Talk:Ashok Banker

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

Banker's science fiction/Reversion of article[edit]

Links to SF-related categories were removed with the explanation "got nothing to do with Sci-fi". However, Banker writes about the SF he's written and published in the introductory notes to two SF stories that he's posted online, East of the sun, west of Europe and Small Acts Of Betrayal. Further, in this interview he refers to The Krishna Coriolis as "my SF retelling of the adventures of Krishna", and discusses how he's trying to integrate SF tropes and quantum mechanics into his entire sequence of mythological epics.

Some of this obviously needs to be integrated into the article. I'd been planning to do so anyway along with some other minor revision, so I'll take care of it directly after posting this. Aitch Eye 21:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Banker, the subject of this page, questions the accuracy of this entry and requests that it be deleted in its entirety until such time as the facts can be verified by reliable primary sources. He concedes to the Bibliography and links section being retained; however, he feels there are a few errors in these as well. 210.214.10.55 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)User: Ashwin[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

  • We have TBA and Unsub in this section. I understand TBA. What is Unsub?
  • Why do we have forthcoming titles in the bibliography? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are not here to tell the future. Nor do we have any refs to support these forthcoming titles.
  • User Ashwin responds: The refs were on the page itself, in a long profile of Banker by Telegraph, Kolkata, as well as Banker's own publishers in India, Penguin Books who have contracted with Banker for the various forthcoming titles. Wikipedia has several thousands of pages listing movies in production, books forthcoming from authors, music albums planned, etc. Clearly the person making the 'crystal ball' comment has some personal grouse against Banker and is maliciously deleting material from this page and adding unreferenced and libellious comments which are purely fictional in nature.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.40.188 (talk • contribs)
I have no personal grouse, nor any malice towards a person I haven't even met. Please keep your childish allegations to yourself. I am simply an editor looking for references. If indeed the references are on those pages, it can be noted on this talk page (without this drama about malicious deletions and libelous comments).xC | ☎ 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless clarified, I'll be removing these titles in 48 hours.xC | ☎ 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD - went ahead and removed them. There were no reliable sources to support em.xC | ☎ 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Ashwin has removed the paragraph about some alleged dispute between Banker and Virgin Comics. There was no reference to substantiate the mention. In fact, Banker has said clearly on several forums as well as his own website that the comic based on the 'Devi' stories is being published by Vertigo Comics. Clearly, the writer mistook the Vertigo comic for another comic titled 'The Sadhu' which Banker wrote earlier for Virgin Comics. Vertigo Comics and Virgin Comics are two entirely separate entities with no connection.
  • User Ashwin has also removed the specious comments about an unreferenced and unsourced 'article' written by Banker as there is no mention of even the publication in which this purported article appeared, let alone a ref to the specific article itself. The comments about Banker's alleged attempt to gain publicity by not doing publicity is in itself contradictory and have been deleted as well.
  • The only sources and links cited on the page lead to non-existent web pages.
  • Links and sources citing actual refs to published articles as well as to Banker's official website have been removed by the same person (see above) who deleted the 'forthcoming' titles and added the malicious comments.
  • I am forwarding these issues to the concerned parties as there is a possibility of legal action against Wikipedia, especially by Virgin Comics, for citing the alleged 'dispute' without any factual verification or backing. The deletion of comments and titles and addition of malicious comments further proves that this Wikipedia page has been hacked by persons with personal axes to grind against Banker.
  • Wikipedia senior editors please note the above and deal with the problem before it gets out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.40.188 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP guidelines, have deleted several other statements that are without citation or ref. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.41.57 (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets clear out a few things, shall we?
  • I have no idea about the Vertigo-Virgin comics issue. I have no idea whether or not it was even an issue in the first place.
  • The only sources and links cited on the page lead to non-existent web pages. - I noticed that, which is why I removed stuff which wasn't referenced. Your point is?
  • Links and sources citing actual refs to published articles as well as to Banker's official website have been removed by the same person (see above) who deleted the 'forthcoming' titles and added the malicious comments. - Your constant use of the word malicious is painful, to say the least. You can check the article history, there were no refs provided for that phenomenally long list of TBA titles. A direct link to a list, or interview, or something of the sort that satisfies WP:V is necessary.
  • Lastly, we're all voluntary editors here. We're not getting paid to be malicious to Banker, or anyone else. We're just trying to build a respectable encyclopedia, and so your constant use of the words malicious seems all the more wrong when we're just trying to help.
