User talk:Abecedare

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hello @Abecedare, I appreciate your valuable comments on the RFC regarding whether Ambedkar is widely regarded as the chief architect . Apologies if i misinterpret anything.
you are saying that calling Ambedkar "chief architect" is more seems like MVP style and that should be avoided. I would agreed on that, if in Wikipedia, similar type of titles like Mahatma Gandhi the father of Nation, James Madison, father of US constitution, Nehru a principal leader during the 1930s & 1940s etc will not be written because in my view all seems like MVP. Since all these are acceptable, then why should Ambedkar description "chief architect" treated differently? As far as sources is concerned, many (or, almost all) authoritative sources — Oxford, Cambridge, Routledge, Springer etc (with reputed legal scholars) explicitly mentioned him as the chief architect.
This is now, neither a minority nor fringe view, it is widely documented in realiable sources. UNDUE policy say that in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. So much overwhelming academic recognition, I believe we should consider WP:DUE at highest priority in this case.

Kind Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmehelper: Sorry for the late reply. To me, the sources don't suggest that "chief architect of the constitution" is a widely adopted sobriquet for Ambedkar (unlike say, "Father of the nation", "Iron Lady", "Iron Man of India" etc) as opposed to a short descriptive phrase used by some authors. Therefore, as I commented at the RFC, we are better off describing Ambedkar's contributions rather than simply applying a label that would be inconsistent with the best available sources on the development of the Indian constitution. But we can continue this discussion at the RFC page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare, Sorry for replying here again. I assume you have reviewed the sources I provided and the credentials of their authors. If, after considering them, you still believe that only some authors use this description, I respect that perspective. However, from my research, only a few scholars—particularly Granville Austin and Madhav Khosla—seem to avoid using the term "Chief Architect." If absence of this term in their works outweigh the numerous other authoritative sources and legal scholars who explicitly used it, then I understand your position.

PS: I also agree that the focus should be more on his contributions, but at the same time i also believe that a single sentence mentioning him something like he is popularly/widely regarded as chief architect" is justified. This ensures that if the term is used in smaller or less important article in future, it won't be challenged on the grounds that it isn't mentioned in his wikipedia page.

Thanks, Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you are currently p-blocked from the Ambedkar article and talk page, and therefore are engaging in this discussion here and in your user space. I don't believe this to be productive and wish that you had started this discussion by revealing that.

But to quickly address the main two issues you raise before I discontinue participating in this discussion: I find the quote-list here to be cherry-picked results of a google search for "Ambedkar the chief architect" etc that does not account for the quality and context of the work being cited. And secondly, IMO the crux is not that authoritative works on the development on the Indian constitution don't use the specific words "chief architect" to refer to Ambedkar but rather that they don't support the concept of there being a single architect. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sup! Just checking in. I wanted your help in editing a few pages, especially those relating to WP:India. Most articles here have constantly relied on “predatory sources”. For instance look at Mizo names. I feel this article is needed and is indeed notable to Talk about however after I cleaned up the predatory sources, there is only one source left for the whole article. Well Indian academia generally has a thing with predatory publishing and from my experiences I can note that majority of Indian academics would publish in pay to publish journals. So wanted to see if you would be willing to help by identifying such articles. Most of the times, these journals would be cited as a pdf- that’s the telling sign that the journal might be predatory. This is also why I strongly advocate for Wikipedia to add some restrictions to pdf based articles, but that would be a thing for later. Have to create an RfC and make the community vet on it. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyingphoenixchips: I don't know if there is a way to search for all citation that link to a pdf file. You can try asking at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:VPT and someone there may know of a tool. I fear though that such a search may contain too many hits and too many false positives.

You can, though, use Special:Linksearch to search for links to a specific non-reliable site. For example, here are the wikipedia pages that link to ijnrd.org. And yes, that journal does look iffy.

One caveat: articles in such journals can be considered self-published sources, which can be used as sources in some cases. The counter-argument being that anyone publishing in such venues raises a credibility redflag. Requires a judgment call depending upon specific circumstances. For example, it can be argued that a professor writing about Mizo names in IJNRD is a non-ideal but still a better source than a blog-post on mizos.org (a one-person operation) by a journalist-turned-politician-turned-documentarian. I don't know enough about the area to make that call but it would be worth considering, or asking at the article talk-page or at WP:RSN. Abecedare (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks for the same! Well honestly, as an academic myself I am quite iffy on including any articles published in "pay to publish models" and by accepting them even as a valid "self published" source, encourages promoting such platforms. When it comes to academia, we would rather have everything thats from a blog post, and cite it as such, than include any sources in "Pay-to Publish" models. Yes I do acknowledge, that wikipedia is not an academic platform for this to be enforced, however personally I am quite uncomfortable with this. As a mizo myself, I would probably try to find to find mizo primary sources to perhaps salvage this article. But yes, you did raise a valid point. I will definitely mention it in WP:RS Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyingphoenixchips: To be clear, I was not trying to push you to retain the IJNRD article at Mizo names. Just pointing out the factors at play so that you are aware of the possible pushback one may receive in some instances if one blindly goes about removing all such sources.

