User talk:Yogesh Khandke/Archive 3

Hi Yogesh

I noticed your post on the Donner Party talk page. I am not one of the writers, but I became aware of the article recently and have been following along with some of the discussion. I am also not a featured article writer, so my skills are not as refined as those who are. I do read many of the FA reviews, articles, and discussions in order to try to improve my own writing skills though. I thought I would try to give you my own impression of the Luis and Salvador conversation. If you're not interested, then you're free to quit reading here and just delete the post - I won't be offended.

Anyway, these are my thoughts: By the time an article reaches featured article status it has usually had a multitude of eyes reviewing, editing, tweaking, researching, referencing, and assessing the article. For that reason, it's going to be difficult to make any major changes that alter the design and flow of the article. Much of this has to do in concept with WP:CONSENSUS. Now, to the particular "Luis and Salvador" item; much of my thought revolves around these two principles: undue weight and coatrack. Meaning that while the "Luis and Salvador" situation is indeed very interesting, it is only a part of the entire scope of the article. The scope of the article covers not only the mortality and cannibalism in the Legacy section, but the background, the family histories, the route, the harshness of the land, the weather, the rescue attempts etc. I could easily say that William Pike was killed when a gun being loaded by William Foster discharged accidentally was also a fascinating factoid. But it doesn't rate its own section. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here, and I hope it helps a bit. Thinking about it though does leave me with a thought that I may post on the talk page. Thank you for your work, and the use of your talk page. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  07:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yogesh is little bit busy these days (as he told me in his last email) and due to some other problems he may not edit any article or post in talk page now! But, hope Yogesh will see your post ASAP! :-)--Tito Dutta (Message) 09:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ducking and weaving the topic ban

After returning to Indian history in violation of his Topic Ban (is there no template he has to maintain somewhere notifying others who may come to his Talk page), now YK is being quoted by others in current Indian caste system discussion on WikiProject India's talkpage:

I am informed by Yogesh Khandke off-list that "The Mahars converted to Buddhism, Chamars did not." You may like to factor that into your understanding. AshLin (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)diff

This is just getting ridiculous. I'm sure YK will insist that he had no intention for AshLin to quote him in a caste discussion, and it happened most mysteriously. But fundamentally he's only been under Topic Ban for a matter of days and he's already chipping at the fringes, with a host of buddies coming by to complain that his ban just leaves him nothing to work with (other than 150+ countries nowhere near India, entire fields of human learning like mathematics, cuisine, business, astronomy, different species of ferret, etc). MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd AGF and not read so much into this had we not known YK so long; he's banned from discussing India and colonialism and his first big interest after the ban is diving into the Donner Party article and getting into disputes over white (and thus "colonial") racism in the cannibalising of two "Indians" (American Indians). The dude is just picking more fights, and it seriously looks like a cheap shot at the topic ban to cover "Indians" (not India!!!) and "colonial racism against Indians" (not in India!!!). And more importantly, still stirring up trouble through selective obtuseness, selective slides from great English and formatting to unintelligibility at will, etc. I'm just not seeing this cat have many interests outside of being a thorn in everyone's side. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I must admit to thinking exactly the same things as MatthewVanitas raises, when I first became aware several hours ago of the situations to which he refers. However, there must be a fair few admins watching this & I presumed that they were content. I am not sure why it is that they are content but suspect that it might be a case of giving some rope and seeing what happens.

In fairness to Yogesh, he did pointedly recuse from a discussion at WT:INB due to his ban and he did recently say at User_talk:Dougweller#My_edits that he may need some assistance in understanding it. As far as Native American Indians go, well, there was a classic piece of Yogesh s**t-stirring pedantry some months ago that involved myself, him and at least one admin. It was an article related to journalism, IIRC, but it will take me a few hours to find it. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Finding it was quicker than I thought. The incident related to Sudheendra Kulkarni. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I clarified on India Talk page that this is not due to any request of Yogesh Khandke but done by me of my own accord. So in my opinion, I am the guilty party here and not Khandke. So I request this issue may be considered as closed as far as at least he is concerned. AshLin (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that if there are any future problems then the best recourse is probably to mention them directly to Dougweller because they were the unblocking admin. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.212 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My anonymous admirers - one of you almost got me blocked for socking. Please write to me. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, be happy.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I'm not worried, am just amused. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I get similar things and i see that the range of the IP is not much different :-) --sarvajna (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

More like random fellow posting randomly, per Special:Contributions/66.87.0.212. Notice the timestamps!इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Segregation in concrete

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Segregation in concrete requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 19:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Segregation in concrete for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Segregation in concrete is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segregation in concrete until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating the new article Segregation in concrete and for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for the public. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh thank you very much for your kindness. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Joshi's Museum of Miniature Railway

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Muhurat shot

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Muhurat shot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Your recent editing history at Sudheendra Kulkarni 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.

