whether it is banned or no, it is used, and even if all use of the term had disappeared in the mid-1980s, it is still a term of great historical interest. Some have compared it to racial slurs against African Americans, however, I dispute that, as it's not simply the term "Shudra" that's banned, but the very concept. It'd be one thing (though still unconstitutional) if the US were to ban an anti-African-American slur, but quite another if they were to say "there is no such thing as race in America, and people will be fined or charged if they make any reference to anyone having a race." The varna system has been done away with legally (which is certainly notable), but varna exists as a vital historical issue underlying the political positions of Indian communities over time. I have not seen any concerns from MW about the inappropriateness of using the terms Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya, so it's getting harder and harder not to see this opposition to the term Shudra as politically-motivated. Some castes were called Shudra at various points in history, and this is historically notable and should be included in caste articles. The Yadav certainly appear to be one such caste, for a variety of complicated reasons, and reacted by assering a Kshatriya claim which is also historically notable and should be in the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[5] This is the law which would be against the use of this word in India. If a member of the SC/ST takes offense at any word as being insulting in relation to his caste etc., it can have legal implications under this law. You and several others have already been under personal attacks from hundreds of users for using this word on their caste. So, you know that this word can cause offense. I do not belong to any of these castes etc. So, this word does not mean anything to me personally. I am also not a politician or anything of that sort. I don't see how opposing the use of this word when it is in contradiction with reality and when it is in contravention of WP policies could be politically motivated (another one of your stupendous accusations in a long line of baseless accusations). You have yourself accepted that this word is being used in the Yadav article as if they are S***** at present. You are not using it there in a historical way. I am not concerned about the use of words like Kshatriya/ Brahmin/ Vaishya because these terms continue to be used freely at present and lots of folks in India are accepted to be as such. I don't see any need for concern there. The law which would be against the use of S***** would not be applicable on the use of the words Brahmin/ Kshatriya/ Vaishya etc. So, people can be regarded as belonging to these characterizations. They even self describe as such. No problem there. Why should I see one where none exists?MWℳ17:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. The full quote is: "Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine". The next page quotes a case in which the Bombay High Court held that "Words are not to be proved verbatim but the prosecution must bring home what was really uttered and whether what was uttered was with the idea to hurl insult in the name of Caste?" Do you feel that the uses of the word shudra in the articles in question fulfills this requirement?JanetteDoe (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they do. The word is being asserted on castes. That people have been taking offense is very obvious. Hundreds of people have been objecting to this word. Using this word in this way in India would be sure to cause problems.MWℳ18:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the law does not specify that people being offended is what makes the usage illegal. The law states that what is significant is whether the intent was to humiliate, which the Bombay High Court emphasized.JanetteDoe (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the intent to humiliate is there or not would be a subjective thing? In India, it is considered better not to use this particular word because people can be very touchy about this word in particular and can easily claim that the intent to humiliate was there. That is why it has gone out of general use and has become a taboo word.MWℳ18:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Above you said "this word is banned in India" and "This is the law which would be against the use of this word in India". I took these to mean that it was actually illegal to use this word at all. If that is what you were asserting, you seem to be incorrect. If you mean that it is a very sensitive subject and a person may easily be accused under that law, you would be correct. If you mean, those of us outside of India should worry about being accused under Indian law, I don't think so, as Wikipedia content is only subject to the laws of Florida and the United States, per WP:CENSOR. If you are arguing that it might hurt someone's feelings, that is also not a grounds for removal, under Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer.JanetteDoe (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because of this particular law, it is generally thought that this word is banned in India even if the law does not specify this word. People are very touchy about this word. Any SC/ ST claims he/ she has been insulted by using this word, and there will be trouble. Who would want to get into legal trouble for using a word? The net effect