And yes, the best approach forward is the one you suggest: find truly reliable sources on the subject of Mizo names and rewrite the article according to what they say. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep of course, I figured! What you said is definitely true! Thanks again :) Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

k BigKrow (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: BigKrow (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the conversation at your talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.... BigKrow (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were in a hole and didn't stop digging. I see that one of several last straws in the AFD was referring to the AFD nomination as vandalism. They really don't understand. They asked for a Move Review, which is a consensus process, to decide whether the song article should be in article space. It was closed as the wrong forum for that dispute. So now the article is at AFD, which is the right consensus process to decide an article should be in article space. But they kept digging. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still digging that hole! It might be time to revoke TPA. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They still don't seem to have an understanding of why their actions were deemed disruptive. I left a longer explanation just in case that gets the message through... although I'm not too hopeful. That said, it's okay to give blocked editors some leeway on how they respond post-block since most such messages can be safely ignored by everyone except the reviewing admins and the encyclopedia-at-large is not affected. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I still make drafts for review? BigKrow (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: BigKrow (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BigKrow: Let me get back to you on that later today. Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure BigKrow (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BigKrow: You current block will prevent you from creating new drafts and given your previous experience with such creations, it is perhaps best if you worked on existing article/drafts. That said, if you have a particular new article in mind, I can make an exception and create a blank draft page for you to work on so that you can demonstrate that you can follow the relevant wikipedia policies and practices. Let me know if you want to take up that offer and, if so, the title of the draft article you wish to be created. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now but I appreciate it! @Abecedare: BigKrow (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you kindly tell me if you would constitute this a personal attack? Coming to my talk page not just once but twice and calling me "a horrible person"? Tamsier (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamsier: You are welcome to remove those comments from your talkpage per WP:TPG. You can also take the issue to ANI etc if you wish although my recommendation would be to stop carrying/escalating all these grudges and focus on wikipedia content. Editing here is supposed to be a voluntary hobby, after all. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it saves time, I freely acknowledge it was a personal attack. So were Tamsier's RFA-disrupting personal attacks on a friend of mine, so I suppose I could try to make a case that I was baited into it. But Abecedare, feel free to sanction me; if it's for less than a month, I won't request unblock/review. If not, I will try to make your life less complicated by not talking to them anymore. I believe my point has been made, anyway. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your swift reply, but I just wanted to know if you would classify that as personal attack? Many thanks. Tamsier (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamsier, de-escalate and move on. Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Abecedare. I understand. Tamsier (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You really deserve this for resolving the conflict and resisting the POV-pushing in the article on Vanniyar! Ekdalian (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note sure that conflicts at this or any other caste-related article are ever really resolved, but thanks nevertheless Ekdalian. :) Abecedare (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Abecedare, Thank you for unblocking me. Today, you made me a better editor. Thanks, I will not repeat the mistake of violating the Indic Script policy. Let's be friends .Amogh Tripathi (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look [1]. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Thanks. Did my incremental bit and ECPed the page. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks and welcome . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1 and 2, the sockfarms Prakash_Baghel_Raj and Nishantkumarjdu were found to be responsible 3-5 years back, editing in and around 'Awadhiya' (including the Bahrain one), 'Bhumi Sena', 'Kurmi' ([2], [3] and many more), as well as making similar unilateral moves. The primary suspect was NikhilPatelReal for obvious caste-POV activities. Used to edit war in here, till the article got merged/rediected by me in 2019 after a consensus at INB. Sometime after that, these newbie IDs started showing up but surprisingly NikhilPatelReal wasn't seen these articles, and CU didn't find any evidence. May be a case of off-wiki activities. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Wow! Didn't realize there was this all this history of disruption. I agree that these look like sock/meatpuppets and we should be on the lookout for new accounts to appear.

Thanks for your help with Damodar Sekhar! I'll take a stab at restoring the last clean version of Bhumi Sena and then ECP it. Let me know if there are other articles targeted by this farm that need watchlisting/protection. Cheers and thanks again! Abecedare (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Thanks and welcome . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abecedare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Garuda friend (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]