User talk:Zuggernaut/Archive 2

Famine and process

There are two options when someone inserts new text. Ideally a process of modification should take place. If that is not possible then the whole thing is reverted and then discussed on the talk page. I suggest you think about modification not reverting material to your preferred text. At the moment your material read as advocacy for a particular position. --Snowded ^TALK 08:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about the editing process makes sense. I will modify your changes many of which are clearly helpful in presenting material in a focused and concise manner. I disagree with your 'advocacy' comment though - I think you are bringing baggage from other articles or have a strong pro-British view point. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope my intervention isn't seen as intrusive, but Snowded is more likely to be accused of having the opposite view-point, at least by some around here. Sen may have something more specific to say on the Irish famine which might be incorporated in that particular article. Please concentrate on content rather than the perceived 'baggage' of editors. RashersTierney (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No intrusion seen and I appreciate the advice. I will look for Sen or entitlement theory (FEE) material specific to Irish famine once I'm done with my current focus areas/articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been called many things on Wikipedia, but that is a first for "pro-British"! As a socialist member of their first colony (Wales) which has yet to gain independence I think I might take that as a mortal insult.  :-) Z, you need to use the talk page when something is disputed ... --Snowded ^TALK 06:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It gave me a small laugh out loud moment seeing you accused of rabid pro-Britishness anyway Snowded. So thanks for the amuse-atron moment Zuggernaut. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem Jamesinderbyshire. Glad to see some humor. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to insult you Snowded. But I don't know whether I need to say sorry for inadvertently doing so or whether I should sympathize with you :-) Zuggernaut (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Forum Shopping

Its one thing to put objective "we are having a discussion on X, please join in if you are interested", without espousing a view. It's another to go around talk pages where potentially sympathetic editors might be found to rally them to the cause because that is WP:CANVASing. Please stop, or reword your posts accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the posts to address your concern. Please re-visit them to ensure we are in agreement there's no "Forum Shopping"/Canvassing. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is getting nonsensical

OK, every morning it seems we see a mass of edits from you. Many of these are very good, but there are always a significant number that take a clear POV. Please reverse these out and discuss on the talk page. Going through all your edits every morning to remove the POV position is becoming an unreasonable burden and I am simply going to mass revert if it carries on. --Snowded ^TALK 05:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please point out which ones you object to and we can work on those. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Zug, I can't believe you don't know. You are constantly inserting material that says British Empire Bad, Government of Indian Good. If really necessary (ie you can't work it out) I will go through all the amendments again as I have done several times now removing or modifying controversial material. However it feels at the moment that you are attempting to get your own POV established by volume of edits, exhausting anyone who disagrees with you. PS, I have your talk page under watch so I will see any response here--Snowded ^TALK 12:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The volume of edits is because I generally stay focused on an article until it's rating improves to GA status (someone has already assessed this one from start class to B class). I am copying this discussion to the article's talk page, please continue the discussion there. Here's what we can do to address your concern:

1. I'll stop making additions to the article and limit my edits to the much needed copyediting, images, etc.
2. While doing the copyedit, I will attribute opinions that may have been expressed as facts to the respective authors. I will re-read parts of NPOV policy to figure out where fixes are required and make them, if required.
3. While the additions are stopped, you are welcome to go through all of my edits again as that will only help improve the article.

Zuggernaut (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at Talk:Famine in India/GA1.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at Talk:Famine in India/GA1.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Infobox famine

I still think you need to be unambiguous regarding 'state' examples. 'China' and 'India' can mean many things historically to a broad audience, where, for example 'USSR' or 'Ottoman Empire' are at least referring to broadly recognised (historically and in a contemporary sense) political entities. Best to get it as right as possible. RashersTierney (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The title 'Country' makes it clear that a political entity is being referred to. China and India are relevant present day names but we can add The Kingdom of Ireland or something like that to illustrate older periods. I'll have to read up to get the nomenclature right but if you know off hand any examples from the past, please feel free to update.Three examples should be good enough - my preference is 2 from present day, 1 from the past. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Two current examples and one historical example seem fine. If theys could be given their 'official' titles, and linked to the appropriate article, it should minimise any ambiguity. 'Country' is not as clear-cut as it might appear. Scotland (as just one example) is a country but not a sovereign state. An article on the Scottish famine of 1780 would have Country (I think) as Kingdom of Great Britain and Location as Scotland. Is my reading correct? RashersTierney (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Scotland example is correct. Wikilinking the documentation/example is a good idea. The only historical examples that use the infobox that I am aware of are the Irish famine, the Indian famines and the Ukranian famine or did you mean linking to the country? Zuggernaut (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Pattern of AGF failure