Regards,xC | ☎ 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to further note, both refs given in the article at present onetwo have absolutely nothing on them. They just have the words epicindia.com. The links are useless as references.
Another quick look around reveals epicindia.com is run by Banker himself. As such, using a website run by an individual to validate claims about that individual's work seems a little shaky to me.
Regards,xC | ☎ 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the two empty references from the article, as they added nothing and only created an illusion of there being referenced content in the article.
Lastly, at its heaviest, the article was this - oldversion. If it is of any help to anyone, please do have a look.
Regards,xC | ☎ 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have edited and revised certain paragraphs relating to the article by Banker--said article was in Mid-day where I worked at the time, so I have made changes that more accurately reflect what happened, and have toned down the accusatory tone of the phrasing.
Have changed 'eight-volume' in two places to 'six-volume' as Banker's Ramayana series is clearly only six volumes. Since the 'forthcoming' books section was deleted in its entirety (for reasons I still don't fathom), what is the point of keeping the 'eight-volume' mention without any citation or reference to back it up? There are six published volumes, as and when future volumes are published, they can be added at that time.
For the same reason, i.e. unpublished as of now, I have deleted mention of the fourth hardcover Ramayana volume.
Ditto reason for deletion of the two forthcoming projects "Sword of Dharma" and "Mahabaalak". The only source seems to be Banker's own website, and quite correctly, as mentioned by Xcentaur, that is not the most acceptable source.
I suspect that most of the contents of the page have been lifted verbatim by someone from Banker's own website and posted here by some WP editor sympathetic to Banker, please ensure that copyright has not been violated.
I have also deleted the mention of Virgin Comics. I recall at least two articles in respectable publications--The Telegraph, Kolkata, and Hindustan Times, New Delhi, which cited the Vertigo Comic series Banker is working on which is quite on track and scheduled for publication in 2008. (Will try to find online references for both these sources.) The Virgin Comics dispute, if there ever was one, has no citation or reference and clearly, the person posting mention of it is confusing Banker's Vertigo Comics project with the unnamed Virgin Comics project--an understandable error. I suggest we leave out mention of the alleged dispute with Virgin Comics and the mention of the 'legal notice' posted by anonymous person, as there is no relevance and may possibly raise legal issues with Vertigo Comics and Banker as well as with Virgin Comics. Until and unless you get your facts right, don't add material!
Regards, user ShwTarn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.144.254 (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - said edits were reverted by User:Vetinarih with this edit.
I've changed the eight-vol to six as its in progress right now. We can only count the number of volumes which have been released, not the expected number of volumes. That is information for which we do not have a reference. Similarly, I've removed the upcoming hardcover omnibus and 2 other titles. No future-telling without refs.
I don't have much knowledge about the Mid-day incident. I'll read up on it before offering an opinion. For now, I've added a "refs needed" tag to the page, if it helps.
I suspect a similar copyvio. On the other hand, considering how some of the anon edits have been, I wouldn't be surprised if it was written by Banker himself, or somebody biased towards him.
I completely agree with the entire Virgin Comics-Vertigo Comics fiasco. I'll be removing anything which doesn't have a reference but makes claims based on facts within 48 hours. A similar incident happened on the Ron Jeremy, Jimbo stubbed the entire article because it talked of incidents and facts without any references. Lets keep things real, people.
Regards,xC | ☎ 17:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither have references been cited, nor have the copyvios been corrected. Also, the '48 hours' have long since passed, but the uncited claims and unrereferenced statements still remain. Keep things real by doing something, not just talking about it.
Regards, user ShwTarn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.40.29 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, are you stupid? I have a life outside WP, you whiner. Why don't you provide refs, since you like talking so much?
I'm not paid for this, so I'll get to it as, if and when I can.
I just removed the copyvio bit. Interestingly, as far as I can see, you haven't fixed anything. I don't understand why you couldn't have removed it yourself instead of crying about it. I have over 600 articles on my watchlist. Every now and then, something slips under the radar.
But that isn't something within your range of comprehension. So why don't you just go back to doing nothing, and stop posting rubbish here? Or here's an idea - why don't you improve this article? That way, you'll be keeping things real by doing something, not just talking about it.
If editors like you just did what is expected of them (ie. improving articles) things would be a lot easier on all of us here on WP. Instead, you choose to spend your time attacking other volunteers pressed for time and resources. Counter-productive, at the very least.
-xC- 13:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reversions of legitimate content[edit]

An IP editor had added large portions of content with refs to the article - see the comparison.