is that this word has gone out of general use and that is why nobody is a S*****. That is what I was trying to explain. Folks outside India need not worry about this law. And I am not arguing that this word should not be used to avoid hurting sentiments. I am saying that using this word to say that Foo caste is S***** is in contradiction with reality. That is why I am saying that this word should not be used to convey that Foo caste is S*****. Lots of articles were saying this until a few weeks ago and they were all saying this by doing OR.MWℳ19:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you didn't write "it is generally thought that this word is banned". You wrote "this word is banned". You wrote this several times. Now you are insisting that it is not in general use. Well, the courts and the newspapers don't seem to have gotten the memo.JanetteDoe (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look into my above comments, you may find that I am saying from the beginning itself that this word is not in general use. I said it when I said that the word is banned. It already means that it continues to be in use, but in a non general way. The general use would be to use the word to say things like "Foo person is X"/ Foo caste is X / Don't come near me, you are an X / things like that. Basically speaking, in the present situation (in India) one does not get to assert this word on any person or caste. You can't say I tried to misrepresent the situation. I showed you a link to the lawcode as soon as you asked to see it. And what I say is not legal advice. Different people can read the same legalese to mean different things. You should make your own assessment of the wording and or consult lawyers if you want to get precise and reliable meaning of legalese. What I say has no legal validity.MWℳ09:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those with the patience to read through this thread can judge whether or not you have tried to misrepresent the situation. I have my own opinion, however, I will leave that for now. We seem to have established that the word in question is not actually illegal, although for persons in India it is wise to use it very carefully. We have also established that WP is not governed by Indian laws. So your most current argument for exclusion of this word seems to be that it is not in general usage. For this to be a valid reason for the word in question to be excluded from WP articles, you need to produce a citation of WP policy supporting total exclusion of use of words not in general usage, plus a WP:RS, preferably several, asserting explicitly, no WP:OR, that this specific word is not in general usage. I look forward to examining the evidence you present.JanetteDoe (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your most current argument for exclusion of this word seems to be that it is not in general usage. This is not a new argument and I have been saying this all along from the beginning itself and the argument is more complicated than that. I am only saying that the word should not be used in a way which would be in contradiction with reality and which would be in violation of WP policy. I have found this word being inserted through misrepresentations &/ synthesis &/ OR etc. That would be against WP:V and WP:NOR.MWℳ00:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So now your main argument is not that it is banned, because it isn't. And your main argument is not that the word is out of general usage, because you have supplied no WP:RS for this assertion but only your own word, which is, unfortunately WP:OR. Now you argue that the word should not be used "in a way which would be in contradiction with reality", which might be reasonable, except that the only evidence you have offered that this is happening is your own assertion which is unfortunately WP:OR. You also say that this word should not be used "in a way which would be in violation of WP policy". Fine. You mention WP:NOR. Fine. You mention misrepresentation, synthesis, and OR. Fine, maybe we're getting somewhere. Please supply a diff of a specific current instance, in article space, of where you "have found this word being inserted through misrepresentations &/ synthesis &/ OR etc". One diff. Of current article space. One. With a link to the source that it misrepresents, synthesizes, or OR's. I look forward to examining the evidence you present.JanetteDoe (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO (I say “IMO” to be clear that whatever I say or have said is only my opinion. I am not an expert on any of the subjects being discussed here and I am only an amateur on everything) it is easy to find more instances of misrepresentation/misuse of this word on WP. You ask me to …supply a diff of a specific current instance, in article space, of where you "have found this word being inserted through misrepresentations &/ synthesis &/ OR etc". So, I take it to mean that you do not want to see past instances of misrepresentations etc. which I took down, or caused to be taken down, in whole or in part. Before I show you a fresh example, I would like for all of us to take a look at this extract from Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources (I have bolded the policy extract because I think it is important)
…In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.
The Kunbi (Marathi: कुणबी, Gujarati: કુનબી, alternately Kanbi) are an Indian subcaste of the ______[1] (cultivator) varna.