This edit and others on article talk pages are starting to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour in which when you don't get your own way you launch attacks on other editors. Some of these attacks are offensive in nature. Please focus on content issues and stop making accusations (general or specific) against other editors unless you are prepared to back them up with appropriate evidence on the appropriate forum for peer review. --Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, if you can't get a grip on this tendency to attack editors, make general accusations and generally misrepresent people I will put the effort in over Christmas to document an ANI case against you for systematic failure to abide by WP:AGF. You need to learn that editors are allowed to disagree with you without being subject to the sort of allegations you are making. You have good technical knowledge and are obviously a committed editor. Please build on that--Snowded ^TALK 08:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words about my technical knowledge and may I reciprocate by offering you congratulations on being such a long time Wikipedia editor. AFAIK, I have not knowingly violated AGF at all. I've had a "healthy" amount of disagreements with other editors I've encountered in the course of editing articles (where you've not been). The outcomes have always been win-win and have led to a net improvement of Wikpedia articles, processes or policies. It's your perception that there's a tendency to attack editors and there's not much I can do about it. No comment about the threat of an ANI case against me. I might be on and off Wikipedia over the next few weeks. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you! Zuggernaut (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I for one remain deeply offended by your generic swipe at British Editors and despite the multiple disagreements I have had with BW over the years your latest comments on him radically misrepresented what he said and the attack on James was worse. There is a lot you can do about it by the way, but its your call if you choose to or not--Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is me again Yogesh, I think Zuggernaut, you need to address the allegation of AGF, as the above may be the first step as is mandatory, before any one gets formal, discussion never hurts, and I still feel you should have another look at wp:GREATWRONGS.117.195.64.67 (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(Yogesh again)You have made certain allegations in the diff Snowded refered to[1], even though there have been a million instances when the ethnicity of Indian editors is mentioned, I opine that it is wrong to refer to the ethnicity of editors. It would be better if you substantiated your allegations by diffs, and replaced Britons by some editors or better became specific and named them, specific well sourced allegations would be difficult to refute, as against general swipes. I have experienced how it feels. I have faced similar behaviour on the British Empire page, when some editors refused to allow well sourced material calling it all sorts of names. I hope Snowded is watching this.117.195.64.67 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Any accusation as to bias etc. should be against named editors and backed up with diffs, its that simple. Otherwise Oh mysterious IP, who are you? Under what name did you edit British Empire and what was your issue? --Snowded ^TALK 05:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My take on this is that if Zuggernaut were to slow down slightly and treat each change in British India-related articles as something to be pre-discussed and have consensus on, he would get a much more positive reaction from other editors. Instead of that, we seem to see a persistent campaigning - regular appeals to other forums, activism against editors with whom he disagrees (some of it aimed at me at ANI for example), unwillingness to accept any other source of information other than those he puts forwards and, in general, a perception that he is absolutely right and all other editors apart from those sharing an identical position are absolutely wrong and that indeed there is a war going on which he must win against those editors. This in turn leads possibly to mistakes by other editors who perhaps over-react in some situations and do not treat Zuggernaut's edits and comments with the analytical dispassion they perhaps deserve. Zuggernaut does do good edits and is a very knowledgeable editor in his subject area. Unfortunately, in Wikipedia, simply being very knowledgeable and holding strong, determined views is not enough. One must make efforts to see other points of view and analyse them objectively. This is what NPOV is all about. The appeals to accusations of racism, misfeasance and a somewhat arrogant tone with regard to other editors don't help, in fact, they further undermine Zuggernaut's position. As things stand, I would join Snowded in case-building if this continues. I hope it won't, because, as I said, Zuggernaut is a skilful editor, who some of the time is correct but unfortunately causes a lot of difficulty along the way and goes too far down the path of assuming he's always right. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Snowded there is no mystery about my identity, I have introduced myself above, there is a problem on my pc that prevents me Yogesh Khandke from logging in. What you and James have written cuts both ways, the likes of Zuggernaut and myself are finding the going tough because following WP rules like OR, NPOV, RS is not enough, the additional criterion is that they should confirm to a certain bias. Which I found difficult. Then I read and reread Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, I opine that the only way that this bias would go away is if there were more competent editors of another colour (not just about melanin, I mean colour in the sense of ideology, geography, language, culture, religion, faith and other components that make up a personality). Till then the tendentious lable would stick, so I withdrew from the BE article. I am a little busy and so am very thin at Wikipedia at this time, but there are over 30 lakh articles most crying for help, I hope to keep out of arguments, but again as in the case of Ganga, it would be difficult. James: Zuggenaut comes across as one who is prepared to discuss, till then there is no reason to go formal.117.195.65.78 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You are not being asked to confirm to a bias, you are being asked to be balanced in what you do. Also to stop making generalised attacks without evidence something you have had just done it again with the bias remark. I hope that there will be no need to go formal, but its there as an option. I'm curious about what problem would allow you to edit wikipedia but not login, if you can get to the browser to do one then surely the other is easy. --Snowded ^TALK 07:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to be drawn into an argument. My problem was I could log in but when I clicked on Contributions or Watch list I had to log in again. 117.195.65.173 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC) See the four tilde does not give my name but gives my IP address though I am logged in. Wonder why that has happened. There was a virus worm.silly.gen which I managed to delete with help from my Antivirus provider. 117.195.65.173 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually that isn't an accurate description of what is happening. (1)I am at this page. user talk:Zuggernaut, and not logged in. (2)I go click on login, and the login page is invoked. (3)Then I log in by writing my username and password. (4)After that I am logged in successfully and I can see my name and other menus that you see after one is logged in. (5)But the momment I click on Return to user talk:Zuggernaut, I get logget out. 117.195.65.173 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check this out. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks, but things are sorted out. The problem was a little silly. My system clock is malfunctioning, I have to set it right every time I put the pc on. Its date was out of date, which caused the error. Thanks nevertheless.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, good to see your problem sorted out. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at Talk:Famine in India/GA1.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A book you might be interested in