These were reverted by some user Minormorgul, not me, as being wrongly claimed by Banker on his blog. The edit with which Minormogul removed the anon edits was [1]. As is clear from Minormogul's contribs page, he has only one edit to this page, and that was this reversion.

Clearly there is some mischief happening, and I am being blamed for it. I was the next edit on the page, two days later, with this edit per the discussion on the talk page with User ShwTarn (above) about removing copyvios. All I've done is do what was right, and I'm being blamed for ruining this article?? Banker or his friends, whoever is reading this, it wasn't me who reverted the IP edits. Stop blaming me for it.

On this page, there have been dozens of bot reversions, because there are bots running on WP to prevent vandalism and some edits by IPs could be mistaken for vandalism, hence the confusion.

Other examples of reversions on this article for which I am being blamed are -

  • This edit by User:Vetinarih, removing three paragraphs from the article. As can be seen by anyone from the article history, I was the next two edits on the article. However, I noted my changes on the article on the talk page, Vetinarih didn't and so I was blamed for the removals.
  • There were a large number of edits on the page by another IP. The final comparison (12 edits by IPs between this) is at this link. Right after this, another editor User:Lilac Soul reverted all these changes, believing them to be vandalism (as noted in the edit summary). The diff for the reversion is here. I did not revert this, but I was blamed on the article talk page for it.
  • Right after Lilac Soul's reversion, the next edit is by another IP - this edit, removing a large portion of the content. This was on 23 december 07, and this IP editor noted his/her changes on the article talk page, with the words - As per WP guidelines, have deleted several other statements that are without citation or ref. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.41.57 (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC) This was the edit that confused editor Ashwinblake into thinking it was me that removed the content. He wrote on the article talk page from IP 59.164.40.188, saying Clearly the person making the 'crystal ball' comment has some personal grouse against Banker and is maliciously deleting material from this page and adding unreferenced and libellious comments which are purely fictional in nature. I had not removed anything, they had been removed by the other IP, noted above. The libellous additions were also by some IP, whose edits I have noted below. That IP was not me, yet I am being blamed for all this.
  • There were again edits by an IP (diff presented here), who then also blanked the page. This was reverted by a bot (edit can be seen here). That was a bot reversion, not a removal of content by me, not a reversion by me. Yet again, on the talk page I was blamed for this reversion. Not me, it wasn't me.
  • Another series of IP edits, seen in this diff all on the 23rd, which were then reverted by User:MER-C with this edit and further went on to make this edit regarding the AfD nomination. Again, it wasn't me who reverted.
  • Further, there were edits by User:Ashwinblake, who went on to blank the page (again) with this edit. This was reverted by User:Shoessss with this edit, telling him not to blank the page just because the article was AfD'd.
  • Yet another edit by Ashwinblake on the same day, 23rd dec 07, and yet another reversion by MER-C can be seen in this edit. Clearly, 23rd dec was a very eventful day for the article, but I wasn't involved in any of the content removals or reversions. Not me, as wrongly noted by Banker on his blog.
  • And lastly, the most recent 28 edits by IPs, with one bot reversion in the middle can be seen in this edit. This was later reverted by User:Minormogul, with this diff, as noted above. Not me, not me, not me.

Now, I've placed all the facts in front of you. The edit history can be accessed by anyone, but Banker hasn't bothered to look up the article history. Instead, since I was the only editor replying or noting large-scale changes to the article on the article talk page, I am being blamed for ruining this article.

What we must realise is the article has been looked over by several editors, both registered and unregistered (ie. anon IPs), and all these changes haven't been noted on the article talk page by all the involved editors. So I have been wrongly blamed.

The blog post by Banker in which I have been blamed wrongly can be seen here - link.

I am no journalist, no failed writer. I've never tried writing a book in my life. I am a science student.

I am on no corporate payroll (sadly), and I am not paid for editing on WP against Banker.

The above sentence about being on a corporate payroll and me being sad about not being on it was a joke. I'd just like to clarify that, otherwise that might end up on a blog post as well, aboutn how malicious WP editors want to be on corporate payrolls, right?

In summary, I am not the person you should be blaming for ruining this article. I just formatted the article to get it in line with manual of style guidelines and made a fuss about having references in the article since that is a rule as well, clearly explained in verifiability rules and the requirement for reliable sources.

I hope Banker and his friends learn to use the 'History' tab on the top of the page, and understand that the edit history does not lie - I am not the person to blame.-xC- 10:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-addition of content[edit]

Dear Banker,

The edits by 59.164.41.124, which you mentioned in your blog post are - link.

