Talk:Ram Kishore Shukla/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

References are found to be legitimate and authentic

References are found to be legitimate and authentic as all of them are publications of Government of Republic of India on Ram Kishore Shukla there fore no need of deletion tag as above, however it is necessary to keep the discussion for reference that tagged issue above has been resolved. Thank you - Ballisticizer

False; still probably notable, even though there is very little sourced material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Contradition, according to the words Clearly notable mentioned on [1] by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) the article is about a person who is clearly notable regardless of doubts. --Alcides86 (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination

I've removed it; the article is mostly unsourced puffery, and is being attacked by multiple IPs, making it unstable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination needed

GA nomination removal contradicted as it was designated This was a perfectly good article on [2] by a reputed administrator JamesBWatson (talk) thus there is a need of article to be renominated once again, Thanks a lot --Alcides86 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

By taking my remark out of context you have misrepresented what I said. I think that reading my remark in context it is clear that I meant it was an article which was perfectly good enough to exist without needing to be deleted, not that it satisfied the "Good Article" criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

GA criteria not met at the time include:

Quickfail #3; large numbers of {{cn}} tags (after the unusable Google Docs were removed).

Some of the docs have been restored with possibly reliable sources, but there are still a few completely unsourced paragraphs.

Quickfail #4; "The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars."

The edit war appears to have stopped, but, since I'm not sure what the dispute was, I can't be sure it's resolved. The article is also temporarily semi-protected; when that lapses, the edit wars might resume.

1(a); a lot of bad grammar.

2(b); it has inline citations, but only for his electoral successes (and possibly failures), not for any other political activity or background. (An editor has challenged some of those, noting that, in some cases, all we have is the name "Ram Kishore".)

4 A fair number of {{peacock}} words, making it non-neutral. I can't say the absence of criticism necessarily makes the article non-neutral, but some "reliable" criticism would make the praise more convincing.

Apparently, I shouldn't have removed the GA nomination, but QuickFailed it, instead. The Quickfail criteria above have not yet been fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination needed, thanks to Metropolitan90 (talk) who contributed a lot to improve the quality who others did not rather than commenting and placing tags, other issues like in line citations will be resolved very soon G O I document are being brought. Thanks --Alcides86 (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please wait to nominate until the serious issues (noted above, and others) are resolved. If you want to contact me to verify that (most of) the problems are resolved, go ahead; whether or not I'm notified, I'll continue to oppose the nomination until the problems are resolved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Under the assumption that the vandalizing IPs aren't smart enough to look at this page, please report any of the blanking IPs immediately to WP:AIV. In my opinion, one of the IPs has been warned before being blocked; that's adequate warning. You may include this diff (pointing to a slightly earlier version of this section) in your AIV report for justification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong. One of vandalizing non-IPs was smart enough to remove this section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong again. It was one of the creators of the article, not a vandal, who was uninformed enough to remove this section, even though it supports his views. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction, it was the nuisance that made one of the creator to do so if happened, a creator never wants to delete his article. Thanks --Alcides86 (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That no sense makes. It was one of the creators of the article who blanked it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Request an immediate attention towards Arthur Rubin (talk)

This belongs at ANI, if it belongs anywhere

Respected administrators, I beg to say that it was two years back when came to know about Wikipedia found very much knowledgeable and helpful to stay aware about just anything, immediately afterward i came to know that any user can frame an article of his choice, which has legitimate and authentic references to support. One of my far relative wrote an article about a renowned personality "Gandhi of our region" i shall say, but very sooner this user Arthur Rubin (talk) surfaced and tagged it for proposed deletion, It was time when references and how to add them was not known to us, but anyhow some people from city may be did this. Reference which were directly from the Election Commission of India the highest body that assures and authenticates the effective democracy in our country. Few days back i wrote a section References are found to be legitimate and authentic for my my personal satisfaction on the talk page. But when eventually we people shared the page as an honour to the person on social networking sites people were also there who disliked the article (May be due to cerebration of opposition political party or jealousy) they started disrupting the page continuously, thanking to Wikipedia Administrators who time to time protected ours interest of which took more than one year to appear. During this disruption only once again this user Arthur Rubin (talk) came on to it started proving his interests of being a responsible editor of the Wikipedia, may be with an urge to become an administrator one day writing comments like this you can see above this section. This user Arthur Rubin (talk) has several times been warned by admins to not to turn Wikipedia a battle field by involving in unnecessary edit wars and deleting articles arbitrarily. I here by request you to keep a close eye on his user, as people like us are not professional article writers, but at the same time we need some respect for our work. Thank You Very Much. Syrthiss (talk) Bongwarrior (talk)