Perhaps you already know it, but I just skimmed a review of it in the New York Review of Books and thought about you. The book is titled Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India During World War II, by Madhusree Mukerjee, published August 2010. Here's its Amazon page. The review is online, as an excerpt, here. Subscribers can get the full text of the review, it appears, so if you were interested, I could probably do that for you. Anyway, just thought you might be interested. Cheers. Pfly (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I would love to read the entire article but only if you are already a subscriber and don't have to go out of the way to get it. That's because I've attempted to use reviews of this book from various other reviewers as a tertiary source per WP:RS but we couldn't form the required consensus. Take a look at the talk page of Famine in India (Churchill quote section) which is littered with references to this book. The Bengal famine of 1943 is another place where you will find this content added and removed by some of the same editors from British Empire. And the Famine in India article has a history of biased treatment towards authors with Indian sounding names so while the book itself may not be a usable source right away, it will certainly be cited on Wikipedia on the long term as Wikipedia demographics change over the years. I appreciate your generous offer very much and thank you for remembering me and again, if it is not too much of a bother and does not involve other copyright issues, then I'd love to read the review in full. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you have heard of this book and it is already used as a reference on WP? Interesting—it was only published a few months ago! I'm not sure I understand the issues you mention—the book is used as a reference ("littered with references" even) but "may not be a usable source". Forgive me for not taking the time to figure it out—not to be dismissive of the topic, but I have other priorities. I'm also a little confused whether you are talking about using the book as a source or book reviews, or both. Obviously a book would be a better reference than a review of a book, in general. Perhaps some editors have rejected the book's reliability and you are trying to establish its reliability by pointing to reviews. Whatever the case, and whether or not this book is reliable (the review seems to suggest the author has some degree of personal "agenda" and might sometimes overstate things or "force the pieces of her jigsaw into spaces where they don't easily fit", but also has many positive things to say about the book), the topic in general seems to me one deserving to be better known. I can imagine the difficulties—historical revisionism can easily cause a rift between defenders of the "old story" and those doing the "retelling". The defenders can sometimes too quickly reject criticism of their history while the retellers can sometimes overdo it, sacrificing rigor for drama, courtesy for crusading. Maybe there is not yet a strong source on this topic that rises above such things. I've seen people posting here about your behavior. I'm not involved in any of pages you work on (except a bit at British Empire and Ganges River, I think) and don't know what's going on (and don't really want to know!). But it seems like you are trying to do some historical revisionism that ought to be done. I hope you can rise above the pitfalls revisionists can so easily fall into. A lack of good sources that "rise above" would make it very difficult here on Wikipedia. Good luck! Pfly (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Another thing that occurs to me.. Another book reviewed in the same issue is about China's Great Leap Forward and the famines that resulted, killing something like 30-40 million or more. Within China the blame has long been minimized and the history marginalized, although from early on it was acknowledged to have been at least in part caused by "human error". Books published in The West have put the blame largely on the Chinese leadership, especially Mao. There's a new book out about the topic that the reviewer says it so well done it is now the best available, at least about the famines and how they were caused and played out. It pins it directly on Mao. The title makes it clear, Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–1962. The reviewer makes an interesting point though. He says that awareness and interest in the topic among Chinese is growing but won't really be taken seriously until a Chinese scholar writes a book like this. As long as the author is from The West it is easier to dismiss. I imagine the same thing is true for "Churchill's famine". Madhusree Mukerjee is Indian and, if I remember right, lived through the famine. For better or worse, that will color the way people read it. What the topic really needs is a good book written by a Brit, just as China needs a Chinese author to write about Mao's famine. Pfly (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the review article. It is the most in-depth review of the book I've seen so far. As you point out, using the book itself as a source is the best option but since I didn't have access to this new book, I tried using other reviews of the book as tertiary sources per WP:Secondary. I abandoned the idea due to a lack of consensus. I like the way you describe retellers and defenders. The retellers do indulge in some sort of revisionism as the Madhushree Mukherjee might be doing. Famines in India between 1770 and 1947 (the years of British occupation) caused about 70 million deaths and the topic has always been a sensitive one. Plenty of scholars of the era have criticized the British government for inaction and policy failure precluding the need for outright and 'full-fledged' revisionism in 2011. The Indians are more rational and logical in their accusations by calling it "policy failure" and attributing it to ineptitude of some of the British decision makers. Try to compare that with the grievances of the Irish who have much worse to say of the British and The Great Irish Famine (death toll - 1 million) of the same era - they claim genocide and it's taught to children in the state of New Jersey as such. I was reading the same about famines in Africa under British rule - some claim that starvation was used as a tool aiding colonization. "Incremental revisionism" will keep on happening as more archives are opened up. I am completely against revisionism on Wikipedia itself and I am sure Wikipedia policies are designed to disallow such revisionism. My natural disposition is to stick to Wikipedia policies that I am aware of in letter and spirit. Regarding the Great Leap Famine, the Chinese have a long way to go before a Chinese author living in China comes up with a book criticizing a major personality of the Communist Party. I try not to think of authors and scholars in terms of their race, nationality, ethnicity, gender, etc. A true scholar is just a scholar and the ones with an agenda gradually fade away. Mukherjee could certainly have done with a better title but I was reading in one of the reviews that she didn't start off with that title in mind. She only chose it when she came across documents showing Churchill's racist hatred towards Indians and his desire to destroy India rather that let it go. It remains to be seen how much success her book can get but one thing is sure, thanks to this book, Indians will now think of Churchill as a racist. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have an interest (and the time), feel free to check out Famine in India. I've nominated for a GA. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: Pfly - The article provided below by Jonathansammy is another review of another book, coincidentally by a Briton criticizing Churchill on lines identical to Madhushree Mukherjee. Here's an excerpt from the review:

“ As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population. ”

The review also has some interesting stuff of how Obama's grandfather was affected by Churchill's racism and links it to some of Obama's actions in the White House. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the article below and the book it is based on: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html http://www.amazon.com/Churchills-Empire-World-That-Made/dp/0805087958 Jonathansammy (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Great article - thanks! I remember trying to use the "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." quote at the Famine in India article but could not form consensus. You will find many more books and reviews on it's talk page in the Churchill quote section. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What is your point Zuggernaut? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really trying to make a point - just that articles such as Famine in India, Bengal famine of 1943, India and other relevant articles should use these sources. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Z we have a reliable source that attributes Churchill's attitude to the devastation in Bengal in the 40s, should have been used in Famine in India.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Famines and OCAT

Hi, I noticed you added Category:Famines to a few articles already categorized in Category:Famines in India and Category:Famines in Ireland. Isn't that a case of WP:OCAT? By the way, if you're working on famine-related articles, then List of famines could use some help, especially with good referencing. Cheers, jonkerz♠ 14:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that guideline. I will look in to it, perhaps create subcategories under famine and remove the categorization from the articles I categorized recently. I've been thinking of improving that list by creating several templates - just not sure if it should be by country or continent or something else. Thanks for alerting me, I appreciate it. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that the subcategories already exist. Makes it easier. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Famine in India

