User talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2012/October

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


Dodgy Indic source

I may have found another dodgy Indic source but can only see the stuff in snippet view. Using this search of GBooks, the results include Bamber Gascoigne's 1971 The Great Moghuls, showing

During the next eight years Aurangzeb remained viceroy of the Deccan, a post which he filled very successfully, being ... rank and allowance.4 His dismissal occurred during a visit to Agra in the summer of 1644 to see his elder sister Jahanara ...

The next entry in the search results is Encyclopaedia Indica (1999) and the snippet is

During the next eight years Aurangzeb remained viceroy of the Deccan, a post which he filled very successfully, being ... His dismissal occurred during a visit to Agra in the summer of 1644 to see his elder sister Jahanara, who had acted ...

That second source - EI - is presently used on 60 pages, if we allow for variant spellings. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it could be that EI is quoting Gascoigne, but I doubt it. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't have much time now, but on first glance this kind of referencing appears to be Mughal Lohar's. Can you check with Doug on this? He and I have been tackling this clean up after Nev left. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what am I supposed to be looking at here? And I think the 1947 translation on the Scribd.com site is probably copyvio, as is much of the stuff on scribd. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are supposed to be looking at either. I'm just passing on SS's message and was a bit confused about it myself. The source may have been inserted by Mughal Lohar, but that wasn't really my query. Probably, Spiffy was in a rush - been there, done that ;)

Yes, the 1947 translation link to scribd (which is a different issue - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primary_source_at_Aurangzeb) should go. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Meh, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were querying about the referencing problem and the need for associated clean up -- and this one having all the trademarks of ML, I referred you to Doug. Didn't realize that it was on EI; I think it should be treated as a copyvio source as it's clearly not reproductions of out of copyright works. —SpacemanSpiff 12:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For making some excellent pages on cricket Harishrawat11 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

New Delhi

I encountered with this article.I think New Delhi is a part of Delhi.It is the most recent of the eight cities within Delhi.If we see the article most of the content or i say the whole is written in a manner that describes everything about Delhi. Aren't the article should say everything about New Delhi.Do correct if i am not knowing the difference.(please reply on my talk page as my watch list is overflowing)kind regards and Thank You. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 17:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what you're saying, I find most of the info pertinent to New Delhi alone, except parts of the transport section which appears to have a lot of info irrelevant to ND. —SpacemanSpiff 03:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

FAR?

Hi SpacemanSpiff! I was wandering around the dark halls of Wikipedia, and stumbled across Chola dynasty. I then stumbled across your message at Talk:Chola dynasty#Featured article review, which I see was made several months ago. It doesn't look like much work was done on the article, and there is still at least one major cleanup banner on it. Are you still thinking about putting it up for FAR? I was planning to put a "work needed" note on the talk page until I saw yours was already there, so I wanted to check and see what your thoughts were on the article in its current state. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, Dana boomer (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dana, I've been meaning to get on this FAR cleanup around India articles for a long time. This is definitely high on the list, about two years back a lot of minority viewpoints came into the article. This isn't the only one of its kind, there are a few more of the Southern Indian kingdoms where these problems exist. Fowler and I've been meaning to get started on this, I'll work with him have a decent enough analysis for FAR over the next 2-4 of weeks on this one. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful! I'll be more than happy to turn over cleanup/FAR-ing (as necessary) of India articles to you and Fowler. Let me know if you need help with anything, Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra review

I nominated this for GA recently. An editor who just registered yesterday, has 'started' the review, and I don't think they know what to do with it now. They are adding all sorts of stuff about her music "career" to various articles that you can see here. I don't know if they are trying to hold the review hostage, so that I will make their requested changes, or if was an honest mistake, but I would like this article go through a genuine GA review. Is there something you can do to help this user give up the review and put it back in the pool without passing or failing it? BollyJeff | talk 14:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Allahabad

Hi, I've nominated this article for GA.It's been so long but no one is bother to review it(they might be busy).Since its my first GA nomination so i want of course good reviewer.Please let Me know if you're interested.Thank You & kind regards. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time for a review, but on first look, the article is not near a GA review. There are pictures used which have no relevance to the article, and a lot of the content consists of disparate factoids, not really a summary article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.Well well i cant add those information which do no exits in city.I really dont feel that pictures i've used have no relevance to the article, but i'll follow your views for this article.You are more than welcome to leave your valuable suggestions on talk page.Once again thanks.Kind regards. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 06:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The air force image clearly doesn't belong, I haven't checked everything. As far as random statements, an article shouldn't consist of mere factoids, WP:DUE applies and weight should be given to what's important. e.g. X is from Allahabad, Y is from Allahabad etc don't have much relevance unless there's a reason presented. This is just one example. —SpacemanSpiff 05:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bt Brinjal

Hi, This is WebDTE. We hold the copyright permission from posting content from Down To Earth. It is our own magazine. So I think there is no copyright violation. We are will fully donating content. And I find reference to newspaper articles and stories in Wiki pages. So what is the problem if we do?