I have put them all back in - edit link.

The article now strongly leans towards praising you, thus violating WP:NPOV. Thats probably because most of it has been written either by you or your friends. I'd like to start cleaning it up (again), but then I'd have another blog post up on the net, with you trying to shred my online reputation.

I invite you and your friends to edit the article in line with The five pillars of WP to improve the article. Of course, neutral editors are invited as well.

Cheers,-xC- 13:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know, where and what has Banker put into the article? The page history doesn't show him or anyone that corresponds to him. Also, is this really the right place to post personal messages to the subject of the article?
How does one verify if the persons editing articles are the subject or related to the subject of the article/s in question? Through the IP address? Am relatively new to Wikipedia so am curious to know, as it would be interesting to go through articles that display bias (as this one allegedly does) and track the author of the changes back through the IP. Is this possible?
Excuse me if this is obvious information available in the Help section--I looked but couldn't find it. I'll be happy with a link if not an explanation.
Thanks in advance.
Browndog72 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1] I have tried to clear my name of Banker's accusation that I am ruining his page (as he accused me of doing in his blog post), by writing the above talk section Reversions of legitimate content. You can use this link to go to it Talk:Ashok_Banker#Reversions_of_legitimate_content.
2] The page history shows IP addresses for unregistered users, and user names for registered users. There was a registered user going by the name of User:Ashokkbanker. He blanked the page twice, and even asked for the page to be deleted as it didnt satisfy him. There was another user who claimed to be EpicIndia's editor (User:Raphael M B). I have a partial list of IP addresses that IP addresses and users too (I am saying partial list because I have not seen the page or its history in a few months now, so its complete). Banker's own blog post says his friends (and/or associates) tried to edit the page. I am taking that means they did edit the page. The edits of the user AshokkBanker and the correspoding talk page edits all seem to point in the direction of Banker editing the article as well.
3] IP addresses can be checked by any IP checking service online. Many are available for free.
4] Yes, of course, the biased edits can be tracked through the History tab (top of the page). There you will see a list of edits, time of edit, made by whom, etc. You could go through the history of any page and see who has made what edits.
5] As noted in the section above Talk:Ashok_Banker#Reversions_of_legitimate_content, the edit history of this page is also open for everyone to see. You can see all the edits I made (constructive, in line with WP policies, and in good faith to improve the article). You can also see the edits made by whichever editors who were trying to ruin the page. You can also see that I was always trying to fix the page in line with WP policies, and I was wrongly accused of ruining the page on Banker's blog.

Why am I writing this in a reply to you, BrownDog72? Because I am trying to clear my name of this accusation. And I am willing to do it one person at a time. I believe it is all a case of Banker and his friends not seeing the article history, so they didn't know who made what edit. Since I was the only editor who replied on the talk page, they assumed it was me who made the faulty edits. Its a mistake anyone could make. But to hold me responsible for it was wrong.
Thanks,-xC- 14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xcentaur, thanks for your detailed explanation. I don't have any direct contact with Banker or his friends or anyone close to him. But after reading your comment above, I did some online research, mostly on public forums and groups that had discussed or were still discussing his work. As best as I can tell, Banker did attempt to edit out some malicious statements included on the page a while ago (don't know what they were but I don't believe they had anything to do with you) and was blocked by a bot reversal. Later, when he attempted to complain to a Wikipedia editor, he was apparently dismissed and ignored. All this is according to members of Banker's group who were aware of these events at the time. One of them knows of only one person who attempted on Banker's behalf to correct the obvious errors, and this person was already a Wikipedia editor besides being a reader of Banker's work, but even these changes were reversed, apparently by you this time, and she claimed that you had been insulting to her on this page. I do see a couple of entries where you might have exhibited more tact in your statements, if you don't mind my saying so.
Anyway, after these incidents, they say Banker was disgusted by the whole thing and stopped bothering about the WIkipedia page. Nobody on his behalf has been editing the page either, and one of the reasons they cite are your constant harping on Banker and his 'friends'. I have to admit, when I first began visiting this Talk page I got the impression you had some personal animosity against Banker. Banker himself seems totally unaware of you or your work here. Despite your repeated clarifications, I can tell you that nobody on his behalf is either reading your comments here or aware of them! In fact, when I mentioned your comments on this page to the group, they were surprised and shocked. If anything, they feel that you have been personally attacking Banker without cause.
Again, let me stress that I am not taking any side here. If anything, I sympathize with you. But perhaps you should let the whole matter go. Writing long notes to Banker here doesn't do you any credit, and as you rightly mentioned, the page History clearly shows who did what, so there's no further need to clarify. By continuing in this manner, you're only fuelling the conviction that you have some personal grouse against Banker. Let it go, and let's focus on making some more positive changes as you have already done so well.
Thanks for your patience. All the best.