Give me a few minutes - I am composing a message for the talk page Sitush (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Yogesh Khandke reported by User:Sitush (Result: 48 hours). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yogesh Khandke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. The article edit history[1] would demonstrated that after the concerned editor put the 3R warning, no related edit to the page has been done by me, once warned I backed off. #Also in the case that the 3R warning is regarded just as a courtesy, and the warring edits counted from the first edit, wasn't it I who was the one who made the first edit to the article in ages, please see the historical version of the article before my present edits, it informed that Sudheendra Kulkarni was under arrest, it also informed that he had left the BJP, both of the facts were out of date, I was the one who updated this article the first time since 12 October, 2011. Then this other editor comes over, the first time since 24 July, 2011 and I get the edit war warning. See article edit history[2], also though I am over six years old here and 6000 edits, I am a little puzzled, the edit war warning reads: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert., the first edit was mine, was I the doer or the un-doer?

Decline reason:

You have been around the block before and you should know that an edit waring block != a 3RR block. You should also know that this isn't acceptable behavior and that it is disruptive. I can't find you explanation compelling. I have taken the liberty to extend your block to a week based on breaking your topic ban [3]. I suggest you avoid the area with a 50 foot pole when you return and that you stick to the 1RR. Guerillero | My Talk 06:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Personally, I would find that more convincing if you were a new user who didn't know what edit warring is. As it is, you've been around here long enough to know what edit warring is, and I would have expected you to recognize it. However, I'll leave that determination to another administrator. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right so I withdrew when I was warned, please see the article edit history. See the article it has text that the editor put back which I didn't edit out because the 3R tag was placed, I was warned and I withdrew. My last edit to Sudheendra Kulkarni was at 11.13 hours UTC, which is about four hours ago. The article needs editing in my opinion, but I stayed away and have been editing else where, because of the 3 R warning, I heeded the warning. I wasn't "Undoing another editor's work", why the block then? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2. Yogesh, this one reverts me for a start. Or perhaps you have forgotten what you were told in the past: that a "revert" is not necessarily the removal of something that was inserted. Among other issues in that diff, you have reinstated the "card carrying" bit that was under discussion, reinstated poor phrasing (nothing to do with "Indian English"), added a rather odd mini-quote, despite your tendency to do that also being under discussion, and so on.

I realise that style is a subjective thing, but hope that most people can recognise good writing when they see it. Your English comprehension seems to swing around a bit, as I think was mentioned at ANI during your topic ban discussion etc, but generally I reckon that you are more than capable of generating well-written articles if you so chose; instead, it seems that the anti-colonial etc chip on your shoulder, which was a major factor in your ban, almost forces you deliberately to make things worse if I or another Brit are involved. "X did his education" is not great writing when you could say, for example, "X was educated at". Can you not see this? - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit[4] was my mistake, which happened because of the large amount of text involved, it was immediately corrected by the next edit[5] (edit summary: reverted to edited status reg RSS Advani etc) which reverts the text as it was before the layout was changed. Any ways user:Sitush is a better judge of matters in this case, did I "edit war" after the warning? I hope he is honest. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush you report YK's edit warring after giving him a warning, did you observe that YK was continuing with his edit warring after you warned him? is it rational? Also The Blade of the Northern Lights you suggest you've been around here long enough to know what edit warring is, and I would have expected you to recognize it 1. If you look at the page history even Sitush has reverted YK's edits but because YK did not report it Sitush became a good guy and YK a bad guy 2. Considering that YK did revert Sitush’s edits but he did not do anything after the warning, what if he is an editor with experience, even experienced people make mistakes, blocking was not an answer warning was enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the AN3 report for my rationale; I'm not repeating it here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