The article Famine in India you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Famine in India for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

|}

Other

Standard Marathi debate I was scanning through the debate on this topic at Talk:Maharashtra, and looking up the sources you have quoted. Among the sources, Nemade's book appears to be the most recent and comprehensive. I would like to read the text on pages 98-101 of the book to understand the context properly (c.f. all other sources that seem to be talking of standardization in context of the Molesworth's Marathi-English dictionary). Unfortunately the book doesn't seem to available online. Would it be possible for you to scan and email me the relevant pages ? Don't hesitate to say no if this is not convenient since I can get the book from my library instead (may take a week), and am just trying the lazyman's option first. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Welcome to the discussion! It's gotten a little lengthy and may have been hard to navigate in some sections - sorry about that. There are actually two distinct dictionaries being referred to. I provided a source (Bloch) to bolster support for the Molesworth dictionary after User:Redtigerxyz raised doubts about it ("Some 1831 dictionary..."). Bloch also indicates that the dictionary is still current. The other dictionary is A Dictionary of the Maratha Language. Unfortunately, I am unable to scan and send you the pages but I have typed out relevant content from the book which you can find here.User:Zuggernaut I am using content from pages 101 and 139 only. The book is still worth getting from the library if you are interested in the topic. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Khandoba The discussion about Khandoba worship section is moved to Talk:Khandoba#Worship_section. Please leave your additional comments there. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC) No need for any compromise. Just vote that's all. Make your point that's all about vote. There is no need to accept something that you don't believe in. It applies to all. So you make your point and vote for that point. Your saying is like Just because Hitler made others to bow before him, you have to bow before him as well because it's compromise. It's not my dear friend. Things can be anything. Especially in Wikipedia, everyone can make their point. There are things that you can compromise on, but not on values. That's a big no. So you just vote for what you feel deem fit. That's all and the result will determine what need to be kept on Wikipedia. That's victory for freedom. You are free to vote for any of the choice or make compromise or anything that you deem fit. And thanks for the suggestion as well. All the best.Bcs09 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC) HELP!! Can you please help me out with this article-Ooty? I was editing the infobox when suddenly the whole article went out of shape. It's LIVE now! Please help--Suraj T 07:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Looks like your problem has already been solved. An easy way to take care of such situations is to simply undo your own changes. Good luck with the editing. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Human rights in India Hi. Could you take a look at this article, particularly at the edits of User: Profitoftruth85[2][3], which seem to be deliberately inserting bias (with misleading edit summaries) to an otherwise very stable and well-written lead[4]? Particularly problematic are his violations of WP:POINT and WP:RECENTISM in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extraroundtable (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Hello I do not mean to say that you fall foul on the said guidelines, I just wished you introspect. Perhaps you have, since you are steering clear of a particular article.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, I have. Good to perform that check from time to time. Thanks for alerting, it was timely. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Please Peer Review Institute of Chartered Accountants of India I have recently nominated Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for peer review. I humbly request you to peer review the article. Your expertise in making Deshastha Brahmin a GA will greatly help this article. R.Sivanesh ✆ 15:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Good work Sivanesh. I am a bit strapped for time right now so let us wait for a couple of weeks. If there are still no takers by then and I am able to give more time to Wikipedia, I will certainly take this up. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Ganges x Ganga The dialect nature of Indian English has been attacked using the argument that your list of words in Indian English is simply Indian language words written in the Roman script. I too disagree with your argument that usage like Chal yaar lets forget the issue is Indian English. Such arguments could weaken the position. IE imo is Wren and Martin, and the Indian character gained English words like tiffin or corruption, Indian method of Romanisation, etc.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC) This is the diff refered to. Perhaps Ghee and curd are examples of IE.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I have proposed a new project to handle such issues. Please participate in that discussion to evaluate the viability of such a project. For details, take a look at the talk page of WP:IN. You may want to add WT:IN to your watchlist. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Was away for a long time, March ending woes. Back now. What do you mean by such issues? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC) The actual project was proposed at the project proposal council. You will find the details there. The main idea was to tackle nomenclature issues that are seen all over Wikipedia such as Ganges v. Ganga, Bangalore v. Bengaluru and the the one on fire right now - India v. South Asia (for articles relating to Indian history), people are calling for ban on me due to this one! There is opposition to the project and it makes sense to move the project proposal to a task-force proposal which I intend to do as soon as I have enough time. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I don't get the ban part. I put my support on the talk page as I agree with your proposal, though I am not so sure about the table. What is a task force proposal?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I reported the game playing by Fowler & company at ANI, and instead of addressing that, the administrators SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark turned the ANI against me to permanently ban me from editing Wikipedia for India related topics. A diff from the ANI is here. A task force is a team working under a project, the project WP:IN in this case. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Jews in India When you deleted reference to judaisim in the India lead you wrote, and I quote "Judaism did not arrive in India in the first millennium CE". What do you mean by that ? I are trying to say they came before the 1st millennium or after ? The following reference may be useful for getting the correct information back in the article if necessary: S Sharot - Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1974 - Cambridge Univ Press ... The Bene Israel claim that they are descendants from the ten lost tribes of Israel and that they reached India about 175 BC. The Cochin Jews claim that their ancestors came to India after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. Having provided the above information, personally, I don't think it is important to mention in the lead that tiny jewish communities have been in India for X -number of years. Just like the parsees, they are but a tiny percentage of Indian population. In my opinion, however, unlike, the Parsees, the jewish contribution to Indian life is not that significant.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC) That FA was carrying wrong information for many years - as you mention, Judaism arrived in India in the first millennium BCE not CE. The Bene Israel claims you mention have been proposed by me before but we were unable to form consensus to have them included in the article. In fact Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs) even proposed that we mention that India is the only place in the world in the history of civilization where Jews have never been persecuted. However we were unable to get consensus on that. No points for guessing who opposed the proposals. :-) Zuggernaut (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Vote on article name Hello. You are invited to take part in a 'Gordion knot vote' with three options on the future title of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the invite but I am not allowed to edit that page. As others have expressed, the Gordian Knot poll is bogus. It seems like a continuation of the game playing that I reported you at ANI for. I will be surprised if the move is successful. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Need comments on this RFC - [| discussion] Hi, Need your views and comments. One should also go through ['no consensus' discussion]. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Best to drop the Bharat issue and move on, especially in light of the warnings. Wikipeida content follows sources (see WP:RS) rather than be a reliable source itself (see some of the legal disclaimers Wikipedia:General disclaimer, WP:Content disclaimer). However that doesn't mean you cannot do anything about it. If you feel passionately about the issue you should work in your local real world community than amongst the Wikipedia community. Welcome to Wikipedia! Zuggernaut (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Got it, though I think it is better to set matters straight. The kind of people opposing the request are amazing - Fawlerx2 - ('"Bharat" is either the Hindi name or it is the official name of the Republic, but it is not an alternative English name of the country.'), MykeLynch('The Government of India has no say in what the country is called in English'), regentsPark ('The Indian constitution does not explicitly mention that Bharat is an English name'), Chipmunkdavis ('The current Etymology section already includes information on Bharat.') etc. and all of them are amazingly ignorant of proofs and standards presented here and here. Also noticeably hardly anyone is from India! Anyways, when I started giving proofs the discussion was wound down for lack of civility I guess. One can't do everything alone but whatever happens, happens for good. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I have been banned from discussing Fowler so I cannot say much about him. Suffice it to say that I was at a point of initiating an RFC/U against Fowler at the time of my ban. You should read WP:RS and particularly WP:WEIGHT which should show the weakness in your argument. Ideally, it should not matter that the editors are not from India but you can read systemic bias and European bias and you will quickly understand some of the reasons behind the problems you are having. The best way to counter these problems, at least to some extent, is to stay on Wikipedia and work within WP policies. They have not worked for me but that does not mean they will not work for every single editor working on India related articles. If you decide to go off Wikipedia, you should check out a couple of journalists who gave up Wikipedia and left (check Basavarajitnal (talk · contribs) and JSR (talk · contribs). I have not followed up on whether or how they are galvanizing support for their problems but I read somewhere in the talk pages that at least one of them sounds more like a disgruntled ex-editor (and thus unlikely or likely to be of any help). Zuggernaut (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I don't live Second Life. One is enough, I do my best and if it doesn't work out, I move on. I will do what I can though, like editing some here and there. You can check my page and see if you like something then do let me know how to improvise. Thanks. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC) School version No talk pages - only articles. AshLin (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing Restriction