Thanks


Hi, I have tried to rework the sentences so that they do not look lifted up. Let me know if this works? Or what needs to be done. This information was missing from the page.


Thanks WebDTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebDTE (talk • contribs) 08:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two problems here, first is the copyvio -- unless you send permission or change the license on your website to something compatible, the content will not be accepted. The second is a COI and promotion. You appear to be promoting your website by adding it as a source everywhere, I don't know if the site itself is a reliable source per our guidelines, but even otherwise, you are clearly representing the website and promoting it here, which is wrong. Also, you'll need to change your username as it promotes your organization. Please check WP:CHU on how to go about it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

about retirement

are you crazy why you remove my request.--117.200.15.183 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Porul Ilakkanam

Hi,

I have added references to the article Porul ilakkanam. Would you like to reconsider your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porul ilakkanam. --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan

SpacemanSpiff, I saw your edit line saying that there is an OTRS request that the FRS letters not be added after his name. I would certainly honor any such request, but I haven't seen it. Perhaps you could prevent further reverts by adding a link to the request on the article's talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that in a short while, I'll just need to find it. The user Riboman is the subject and he'd confirmed this through OTRS along with a request to not add the title ("Sir") or the letters ("FRS" etc). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done—SpacemanSpiff 03:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I followed the ticket number and got "Request for comment/Legal Fees Assistance Program". RockMagnetist (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how you got there, but I just clicked the ticket again and it goes to a ticket with the subject "wikipedia page about me" that I was referring to, created "07/25/2012 18:17:17". As far as the subject's requests go, they are all in the edit summaries on the article history too. It was only much later that I suggested to him that he forward the email he sent me to OTRS instead as that would verify that he is indeed the subject and his request (although he didn't forward the email, he sent a new one). —SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This is one edit where he has also said that. He very often edits as an IP (which is why I suggested to him that he use his account and verify it) where he's noted the same while reverting. —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess I don't have login access to the OTRS site, but you have convinced me anyway. There might have been fewer reverts if he'd identified himself on the talk page. When I came into it, I saw an edit summary saying "please respect my wishes" and thought it was just some arbitrary editor who was trying to impose his own style on the page. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
To gain access to the OTRS site, you'll need to request at meta: m:OTRS/volunteering. There are many OTRS volunteers on en.wiki to verify tickets though, some of them are listed at Category:Wikipedia OTRS volunteers. As for your other point on the edits of "respect my wishes", that's precisely the reason I'd asked him to send the email to OTRS as without a confirmed identity, it just causes confusion and justified distrust. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI

I love the dog. Reminds me of one of my family's dogs when I was a boy.

However, that is not what I came here about. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1 you said "This is ABDEVILLIERS alright" ("This" presumably being Shahdaan Khan). If so, is there any reason you don't go ahead and indef-block? Alternatively, would you like to tell me why you are so sure? (By email if you wish to avoid "Beans" problems.) I would have gone ahead and indeffed without an SPI if I had been as sure as you seem to be. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I didn't block is because I'm avoiding any blocks that may require an explanation later as I'm not very active right now and it could be a few days sometimes before I can actually respond with details, so I do only the most straightforward of admin actions currently. I will email you with some behavioral comparisons. That said, I too was of the initial opinion that AB was MrP but there's something a little odd about that. Elockid and I have had our doubts for a while. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the email. What you pointed out there, together with other evidence, and the fact that I was already 90% sure that Shahdaan Khan was a sockpuppet of someone, has added up to enough for me to indef-block Shahdaan Khan. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

User:Priyanku.Phukan's unblock request

Hi SpacemanSpiff. Priyanku.Phukan has posted a fairly reasaonable unblock request (he admits what he did was wrong and undertakes not to do it again) and since his sock account is now blocked the problem shouldn't reoccur. Given his edit history and pages created I have serious doubts about his ability to contribute constructively (and so would probably ask him to find an adopter or mentor as a condition of unblocking) but that's tangential to the reasons for the block, which he's addressed. Can I get your take on the issue before proceeding, please? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I had only blocked one of his accounts (not the main one), so I'd left open the possibility of him editing constructively if he so wished (his copyvios both here and at Commons are worrisome though), so I have no objections at all to unblocking this account now since the other has been blocked as a sock. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go let him loose. I share your concerns about copyvios, but he has claimed that he understands the policy now - we'll see what he does with a bit of rope. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Indian history FARs