Notice that it is talking in the present tense. According to the present version of the article,[6] Kunbis are S*****. If you look into the book itself, you find that the book does not say this, at least not about the present status of Kunbis. The book does mention “Kunbi”, [7] but it mentions "Kunbi" only while describing what another author (Phule, who died in 1890) had written in another book. That whole page, the preceding two pages, and the four subsequent pages are all about the writings and activities of Jatirao Govindrao Phule. From the context, it is clear that what is being described on the cited page is--what Phule argued in his book “Gulamgiri”. So, it is talking about Phule’s view of things, and editors of the cited book do not necessarily hold the same view at all. And Phule died in 1890. So, we have a pre 1890 view -- being falsely attributed to a contemporary author (per our citation)-- and this is being used to say that the Kunbis are presently (in 2011) S*****. It is clear that in the Kunbi article, Phule’s view is being falsely attributed on Sanjay Paswan. And even Sanjay Paswan cannot be attributed with anything in that book--because he is not the author (despite whatever our citation says), but only editor[8]. Even if he be the author, then also he cannot be used as an RS because he is a non professor and an amateur in this field. The book has one more editor-- Paramanshi Jaideva, who is a "lecturer", not a "professor". So, I would not consider even her to be an RS. (A lecturer is some years away from becoming a professor.) In any case, the book does not even say that Kunbis are S***** at present, and she is not the author. (Please don't ask me who the author is.) Another thing is that the book is an encyclopedia i.e. a tertiary source. WP is supposed to be written mainly from secondary sources, and a tertiary source would be an automatic no-no for a point like this. So, the book would be a non RS on multiple counts. Anything that is sourced from non RS sources is OR IMO. The main point is, the book does not say what the article says. So, the book and the editor—Sanjay Paswan (per our citation) are being misrepresented there. And the book seems to contain, only three instances of “Kunbi”. So, it would be an off topic source, and whatever it says about Kunbis would also be a passing comment. Again, whatever is sourced from passing comments, is OR. Here’s the citation which we have at present --
Here's a permanent link to the present version[9] Here, you can see the original edit. [10]. Please do let me know if I have misrepresented or skewed up anything. Thanks.MWℳ17:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. However it seems that you have done quite a bit of work when you might simply have pointed out that the reference in question is described as a Gyan publication. Strangely, clicking on the link and looking at the copyright page shows instead Kalpaz Publications. I would be curious to hear if this is a WP:RS, as it seems a little strange that a major publishing house should have as its main contact a hotmail address. As for the arguments regarding reliability that you did present, I would contend that your assertion that a University lecturer cannot be a WP:RS is dubious. Perhaps this can be clarified on the RSN. I would also be interested to start a discussion there of your point regarding editors vs authors.JanetteDoe (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was showing you the unhealthy editing practices associated with dumping S***** S***** S***** S***** and other negative material in Indian caste articles. They just google it with search terms like "Kunbi + S*****" -- do not read the sources -- and do not investigate whether the source is saying what it is supposed to say, whether it is an RS or whether it is a passing comment etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.MWℳ04:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, general statements describing a problem are only a starting point. Specific, cited arguments are required for the addition or removal of disputed information. Do you have any more examples from article space that you think should be removed or changed, with supporting policy citations? JanetteDoe (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They just google onto a line (or the latter half of a line), and insert it without bothering to investigate anything else.MWℳ05:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, snippet views on google can be a problem. This is why I have volunteered to obtain an actual copy of a book quoted in another article.JanetteDoe (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indian law's stance on this issue is of zero concern to WP except in noting the historical/social significance of this law as an encyclopedic topic. If any Indian authors have legal concerns about this word, they are free to eschew articles containing it, or contact a legal expert in their area for local restrictions (as I understand it, this is WikiMedia's general stance on such issues). We have Saudi editors on WP, but we don't censor our religion articles to suit Saudi law.
Similarly, the opinions of... well, opinionated editors (mostly IPs and SPAs) are of no interest if they aren't backed up by actual WP policy. Should we go changing articles about US history because a bunch of Tea Party activists come in shrieking about how Thomas Jefferson should be portrayed as a devout Christian rather than a Deist who wrote an entire book about Jesus being merely a mortal? Sure, "hundreds" of editors have complained about "Shudra", or "dog etymology" or "Some members of this caste supported the British in 1857", but failing yourself (who knows WP policy and actually expresses it) essentially all of them have simply complained with no substantiation for their case. I think your message is inconsistent too: the varna system is over and done with. But it's okay to call people Vaishya, Brahmin, Kshatriya, etc. because they're not offensive and "continue to be used freely". However, despite us noting that "Shudra" is used by modern-era academics, that "Shudra" was used in Indian newspapers in this last week, you insist that nobody is a Shudra anymore, the term has no significance, etc. If people can be "regarded as belonging" to the other castes, why not Shudra? This is even more the case when it's historical: do you have any reason that "Foo caste was listed as Shudra in the 1901 census" would be inappropriate in a section on caste politics?