Here are some tags from his (Arthur Rubin (talk)) talk page

1 Warning

This user seems to have fun misemploying his administrator rights and arbitrarily deletes articles.

The article List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature does not contain any original research (NOR) and all information can be verified by establishing reliable sources (V). Burden of evidence is on my side. The article is a new project and sources will be added. BLP does not apply as this is a list, not a biographical article. If you delete an article next time, please abide by Wikipedia's deletion policies and leave time for a user to challenge a proposed deletion. Thanks. --Anthrophilos (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It contained information about living persons, some with no potential source. If you want to write an article listing those people who a notable person reports is a potential candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature, that would be reasonable. WP:BLP applies to any statement about a living person, not just articles about living people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

2 3RR at ALEC

Your recent editing history at American Legislative Exchange Council shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Noted. I still claim that two of my reverts were of WP:BLP, and I'm still making a minimal revert to preserve WP:BLP, in addition to adding a few tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. I wish you had not continued with your edit war after my warning. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps all of you could ask for page protection and hash it out on the article talkpage.MONGO 19:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds promising. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ending Section here

I am Ballisticizer - Ballisticizer (talk)

Thank you Very much Yunshui 雲‍水 - Ballisticizer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

B-Class

"free from major grammatical errors"???? I think not. (And that's a C-class criterion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to J (t) to reform the article and design it to B-Class rather than.... --Alcides86 (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not B-class by objective standards; perhaps WikiProject India has different standards.... If I were familiar with the project, I'd change it back to start-class, rather than just commenting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of facts

There are several problems with the beginning of the "Early life and education" section.

Ram Kishore Shukla^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] was born as eldest son to his father Ram sundar Shukla who was a patwari and mother Budhhi Shukla a housewife. Since, his family was an agriculture based family, there were no such conditions which could be understood as favorable for his studies, still completed his education anyhow on his will.^{[citation needed]}^[tone]

The only sources cited here are seven footnotes all immediately following Shukla's name. All of these footnotes refer to the election returns for which he was elected to the legislative assembly. But not all of them even contain his full name. Looking at the 1951 results, "Ram Kishore" is identified as being elected, but we would need more evidence to prove it is the same person as Ram Kishore Shukla. Same thing in 1957. In 1962 the winner is called "Ramkishore Shukla" (missing a space between his first and second name). In 1967, "R. Shukla" is listed as the winner. Only in 1980 is he first called by the full name "Ram Kishore Shukla" used in this article. In 1985 he is identified as "Shukla Ramkishore". And in 1993 he is called "Shukla Ramkishor". Now, these names may all be the same person, and they probably are. But these sources should not be cited to prove the subject's name, as they are apparently being used in this paragraph.

Next, it says that Shukla's father "Ram sundar Shukla" ("Sundar" should be capitalized) was a "patwari". This term needs to be wikilinked -- patwari -- so that readers outside India will understand it. However, it appears that a patwari is a government employee who maintains records of land ownership and crops grown. This suggests to me that Shukla's father, Ram Sundar Shukla, must have been literate -- otherwise he would have been unlikely to be hired as a patwari. But if Shukla's father was literate -- which was rare in India when Shukla was growing up -- then it is not the case that "there were no such conditions which could be understood as favorable for his studies". On the contrary, the son of a literate government employee would have had more favorable conditions for his studies than most Indians of his generation.

And in any event, the citation footnotes should be placed immediately after the statements which they support -- not in the middle of statements which they don't support. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)