Browndog72 (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What, are you stupid? I have a life outside WP, you whiner. Why don't you provide refs, since you like talking so much?"
Xcentaur, the line above is quoted from your own statement made on this page. It was in response to another editor and that editor didn't make any such abusive or insulting statement to you. So in my opinion, you ought not have used such language or tone. I believe this was the comment that the female editor who attempted to correct the errors on Banker's behalf was referring to.
If you don't mind my saying so, you seem to be a very productive and valuable editor here, with much good work behind you. It doesn't become you to use such phrasings to editors. Such statements only worsen matters.
Be well. All best.

Browndog72 (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged concerns[edit]

Hi. I have carried out some work and some formatting of references to improve the look of the sections, especially the References. However, I notice that there are "Forthcoming" publications in the Bibliography, as mentioned in the posts above. This is not what Bibliography is for. Rumoured (?) releases should be laid out in prose form in the main body of the article, with sources to prove they are "forthcoming". I have tagged the article for that concern.

Some of the "Epic India" sources (which still remain as References), and the external link (which I removed as this is allowable) do not work. The servers at epicindia.com/indianenglish are empty of the necessary files, and one cannot refer to the items promised through the use of those references. So duly tagged to illustrate that concern. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work and raising your concerns. When I had raised the same concern about forthcoming titles, I was flogged by User:Ashwinblake. (same as the IP editor : 59.164.40.188) (You can see the whole discussion in the talk section above named Bibliography)
Good to see positive work on the page :)-xC- 13:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Forthcoming"[edit]

Have deleted the entire section "Forthcoming" after searching extensively and finding no sources to corroborate the crystal-gazing. Browndog72 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing that section, BrownDog72, in line with WP policies. It was a removal I had proposed in Dec 2007 (see section Talk:Ashok Banker#Bibliography). For doing so, User:Ashwinblake had said I had some malice towards Banker. It is good to see that positive work is being done on this page, in line with WP's policies. I might also add that it was an edit I had suggested long back, which was seen as malicious by Banker, and which led to my name being flogged in his blog.
Banker, if you're reading this, I was editing in line with WP's policies. -xC- 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Xcentaur. I've been following the debate between you and other users on this page for some time. If I understand correctly, one of the things singled out by Banker in his blog post was the inaccurate information contained here on this page, including the "Forthcoming" section. It was that debate that prompted me to remove the Forthcoming section. Not sure why you need to keep addressing Banker himself on this page. As far as I can tell, he's expressly washed his hands off this page and Wikipedia because of such personal attacks. Perhaps we could stick to editing content and not engage in personal exchanges? Appreciate the help. Look forward to making more positive changes once I verify information thoroughly.

Browndog72 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of birthdate[edit]

Deleted birthdate as there is no reference or link to corroborate the date given apart from Banker's own website, which as per Wikipedia rules is not to be considered a reliable source. Browndog72 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this change as the author can reasonably be expected to be an expert and reliable source on his own date of birth. See http://ashokbanker.com/2007/10/10/history-a-work-in-progress/ --Pleasantville (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Pleasantville. I'll not touch that again, and thanks for the explanation. Though I thought that subject's own web pages were not to be considered reliable sources for _any_ information. Am still new and learning and appreciate any help, thanks again. Browndog72 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of unverifiable statements (6 paragraphs total)[edit]

Have deleted a total of six paragraphs as there are no references cited, and even after extensive searching online and offline, I am unable to find reliable sources to confirm any of the statements. Also, most of the statements appear to be in the nature of 'crystal gazing' which is specifically against the guidelines of Wikipedia's Biography articles. If and when someone has reliable sources confirming the same, kindly cite those references before reinstating the statements in the same or altered form. Also, some are patently outdated, such as the statements referring to publication in mid-2008 (which is long past) and the alleged 'note' on Banker's website, which is nowhere to be found. Presumably, these statements were added in good faith a long time ago by editors who read rumours on forums or on blogs and remained unchallenged all this while.

