Talk:Kallar Temple
Add topicLatest comment: 1 month ago by Gotitbro in topic No Attribution
No Attribution
[edit]Article copied from Encyclopaedia Indica without attribution. ~2026-37372-12 (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- That's on contrary. Above website, which appears to be a mirror site of Wikipedia, copied content from this (and on Mari Indus Temples) which were earlier deleted on 19 June under WP:G5. Present article is recreation. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Sutyarashi: That is incorrect that website is a WP:HOAX wiki created by the same chronic sockpuppeteer (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005) who created this and other articles at enwiki, he has just imported his creation to the hoax wiki after being banned from here (did the same thing earlier after previous socks were banned). Earlier he was directly importing articles from the hoax wiki to enwiki. None of these should be "recreated" (no editor should be reinstating articles created by a sockpuppet [in this case a known hoaxer as well]). You should not be reimporting any article from the hoax wiki. Gotitbro (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- I see that Kallar Temple has also been reimported from the hoax wiki. I would strongly recommend self-AfDs here. If these topics are notable, please create them through your own efforts and independent RS. Nothing a hoaxing sockpuppet has created in violation of their bans should remain at enwiki. Gotitbro (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- I suspected that the site was being run by Cyber.Eyes.2005 after visiting it however I wasn't aware that it hosted the content created by him or his socks on Wikipedia. And no, I didn't import the content from there; I had saved these two articles which I consider meet NOTABILITY before they were deleted. I'm well aware of WP's policies regarding copyvio from other sites. Nor I think they can be considered hoaxes. If anything, WP:G5 doesn't mean that articles created by socks should be deleted in each and every case, we are allowed to recreate them under our own name if they are clearly helpful, as in this case, after verifying the citations. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Sutyarashi: A strict deletion should be enforced especially when a sock network is a known hoaxer. An editor can salvage content they want to take subsequent responsibility for, but the articles you've created are in toto recreations of those by the sock and I'm not seeing any independent input there for content or 'verification of citations'.
- Moving on from procedure to content. The creation of these specific temple articles by the hoaxer, was largely to push a very minor theory/classification of a separate "Gandhara Nagara architecture" at enwiki, further going over beyond to entirely disconnect it from the larger Nagara Style (i.e. if the classification is accepted at all). This immediately stood out when the sock was active here and there
- is likely other major problem stuff in there as well. Gotitbro (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- I see your point, however I don't see much evidence that in this particular case hoaxes are involved. The name "Gandhara Nagara architecture" has been used frequently in Meister's monologue cited here, it may not establish independent notability for a standalone article on "Gandhara Nagara architecture" but I don't see any problem in using it while citing sources which do utilise the term. It wasn't a total verbatim recreation either.
- I will ask the administrator(s) who deleted the sock articles regarding AfD and/or work on it in a few days. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- "
while citing sources which do utilise the term
" - WP:MINOR, WP:ATTRIBUTE.
It wasn't a total verbatim recreation either
- It appears to be largely so, from the citations, to the sections, infobox, lead etc. Ultimately one should stick to the rule of WP:DENYing hoaxers any recognition including "content". Gotitbro (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- "
- I suspected that the site was being run by Cyber.Eyes.2005 after visiting it however I wasn't aware that it hosted the content created by him or his socks on Wikipedia. And no, I didn't import the content from there; I had saved these two articles which I consider meet NOTABILITY before they were deleted. I'm well aware of WP's policies regarding copyvio from other sites. Nor I think they can be considered hoaxes. If anything, WP:G5 doesn't mean that articles created by socks should be deleted in each and every case, we are allowed to recreate them under our own name if they are clearly helpful, as in this case, after verifying the citations. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- I see that Kallar Temple has also been reimported from the hoax wiki. I would strongly recommend self-AfDs here. If these topics are notable, please create them through your own efforts and independent RS. Nothing a hoaxing sockpuppet has created in violation of their bans should remain at enwiki. Gotitbro (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Sutyarashi: That is incorrect that website is a WP:HOAX wiki created by the same chronic sockpuppeteer (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005) who created this and other articles at enwiki, he has just imported his creation to the hoax wiki after being banned from here (did the same thing earlier after previous socks were banned). Earlier he was directly importing articles from the hoax wiki to enwiki. None of these should be "recreated" (no editor should be reinstating articles created by a sockpuppet [in this case a known hoaxer as well]). You should not be reimporting any article from the hoax wiki. Gotitbro (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)