See User:SpacemanSpiff/FAR

Hi Dana, I've been looking through a few articles and whilst Chola dynasty has a few tags, it's probably one of the better ones! Western Ganga Dynasty is a bigger problem as the article does not rely on mainstream sources at all, unlike the Chola dynasty one where use of outdated or fringe sources is in the minority. A bigger problem here is the level of synth in it. While the Chola one deviates from key sources (Stein / Kulke / U Singh / Thapar et al) on occasion, some of the others hardly ever find commonality with them. Our article on the main source doesn't give me any confidence either. There's a cluster of these FAs related to Western Ganga (I think around ten when I counted -- Chalukya, Hoysala, Mysore etc) and they all have this problem. How do you suggest we go about this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi SpacemanSpiff - Thanks for your note, and for taking the time to look through these articles. It sounds like they all need either significant work or FARs. Is there anyone interested in working on these articles to bring them into compliance with FA criteria? Would messages to the relevant project(s) bring any positive response? If so, that would be my first step. If not, I guess just begin posting messages on each articles' talk page outlining your concerns and stating that if they're not addressed, the article will need to go to FAR. If no work is done, they can start being brought to FAR. I don't think we should pile them in there all at one time - maybe one every two weeks or so? Then, if someone pops up who is interested in working on them, we can work with their schedule. I know this means that it will be something like five months, best case scenario, before they're all brought to FAR, but we do try hard to not pile on a bunch of articles from one project at a time, just in case someone is interested in working on them. Thoughts, comments, concerns? Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with this - I'm willing, but without a background in the sources, I don't know if I'll be more of a help or a hindrance :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll ask Fowler and RegentsPark (he identified the seriousness of the WG mess, apparently everything online is just a mirror!) to take a look and participate in this conversation. I'll do that at my talk page (and copy my post above) so that it's centralized, hopefully you can watchlist it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I already had this page (your talk page) watchlisted, and I'll keep abreast of the conversation and give my two cents if I feel I have anything valuable to contribute. Dana boomer (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think WG can be salvaged, the article is riddled with POV. There may though be editors interested in saving Chola dynasty. --regentspark (comment) 16:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
RP, can you add the problems to that page then? I think one point of discussion ought to be Kamath as a source, another is a comparison with Stein / Kulke / Thapar etc (and I'll review any content related to WG in them sometime during the next week). Meanwhile, perhaps it might be a good option to list Chola at WT:INB for clean up too as it's probably salvageable in comparison. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, the FA status should just be taken away from WG but I'll try. Am busy for a bit but will get to it if fowler doesn't take care of it first - the spouse is away on a long trip and the kids and RL work are simultaneously clamoring for attention! --regentspark (comment) 15:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with RgPk. Not just WG, but really all should be simply de-FA'd. They have strong POV based either on regional nationalism, or on monarchistic, pro-Wodeyar, view of Karnataka history. It would be very difficult to save them. Besides, if someone is going to take the time to do salvage work, they would be spending their time more profitably working on the more vital India-related articles which are languishing in neglect, some even in Start- or C-class. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Hello, I am so sorry that i gave the title different I didn't Know that but slowly slowly I have come to Know, Sorry & Thank You Greatuser (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Merging Porul ilakkanam to Tamil grammar

I have proposed that Porul ilakkanam be merged to Tamil grammar. Since you recently discussed the articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porul ilakkanam, I would welcome any comments you may have on the proposed merge. The discussion is at Talk:Tamil grammar#Merge discussion. Thanks, and happy editing. Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverts of Goldduck58's contributions

Most of the contributions are good, not vandalism. Why are you reverting them? --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

He's a banned editor, he has caused more than enough problems here and there's no reason to sift through individual edits. If you wish, you can reinstate good ones. —SpacemanSpiff 13:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
He is a sockpuppet, but that does not mean all edits are bad. Reverting your revert when appropriate. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said, you are free to restore wherever you find validity, but he's not welcome to contribute here until he has his ban revoked and for the remaining duration that I edit on Wikipedia, I will revert these people. That said, my revert on your talk page was accidental, I didn't mean to revert that, so I have self reverted there. —SpacemanSpiff 13:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2012/October&oldid=1089841388"