I'm really trying to grasp your arguments here, and you have made some good points on calls for strict sourcing standards, though at some points defying common sense, such as insisting that "nobody on the planet" questions Lodhi Rajput status despite copious mentions thereof. However, I'm simply failing to see any argument in your Shudra antipathy other than there being a law in India which doesn't apply to WM overall and which I doubt penalises academic discussions of class, and the fact that it offends people (tough tiddlywinks). If I'm missing something here, let me know, and/or take it to the Dispute Resolution of your choice. What you cannot do is continue to run about stating (or implying) that Sitush, I, and others are "ruining" the caste articles we've worked so hard to improve, especially when you go whispering this to new or inexperienced editors, which looks awfully like attempts to rile folks against the caste cleanups. You simply can't continue using terms like "bullshit" and "lies" and expect to be part of this process. We have a bunch of serious editors finally coming together on WP:INDIA to discuss how to address caste, and yet you want to linger on the outskirts deriding the whole endeavor rather than be included. Either Sitush and I are the single greatest threats to Indian communities on Wikipedia and deserve harsh reprimands through DR (which have mainly resulted in our being patted on the back thus far), or else you are being far too aggressive with a political agenda and expressing way too much hostility. Believe what you like, but you cannot continue to degrade the discourse on the project as you have been, especially when you are so clearly capable of being a valuable contributor and constructively-critical voice. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep making strawman arguments. I was not saying that this law is of any concern to WP. I was only explaining how this law has made this word taboo and how this word going out of general use means that nobody in India can be a S*****. Do not raise the "WP is not censored" bogey again. I am not asking that anything be censored. I am only saying that we should not be saying things which are known to be in contradiction with reality or which are against WP policies. I have already explained how people cannot be S***** at present. I am not going to do it again. I have not said that nobody on this planet questions...., I said nobody disputes. How many times must I explain? On the S***** issue, you do continue to miss the point. I have explained that nobody can be a S***** at present. You do not comprehend this point. You can continue to think of them as "tough tiddlywinks". What do you want them to do to prove otherwise? You saying that you will continue to insert stuff because they are not tough enough to be able to stop you and you think you are tougher than them? If I find misrepresentations and OR lies and substandard/ amateur sources etc. I am going to describe them as "rubbish" etc. I have done so in articles and have shown which ones are rubbish and I have also explained why they are rubbish. As long as I can explain why a particular source/ sentence is a misrepresentation etc. I am going to characterize them as "rubbish". You have has one DR closure going in your favor. But you have not reinserted the material. Reinsert it in the same form, them claim victory. If you cannot reinsert it in the same form, your victory is empty. Reinsert it, and you are likely to see me take it for further reevaluation.MWℳ18:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is in general use. Court judgements use it: [12][13] and the Times of India [14] as well as the above mentioned The Hindu and The Indian Express. So it isn't automatically illegal, and it is in recent use in widely published news sources as well as official documents. Do you have any more arguments to bring out? Please be careful as it should be obvious by now that they will be closely scrutinized.JanetteDoe (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to go through the court judgments which you show. It appears that the courts are using this word because some provisions of Hindu law depend on the varna of a person and it becomes necessary to discuss the varna. That is not a general situation. The courts also may enjoy indemnity for what they do or say. General people do not enjoy indemnity. I have also looked through the newspapers which you show. They do not seem to be asserting this word on any person or caste and are using it in other ways only.MWℳ00:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, "tough tiddlywinks" means "sorry, life is unpleasant, I don't care if people are upset." As in "if we can properly source the word Shudra, I don't care in the slightest if it upsets people." So far as strawmanning, these hordes of upset people don't care how I nuance it, they're going to scream about "Shudra" appearing anywhere near "their" article. Again, if you made comments like "The Smithson reference is referring specifically to the 1901 sentence, so the phrase should be Foo were referred to as Shudra in the 1901 census instead of the vauge Foo have been seen as Shudra. Likewise instead of playing the game of "doubts vs. disputes" you could simply say "I think doubts would be a better word" rather than saying silly things like "nobody on the planet disputes..." It is beyond me how you can have such a keen attention, and yet use it so combatitively rather than try to actually improve the article. You just want to duck and dodge everything, and deny the clear fact that such a thing as Shudra has existed, that the term is still in use, and most importantly that the repercussions of varna are of great importance in the modern day.
Further, sure, WP:OSE, but you have a particularly directed focus on removing anything "negative" about a caste by any means necessary, while completely ignoring the loads of IP-induced drivel surrounding it. This, combined with your rather convoluted arguments about literally one single word, over which so much electronic ink has been shed, is why folks have been concerned about your intentions. It's not that your activities happen to have brought you into conflict with caste cleanups, it's that you have dove into a large portion of caste cleanup articles to struggle to block "defamatory" material with the vaguest of complaints and ongoing appeals to WP policy of rather suspect intent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the title of this section says "the caste-editing issue in general", the question is not one of legality of the term but whether it can be applied to the lead section of articles and make it sound that a community is currently, in 2011, Shudra. For the word to make it to the lead of any article, the enthusiastic editors should first develop complete sections on this in caste articles and then summarize it in the lead in a historical context with dates and other relevant information.