Editing Restriction Per consensus at the AN/I Discussion I have imposed the following editing restrictions on you: 1. You are topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia. 2. You are banned from interacting with or commenting about Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs), directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means Zuggernaut is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of this user. 3. You are subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits, comments, or actions which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages. The ban will take effect after it has been logged here and the administrator has posted a notice on his user talk page. If he is specifically not banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log. 4. You are banned from List of Indian inventions and discoveries and List of South Asian inventions and discoveries due to inappropriate canvassing in relation to these 4 pages. If you do not understand these restrictions please say so and I will try to explain them. Point #4 will be logged here under the probation detailed in point #3. These sanctions have been logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. In addition I'd like to pass on a suggestion from the AN/I thread that you seek mentorship to help with future editing. --Errant (chat!) 09:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC) A few questions, first about the ban itself: Does item 1 mean I cannot edit anything about India? It is clear from the ANI that I cannot edit articles like British Raj but can I, for example, edit an article on Savarkar or Yoga or can I improve Upanishads to FA level? Even before the ANI, I had made my intention clear to initiate an RFC/U for User:Fowler&fowler. Can I pursue that or does this ban disallow me from doing that? Next questions about the ANI - do you intend to address the original ANI and: Delete the List of South Asian inventions and discoveries article? Address the issue about the way that article was created against consensus and by gaming the system? Lastly, some queries about your decision: How did you determine consensus? By simple vote counting or did you evaluate the quality of arguments and diffs (or a lack thereof). I would like to appeal the ban. What are my options and what is the process? Lastly, out of curiosity, how much time did you spend on this case in total? Zuggernaut (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC) The restriction is broad, but I don't think it precludes any topic on India. Use your discretion; the ban is due to your views on certain areas of the history of India and the surrounding sub-continent. So if you think the topic broaches those areas of Indian history, stay away. Yes, the restriction prevents you from opening an RFC/U. However see my comments below regarding an appeal. In terms of the rest of the AN/I; no, I am not intending to deal with the rest of the AN/I, I haven't specifically looked in depth at that specific article. A cursory examination wouldn't necessarily lead me to delete the article, though. Determining consensus is sometimes difficult; however in this case it was quite clear where multiple editors in good standing (most who appear to be uninvolved) supported the restrictions. No, it was not "vote counting" that determined this. I made an examination of the links added through the AN/I - but it should be pointed out that this was simply to verify that those supporting the proposal were not mis-representing their views on your actions. I formed no real opinion on your actions (as is proper) and simply examined the weight of argument, involvement and standing of those supporting the restrictions. Appealing is possible, certainly. Via AN/I. Can I suggest you start a new section with the following: Explanation you wish to open an RFC/U on fowler&fowler and provide reasonable evidence you are able to demonstrate a problem I suggest you also ask to clarify the limitation of the topic ban; I'd suspect on appeal it could be changed to "narrowly construed" If you want the whole thing lifted can I propose requesting an RFC/U into your actions so that people can present the relevant evidence properly and in its entirety. It is quite possible that AN/I could not handle such a discussion in its entirety. It doesn't really matter but I spent about 1 1/2 hours on and off considering this, WP:AGF and all that. --Errant (chat!) 15:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Zuggernaut, Wikipedia gives users the privilege of editing in areas they find interesting and uninteresting, be it a narrow topic area or a variety of topics. At the end of the day however, if an editor is showing appearances of failing to edit appropriately in relation to an area, they may be asked to cease editing those areas and related areas where this type of behavior is likely to persist. The reason that as proposer, I'd made the scope broad was because we specifically do not want to see wikilawyering either by you or your content opponents/supporters. A clean break is needed. So in this regard, what ErrantX has said in response to your question about the topic ban is accurate. Ideally, you will edit in other areas which do not fall near the topic ban scope so you can demonstrate that you have the willingness and ability to contribute appropriately - and gradually remove any need for this restriction. The extent of the behavioral issues was what also brought on the other restrictions (as blocks are often not capable of addressing the identified behavior on their own, which is also why 4 was imposed under the probation to show a sign of how that probation may be enforced). In terms of deleting the article, an editor who shares your opinion had stated on the talk page that he is going to put it up for AFD if he is unsatisfied (that should be pursued soon). I don't believe there is any further action which can be taken at this point, but all of the users involved ought to have understood the warning signs by the fact that I proposed those restrictions. If there are further issues after the AFD has concluded, more measures on other users may become necessary. In any event, you also have the option to appeal your restrictions to arbcom-l at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)