User talk:Teabing-Leigh

Welcome!

Hello, Teabing-Leigh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Bhadani (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message

This statement "However, this is not a direct quote. No Primary source evidence exists of this quote." is Original Research and is not allowed, along with numerous other problems with your edits. Kjartan8 06:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kjartan8 Quoting Stanley Wolpert, Mansergh and Sir Francis Tuker is NOT original research. Stop making excuses for your attempts to deliberately distort history. You are guilty of vandalism of the worst kind and I will carefuly monitor your lies from now on. Teabing-Leigh 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made 5 reverts, violating the 3rr regulation, for which you will be blocked, and please assume good faith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kjartan8 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nothing that you've done is in good faith. So lets not get into making up stories. As for three reverts rule, I (Leigh Teabing) have only reverted thriceTeabing-Leigh 07:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have reverted five times, three times anonymously and twice while logged in. Kjartan8 07:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More warnings:

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Kjartan8 07:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kjartan WP:CIVIL. You are clearly frustrated.YLH 07:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Teabing claims he edited three times, but Kjartan8 states that the logs show Teabing edited while logged in only twice. Forgetting who your logged in as when your editing Teabing? The Kinslayer 09:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of case

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Teabing-Leigh for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Kjartan8 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username and userpage

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia,

I take it that your username is a play off the fictional character Leigh Teabing; however, I also see that you have claimed to be Leigh Teabing (above). As noted at the Username policy,

If you choose not to use your real name, you are welcome to use a name-like pseudonym instead. However, avoid impersonating any well-known persons or fictional characters.

It is highly suggested that you request your username be changed, as it is likely that someone will take this as an infringement on the character from the DaVinci Code and ask that you be blocked from further editing.

Additionally, I note that your userpage currently contains what appears to be an article-in-progress. Userpages are generally for information about the editor, and for editor's notes to him/herself; they should not be workspaces for articles. The appropriate place for such work is in a User subpage. The way to create one is to add a "/SUBPAGE" after "USER:Teabing-Leigh", where "SUBPAGE" can be whatever name you wish to use for your subpage. (See: Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_create_a_user_subpage.3F)

Regards,--Leflyman^Talk 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear leftyman,

As per your suggestion, I have requested for a username change on the concerned page. Please continue to advise me accordingly.

Teabing-Leigh → MantOliveS

Current name: Teabing-Leigh (talk • contribs)
Requested name: MantOliveS (change username)
Reason: I am told, and I tend to agree as a lawyer, that my current name violates the Wikipedia username policy for not using names of famous fictional characters. There I request my name be changed from Teabing-Leigh only if it is held that my name does indeed violate the Wiki Username policy. Teabing-Leigh 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghandi's Views on Race

As you can see, the page has been deleted. It's no longer saved. If you try to put it back up, it will be deleted again. I notice you have a draft of your work in the history of your user page; I suggest putting that work on a non-wiki personal website. I don't think there are any rules against linking to offsite personal work on your user page; but if you try to push this particular line again, you can expect to be slapped down hard, maybe banned. I'm sorry. It was some interesting research, albeit presented in a slanted manner; but it was seen as an attempt to push something that was definitely not Neutral Point of View. Ventifax 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ventifax.... the name is case sensitive. The article is still there Gandhi's views on race.

We can't remove the tags. The debate is still open. Ventifax 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how and when does a debate get closed? Teabing-Leigh 06:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm sorry, I'm pretty new to that part of Wikipedia myself. Ventifax

The length of time will be an admin prerogative. It's been allowed to go on this long, I'm sure, simply because if you review the discussion, you can see that it's not really "finished" yet. That said, at some point, almost certainly very soon now, an admin will close it and enact the consensus. At this point, looks like that would probably be delete. However, with regard to what Ventifax says above, please note that sanction would come not from simply trying to re-introduce the page, but rather trying to do so without making any attempt to address what got it deleted in the first place. If and when an admin deletes it, he or she will list their specific reasoning at the top of the deletion page. If you just try to recreate the exact same page and defend it with the exact same reasoning, then yes, that would be unacceptable and you would be "slapped down". However, if what you re-introduce has substantively different content and that difference shows an honest, good faith effort to correct the deficiencies that got it deleted, then you're not going to be banned or anything like that. You certainly may wind up in AfD again, having to defend the new articl. But that's OK, as long as you legitimately can point to how the new article does not have the same problems that were cited in the old one.