Regarding the sources you provide in support of your claim that the term is in general use:
All of the Times of India (TOI) articles use the term in a historical context (i.e, quotes reproduced from the past, book titles)
They occur only once in all of the cited articles.
They do not label a particular community as Shudra.
Millions of articles on caste related matters are published every year and the fact that we could come up with 5 articles from the archives in itself says something.
Also worth noting is the usage of quotes around the word.
His PhD on Shudras in Ancient India under Arthur Llewellyn Basham at the School of Oriental and African Studies in the 1950s had become something of a rage.
1 (0.2%)
501
Historical
No
Proximity to Delhi basis of Jats' bargaining power?
Jats have always been a landed community high on social hierarchy and never treated as 'shudras'.
1 (0.32%)
312
Historical
No
Divided by politics, bonded by love of books
Equally weighty on Raut's list are Dr B R Ambedkar's three tomes-Who Were The Shudras?, The Annihilation Of Caste and The Buddha And His Dhamma.
1(0.19%)
513
Historical
No
Gayatri Mahayagya by Houston Gayatri Pariwar
In spite of strong opposition Pt. Shriram fought against the dogma preventing chanting of Gayatri mantra by females and non-brahmins. He said everybody is born shudra but becomes a brahmin by his karmas (actions). Today, because of him one can openly chant gayatri mantra regardless of their caste, sex, religion etc.
1 (0.16%)
640
Historical
No
Students rename themselves to mark Ambedkar Jayanthi
With hands on their hearts, they took an oath to look beyond the divisions of caste. So from Thursday onwards, they ceased to be Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas or Shudras. They were just free Indians.
Hi MangoWong
Thanks for your note on my page .....no am not upset with you .... if that's what you meant ...Wikipedia has been good and bad news for me , (bad) Ive spent a lot of money buying books , (good) my library has grown . Challenge for wikipedia ... there's as much , perhaps much more , good quality information recorded in the deletions as on the current page , maybe someone in the near will come up with a smart app ....Cheers Intothefire (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MW, posting requests to watch out for 'erratic behavior' on the part of named editors with a "they may screw up this page" edit summary [15] is a clear violation of the no personal attacks policy. I note that the edits have been reversed but please do consider this a warning. You will be blocked if you make such an attack on Fowler&fowler or Saravask again. Any behavioral concerns that you may have about specific editors should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:WQA and not brought up on extraneous talk pages. --regentspark (comment) 12:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that they were behaving erratically and I do not think that this was a personal attack. I am also concerned that too many involved admins seem to be taking up admin roles in India related articles. If you have posted this warning here as an admin, I think it should not be here because I think you are involved as an ed on India related articles. Of course, me saying this means that someone else could turn up to attest what you said. But I think applying WP:INVOLVED properly is still a concern.MWℳ12:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MW, there is no question of being involved or uninvolved when it comes to personal attacks. The post linked above is a clear personal attack because it talks negatively about editors and has no article related content at all. Once again, I suggest that if you have grievances against particular editors, please use an appropriate forum for airing them. If you believe that it is inappropriate for me to warn you, you can take the matter up on WP:ANI. --regentspark (comment) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading of WP:NPA seems to be too broad and that of WP:INVOLVED too narrow. Both of them seem to be unreasonable. At the very least, you don't seem to be following what is described as "best practice" in WP:INVOLVED. You don't seem to take WP:INVOLVED seriously at all. I am not taking it to WP:ANI because I don't think this instance of you not taking WP:INVOLVED seriously, is serious enough to be taken to WP:ANI.-MWℳ00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter to me either way. As long as you realize that you shouldn't be posting the sort of message you did on the India talk page, I'll treat this exchange as a plus. --regentspark (comment) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't matter to me either. As long as this exchange could provide you some impulse to follow "best practice", as described in WP:INVOLVED, I too would look at it as a plus.MWℳ00:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Perhaps I need to reiterate the message since you don't seem to be getting it. Your post on Talk:India was an attack on fowler & Saravask. If you post another message like that one, you will be blocked. If you believe that f&f and saravask have been making personal attacks, take it to WP:WQA. If you believe that my warning you is out of order, please take this to WP:ANI. Regards. --regentspark (comment) 01:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INVOLVED only says that involved admins can't take admin actions except in special circumstances. But, by definition, every editor is allowed to give appropriate warnings to everyone, involved or not. I don't know if RegentsPark is too involved to block you, but, by definition, no one is too involved to warn you. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the diff and I can also provide several diffs on different talk pages, which are clearly personal attacks by Fowler & Fowler with many uncivil edit summaries and comments. One should only do a comparison. Further, Topic India has many things in common to other India related articles, so MW's concern seems to be genuine. There is nothing unusual in bringing to notice of other editors what few editors thinking about the topic in general, itself is. At most you can only ask MW to rephrase some parts of it. If that is permissible, instead of warning just ask him to repost, politely. Ikon No-Blast20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After discussing the issue for months, and about three days after mentioning on the talk page that a particular statement on the "Kayastha" page is not supported by the citation provided, I proceeded to delete the non-supported part of the statement. In my view, this is a solid Wikipedia ground for deleting a statement.