Will attempt to construct a more accurate and balanced biography of Banker over the next month or two. Would appreciate any help. Browndog72 (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of picture[edit]

I had placed a picture of Ashok Banker. This image can still be seen at the commons here. However User:Browndog72 deleted it citing "copyright concerns" and "doubts" about whether it was indeed Ashok Banker. The image is released at flickr with a license acceptable by Wikipedia as can been seen at the flickr page of the image. I have uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons with the Flickr uploadbot which does not accept images unless they have Wikipedia compatible licenses. Moreover it is indeed Ashok Banker as can be confirmed with a simple Google image search. I request Browndog72 to address my queries. --Belasd (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belasd, I still dispute the authenticity of that picture. Also, the source image you've linked to doesn't seem to exist! As for Google image search, it also throws up several dozen web pages which seem to have no images of Banker, just of his books or of a passing mention in some pages, so that method is unreliable, to say the least. I would think that rather than do a copyvio or post the wrong image it would be safer to keep the page without an image at all. Am not sure I understand why a picture is so essential for an encyclopaedia entry! Best wishes. --Browndog72 (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This query was also posted on your talk page at the same time. You answered my question there and I now consider the issue resolved. For posterity I transclude the rest of that conversation related to the picture as well. --Belasd (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion related to this query transcluded from Browndog72's talk page

Hi there. This is regarding the picture of Ashok Banker that you removed. I am wondering what is the copy right concern that you have? The image was taken by Cory Doctorow and released under the correct license which I uploaded from flickr. You can check this out at commons here. If it did not have the right license it would have been deleted sometime ago. Also why do you think this is not Ashok Banker? I attended one of his reading sessions sometime ago in Mumbai. He has put on a little weight but otherwise he looks just like the picture. --Belasd (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I have been a fan of his ever since I read Vertigo as a naive 16-year-old. Why would I put up spurious pictures? :) --Belasd (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Belasd. Nice to find a fellow reader of Banker's work. I have no idea how Doctorow could have taken a picture of him but I do question whether it is Banker or not. You can see a recent picture of him on the 'bio' page of his blog [2] and it seems like two different people. Incidentally, while looking at the blog to find the earlier post, I noticed that the pictures on Banker's bio page are also issued under a cc license. Why not use those rather than a picture taken by someone else which could be contentious? I've seen them on other 'fan' blog pages and read Banker's comments on his blog saying he encourages people to use those pictures rather than other dubious ones.
Incidentally, I find it surprising that you say you attended one of his 'reading sessions sometime ago in Mumbai'. Banker says quite clearly that he does not do readings or appearances of any sort anymore and has not done any for years! In view of the contradictions here, I suggest it might be best to leave off a picture altogether. Hence the deletion. All best to you! --Browndog72 (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry 'bout that. I must have got him confused with Samit Basu whom I met at a Kala Ghoda Arts Festival. However a Google image search does show resemblance with this but no matter. Indeed, the picture you have suggested is more sexy better. So I have uploaded it to Wikipedia and added it to the article page. There is an issue with this though. Wikipedia has a shoot-at-sight policy regarding images licensed for non-commercial use. See this essay, this policy and this section in particular for living people. I understand that you are new around this place and these links are not to burden you with policy with just to make you aware of them. Anyways with both of us having a watch on the page, if the image is deleted due to the non-free concern we will add a fair use rationale or approach the author to request a licensing change of the image. -- Belasd (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It was nice of you to correct the typo on my user page. :) Thanks. --Belasd (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't met or seen either Banker or Basu in person but I'm told there is a resemblance. I checked after your message and sure enough, Banker has not attended any appearances or readings for several years. So you probably mistook Basu for Banker (in pictures, I mean). I note your point on use of images, but am still not sure I understand it. If the image is creative commons, what's the problem? No, don't answer that - I will look it up myself. Thanks so much for your help. And you're most welcome (for the typo correction). That's why I became a Wiki editor, because I tend to notice such things out of sheer habit! --Browndog72 (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Ayodhya[edit]

The Wikipedia article "Prince of Ayodhya" has been changed to redirect to this author's article. I have found several reviews that describe "Prince of Ayodhya": [3], [4], [5], [6], & [7]. While not all of the reviews could be considered as reliable sources, I think that there is enough supportive evidence to justify a Wikipedia article on "Prince of Ayodhya". Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ashok Banker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staff benifit[edit]

Can a family pensioner get staff benifit like higher rate of interest as her husband used to get in his account being a bank staff? 202.142.67.22 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashok_Banker&oldid=1205786188"