I started working on fixing up the article, but I just have a lot of other things going on, and haven't found the time to continue working on it. At this moment, my take on the article is that it is salvageable if and only if the Singh book is to be considered as an acceptable and reputable source for Wikipedia. One of the editors in the debate seems to have some concerns in that area, and I have not had the time to conduct my own research into Singh and his publisher to know whether I agree with that editor's concerns or not.

If the book is OK to use, then I still believe that the article can be re-worked into something that would be legitimately defendable in an AfD debate. If the book isn't considered a quality source, though, I honestly think that would leave too many holes to make a complete article without delving into original research. Even though the quotes themselves are not original research, applying them as evidence for the theory that Gandhi was a racist would be original research, unless you can cite that specific argument to a reputable source. The only real candidate I see so far to be that source is the Singh book, so I think it all hinges on that.

As for the next step, it's just to let the debate play out. Like I said before, there is no time limit on this. If it's deleted, you have all the time in the world to take a shot a re-working it. Heck, at some point, even I will find the time to put into this that I'd like to. (Though it's not likely going to be before I finish my taxes--lol). 8-)

If you're passionate about trying to pursue this, and if you have more time than I do available to do so, then I'd make a few recommendations:

1) See if you can find some background on G. B. Singh. If there's something out there that shows definitively that he's a reputable source, not just some crackpot who happened to get a book published, then that definitely speaks well to the encyclopedic value of this topic.

2) If there's nothing available about Singh, then background on Prometheus Books might help. If it can be established that they're a reputable publisher, then one can argue that Wikipedia has no reason not to rely on their assessment that Singh is reputable.

3) Find out if there are any other reputable books or articles, which are not sourced from the Singh book, that use those specific quotes from Gandhi's writings and discuss whether Gandhi was a racist. Preferably sources that pre-date Singh's book, so they are not using it as a source. You list the book UnGandhian Gandhi as further reading. Have you read that book? Just from the title it sounds like that might be a source right there. Perhaps reading that would be helpful.

And, as always, remember that true research often goes beyond what we can find for free on Google. Sometimes, it really does take getting up and going on into the library so that you can access sources that either not available on-line, or are only available on-line for a fee. (Libraries often have free access to such otherwise for-pay items.) Plus, Google is Western-centric. Perhaps over there in Pakistan there are other sources in libraries there that haven't been put on Google that would help in the above three areas.

Unfortunately, making library trips in pursuit of this is something I definitely don't have nearly enough time to do myself right now. Too many other things going on in life. Mwelch 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Also, please do not leave personal attacks my talk page. And, for the record, I am not an Indian Nationalist and my views on Gandhi are not "petty little biases". They are the opinions of the vast majority of people who study Gandhi. The article as you wanted it, on the other hand was FULL of "petty little biases". One should practice what one preaches. Belgium EO 00:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mwelch,