Sitush has chosen to revert my deletion saying "I have failed to prove this." Of course, I have proved it.
Can you kindly tell me where I'm going wrong on this and what I should do here. In my view, if Sitush had any objection he should have debated it on the talk page where I'd raised the issue about the invalidity of the citation, before I proceeded with the deletion. Secondly, as per Wikipedia rules, isn't it the duty of the editor making a claim to prove a statement rather than for others to prove him wrong. Isn't it ground enough that the citation he provides does not support the claim made? I would like to re-revert Sitush's action, but, I want to tread cautiously, for I feel, there is a lot of politics here, esp. against non-westerners, and I may easily be blocked.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Hi. I'd not noticed {{citation not found}}. What I'd be inclined to do would be to add a {{cite book}} (or another) down in whatever sources section so that the footnote link has a target; just use the author and year and hopefully the ref can be expanded to full-form. There are a lot of people who /hate/ all forms of templates associated with referencing. They want plain text, period. See the massive referencing destruction that occurred over the last week on Ernest Hemingway. This by the original author. All WP:DIVA and WP:POINTyWP:OWNership. It was all over outsiders trespassing and offering that tool and comments about how to improve the citations. Needless to say, it all went downhill.
I edited Kunbi, the other day. There are (were) still two that need a year, or something. I saw a few other issues, like the need for some {{sfnRef}} to better control the text of the footnotes links. I'll go look again, and move something along. Alarbus (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See here and here. This avoids anomalies such as 'a' and 'b' on the year in favour of the titles. Several were rather long for in-prose, so I named them and connected them up with LDR. The cites to TNN/Times News India have a similar date issue; seems you had to use 'TNN' to get them all to be unique ref-targets. They could be named much as I did Menon. Hand-ball ;) Alarbus (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I guess I should have let you know already. That article has some peculiar and complicated problems. I mean, the article content itself does not seem to be the problem, but.... the contributers there... including myself of course.... have a complicated history with each other. And I think it may be better to let things go easy on that article. Trying to do anything there presently may be too expensive in terms of time and effort required. And those are simply stylistic changes, so ....better let things be as they are for now.MWℳ14:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that concern is complex, wait until you hear from the people involved in the Hemingway article. I see you tried to help; you may live to regret that. As to Kunbi, the fellow may have a point. But I mostly believe that better should be standard. No one will fault an inexperienced editor for not following something like sfn; it is the task of the more skillful to help things along. The techniques I offered will be of use elsewhere. Alarbus (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever be the level of complexity at Ernest Hemingway, I assure you it is a walk-in-the-park compared to what we have at Kunbi. Actually, you don't "get" even 1% of the complexity by going through that articles' history or talk page. It all has a longer and broader history...:-) Let's not waste time on it...:-)MWℳ15:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeatedly making blatantly false claims about the conduct of another editor is adding up to serial harassment. The editor in question did not say, or even vaguely imply, the things you claim. If this harassment continues once your current block expires, you should expect further blocks of escalating duration. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Your recent conduct on WP:ANI demonstrates that you have learned nothing from the recent block and are determined to continue your aggressive stance and harassment. Based on the consensus about the disruptiveness of your actions that has been established in the ANI discussion, I am blocking you again, for a month this time. Fut.Perf.☼19:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. trunks_ishida (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Leucospermum_cultivar_Edit.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Dakshina_lanka_Highway.jpg){kind=link}