This edit is in clear violation of your topic ban. However, as you are currently blocked (albeit on an unrelated issue) I'm not asking for enforcement, but am informing you and Dougweller (the last unblocking admin). —SpacemanSpiff 07:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and violating your topic ban. I seem to have made a mistake in unblocking you. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh was banned from editing topics related to Indian history, what made Spaceman and Dougweller to think that he violated the ban? I can say that you are being very innovative in making such a connection sarvajna (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This has already been addressed in the topic ban note and clarification on this talk page (and I see that you were involved in that discussion). You are welcome to take this up at ANI if you wish.—SpacemanSpiff 09:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

correct I was involved in the discussion so I do not see why you say that YK violated the ban, you should revist the discussion sarvajna (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a pointy historical edit and violation of the topic ban. I supported unblocking YK the last time around but this calls for an extension of the current block per the topic ban. --regentspark (comment) 16:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

For admin Dougweller's attention

1. You write: Edit warring and violating your topic ban. I seem to have made a mistake in unblocking you. My last block was for alleged socking, you unblocked me because, as far as I understand the evidence was inconclusive and perhaps because you trusted my word.
2. The following is what I wrote on user:Sitush's page before he put the 3R block warning, I tried informal dispute resolution
   1. You started with Sudheendra Kulkarni, saying that you had no idea who the subject was.
   2. You have deleted my edit on its talk page.
   3. There was no editing done by you since 24 July 2011, you started editing on 28 May 2012 after I edited the page. Which looks like hounding.
   4. This suspicion (hounding) is strengthened by the general lack of constructive edits. (Apart from pointing out that one link was not good and was dead - which was immediately heeded by me and replaced by other links).
   5. Your ignorance of terms like or "card-carrying member" "judicial custody"[6] (not a wp:RS but an attempt to bring forward the different terms) should not force them to be removed from the article, as you are doing so.
   6. You are pushing a line like " In 2011, Kulkarni was remanded in custody for a period and In November of that year was released on bail" which has punctuation errors and are vague, "in 2011" does that not warrant a "when" tag?
   7. You misrepresent discussions on notice boards.
   8. You have indulged in name calling (personal attacks) (see edit summary of talk page edit).
   9. You tag a line which is to denote that a period mentioned is ambiguous. The exact statement is "The time period in the vicinity of this tag is ambiguous". There are many instances about which information is not available, for example when he was born, when he joined school at Athani, when he passed from school, when he joined CPI(M), when he left it, we do not have information, similarly the article doesn't inform when he joined Blitz and when he left it. Do you want the article to be full of tags? On the other hand you remove information which gives specific dates eg. dates of arrest and release. Why?
   10. You force vague statements regarding a living person's arrest and release on bail, you disallow quotations from the judge granting bail explaining the reason he granted bail. Everyone is free to do constructive edits, yours in this case are not as far as I see them. Please note that this edit of mine would be followed by an official appeal (whenever I have the time and stomach for it). I have not bothered with diffs as this is an informal attempt to indicate that my editing pleasure (which I am entitled to) is adversely affected by your edits .
3. user:Sitush responded with deleting the above, he wrote in the edit summary go away.[7]
4. My topic ban was enforced on 4 April, 2012, since then I've had about 500 edits, and created 17 articles. For one of this I received a barn star, and had a DYK for another. Except for the one edit regarding Madras/Chennai for which user:SpacemanSpiff invoked the "topic ban" clause, there have been no other incidents.
5. I request you to take a long hard look at the facts of the matter.
6. Do you opine that my contribution post-ban has been un-constructive enough for you to make the comment "...I seem to have made a mistake in unblocking you." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• user:Dougweller: The two of us had interaction on the Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar page. You thus have a first hand experience of my editing. I hope you look at the facts. Take your own time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Kulkarni issues should have been dealt with on the article talk page and your accusations concerning my behaviour were baseless, hence "go away". Dealing with your machinations at article talk pages is bad enough, without having them spill over into my talk space. And, btw, some aspects of the Kulkarni article violated your topic ban and some of your new articles (I have by no means looked at them all) were poor for someone who has such a grasp of policy knowledge etc.

I leave the rest to Dougweller. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no standards that define exclusive rights of talk pages. I am also not aware of nomenclature of 'spilling over' into talk pages, 'go away', and so on and so forth. Sitush, are you violating WP:AGF?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)