- - Given your comment and those by ventifax and other people ("merge"), I am hoping the admin will see that the consensus is non-existent.
  - Thanks for your changes. The book by G B Singh, who is a retired colonel of the US army and who has passionately forwarded this cause, is a carefuly researched book that forwards a very plausible view. Prometheus Books is definitely a respectable publisher: http://www.prometheusbooks.com/ ... with many of their books as respectable textbooks in several US universities http://www.prometheusbooks.com/cat.html.
  - There are other books like "Gandhi we all know" which tracks the evolution of Gandhi and is generally apologetic of his racism. Then there is Richard Grenier's famous "The Gandhi nobody knows"... but I am not familiar with the man's background and I accept your view that he is a crackpot for the moment. As for Ungandhian Gandhi it traces Gandhi's myth as a saint-politician, kind of on the lines of Orwell's famous criticism of Gandhi.
  - You asked for Pakistani sources... In Pakistan, despite Gandhi's status as father of Pakistan's rival nation, Gandhi is well respected not the least because Jinnah himself had paid glowing tributes to Gandhi on his death describing his death as a loss for humanity.
  - My own exposure to Gandhi's views on race and caste etc came through Gandhi's collected works and through a well researched article on the Indian website Sulekha... mostly during my undergraduate studies in the US. However.. the one Pakistani source which alludes to Gandhi's racism is Kamran Shahid's book Gandhi and Partition of India..
  - All in all, enough people have raised the issue of Gandhi's racism before me for it to be original research. Teabing-Leigh 09:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Hopefully, if nothing else, admins will see that the article as it exists is already substantially different and improved from what it was at the time it was nominated and what it was at the time a number of the people who voted to delete cast their vote, and that it's still in the process of further improvements. You have shown good faith in being receptive to changes and improvements and hopefully that fact will be noticed and not be lost amid all of the "delete" votes registered.

But again, I think the key point to remember is that even if it gets deleted right now, that's not a reason to surrender on the idea of continuing to work on it, get more sources cited, etc. in order to bring the topic back for renewed discussion later. Definitely keep your own copy of the page handy so that that work can continue no matter what happens with the closing of the current debate. As I said, I'm finding myself busy with other things these days, but I'll be more than happy to continue to assist with the effort going forward as I find time to do so. Mwelch 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Jinnah

1. "Best" is POV, be it of a scholar or Jinnah's contemporaries. There are a whole range of Hindu and Muslim leaders over the 100 years of the independence movement who can be described as such by others. Apparently there was also a book on Maulana Azad, terming him the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity - let us not confuse readers. Wikipedia cannot endorse a particular point of view, and for the article, it should suffice to mention Jinnah's reputation as "an ambassador" of Hindu-Muslim unity.

{My response: Dear Rama... I am not going to push this issue... but I'll say this I am not aware of a book on Maulana Azad but it must have been later on as a response to the fact that Jinnah had been repeatedly described as such... in any event, as far as I am aware, Jinnah was the only politician who was known by this name... and if it was used in a book on Azad, it definitely did not catch the popular imagination as all biographies on Azad fail to mention this. The book I quoted "Ian Bryant Wells' Ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity: Jinnah's early politics" is a good resource to haveTeabing-Leigh 14:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)) PS: As an analogy - one may say that to call Gandhi "Mahatma" is POV because many others have been called Mahatma. Whereas we know that this term is often used as a stand alone for Gandhiji. Teabing-Leigh 14:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. this paper discusses the politics of the time; there is a passage which describes Jinnah's views and that of the Home Rule party, of loyalty to the British and the war effort. I personaly don't see a need to add a citation (guidelines don't require citations for every significant fact) but feel free to do so if you like.

3. According to this, we are both wrong; the original title was Mohomad Ali Jinnah: Ambassador of Unity. If you have access to a copy of this book, then I would appreciate that you get the publication details as well, so we can correct the mistake in the article. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of points - the only reason the article here is titled Mahatma Gandhi is because he is best-known across the world as such, instead of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Quaid-e-Azam was made the official title for Jinnah by the Government of Pakistan. The adjective Best is a can of worms - best in what sense? compared to whom? Why him and not Azad, or Ansari, or Hakim Ajmal Khan, or Badshah Khan, etc., etc. Its not worth the hassle even if it were ok to put in. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing - please sign your posts with four tildes ("~"). I only reverted the pov edits and dubious tag, in addition to the vandalism from an anon. If you'd like to reinsert the Tilak sedition trial citation, go ahead. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by violating the 3RR on Direct Action Day through the use of sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Teabing-Leigh). If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail [email protected]. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity

The article Ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBOOK, twice.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]