User talk:Mrt3366/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

How are you?

off-wiki stuff, personal stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment by Brendon111 (talk · contribs) at 14:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC) How are you? I saw you're blocked and that's why refrained from commenting. Now that you've been unblocked by user User:RegentsPark, good luck editing.  Brendon is here 14:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Do I know you? I mean have I interacted with you on Wikipedia? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Know me? You've known me for years. Come on! I sent you a mail. Is it the same? Knowing you, I think you have not changed it. Delete this if you want.  Brendon is here 14:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Let me check the mail. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Check the first one (the gmail one).  Brendon is here 14:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC) We ought to keep it out of Wikipedia. It is for other uses. This might be seen as improper. Ok? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Okay, BTW, it's very hard for me to reach you.  Brendon is here 14:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for INS Aridhaman

Allen3 ^talk 11:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

All credit goes to SE Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Completely Disagree you provided the sources and the inspiration responsible for the expansion :) TheStrike Σagle 15:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I am humbled. I honestly thank you. Hats off! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, after I was alleged to be a sock of a blocked one for editing military articles, I was severely hurt and vowed never to edit any military article ever......but you have changed my feeling with your attitude! :) BTW I was wondering if we could ever ever get Submarines of the Indian Navy and Ships of the Indian Navy to FL...what do you think? Cheers, TheStrike Σagle 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I am glad that I was of some help at least to somebody.
Okay, let's take Ships of the Indian Navy to FL. Then Submarines of the Indian Navy? Or do you prefer the other way around? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

SE I am awaiting your nod, is it on or not? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response..... my college has started and I hardly get the time I used to once......actually any way works! :) Active ships would be great... TheStrike Σagle 12:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 15:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The page was moved after a lot of discussion, you can find answers to your questions over there. Here is the link [1] .-sarvajna (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As much as I would like to see Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi as a "Mahatma" (I really do, trust me!), it is an honorific. And we must ponder what is best compliant with the policies of the project. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Here, RK, you say I must go to Move review, what is that? Did I do something procedurally wrong, guys, RK, RP? I don't want to get blocked again. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

MrT, I thought it is move review. We just cannot go on doing the same thing. Today if it gets moved so can I start another RM to move it back? Did anything changed regarding Gandhi in last few days that we need another discussion? -sarvajna (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I get your point, I didn't know about the discussion prior to the move request. I don't want to cause disruption. I am awaiting for RP. You see, the RM is already responded to. What should I do? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything. You're entitled to make a move request and six four months after the last one is not overly aggressive. Just let it run its course. It won't pass anyway. :) --regentspark (comment) 18:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The last move request was closed on 20 Feb 2013. -sarvajna (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So it means 3 and a half months, is it inadequate? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You made a good faith move request and you can't really close it now with so many responses. Like I said, let it be. Move requests are useful because the underlying issues percolate up and that's always a good thing regardless of whether the request is closed as 'no consensus', 'move' or 'not moved'. --regentspark (comment) 18:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

See this by Titto? Dharma says wrong venue also. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RP, you were part of the previous discussion and knowing that the page was moved not long ago you still voted there actually you were the first person to vote. -sarvajna (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If the article does get moved I now expect you to be the first person to remove "commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi" from the first sentence. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic DD. It is unlikely to get moved. RK, someone opens a move discussion, I have an opinion, so I comment there. Like I said, I believe the previous close was incorrect (and said so to the closer at that time) so afaik, a new request is fine. Not sure what you all are so het up about, discussion is a good thing and at least we'll have some sort of closure to this one. Too bad fowler is away though. --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RP, correct me if I am wrong, if you thought that it was incorrect you could have gone for a WP:MR. I don't there would be a closure if it is not moved. I am sure there are many people who would like it to be moved, no matter what the consensus is .-sarvajna (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not worth it RK - going to a move review. It is usually a waste of time And I didn't make this move request. I'm merely commenting on it. When done in good faith, as it is in this case, there is nothing disruptive about an RM. --regentspark (comment) 19:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Recommendation from the previous closer

There's not much one can do now - to stop it early will get editors who want a move complaining, to let it run will do the same with the other camp. It was a close call in February, so I would let it run - and then maybe add some sort of banner to the talk page to warn against repeated RMs
— User:Ronhjones 20:23, June 12, 2013‎ (UTC)

I have, for brevity, quoted only the second half of the comment. I encourage others to read the full comment. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have read the comment and your point is? -sarvajna (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My point is that he has said it. I don't have any other point RK. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Headless Horseman Pursuing Ichabod Crane

Hi, I've removed the a10 speedy tag you added to The Headless Horseman Pursuing Ichabod Crane, as it adds reasonably substantial detail about one painting, and was only created half an hour ago, with potential for further expansion. You can always take it to AFD if you disagree. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Logo Mahindra two wheelers.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo Mahindra two wheelers.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor interaction analyzer

Comment by RegentsPark (talk · contribs) at 21:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice tool. I took the liberty of comparing our edits. Looks like we're best buddies :) [2]. --regentspark (comment) 21:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I respect you and I don't consider you hostile at all. I don't know why they are making this about you. I do believe you're acting in good faith. I don't have any beef with anybody esp. with you. Please don't misconstrue this ANI report as anything against you (I had to clarify, albeit I am fairly sure you're going to understand my concerns). :) I'll take a legit block from you any day. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 03:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I guess having a preference for unblocking rather than blocking is not a good admin thing :( --regentspark (comment) 14:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• This tool was mentioned at WP:INDT. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Titodutta (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)@RP: While acting as an administrator, having any proclivity/preference towards editors is a bad thing. I could not stress it enough! Tendency to give someone rope is one thing but repeated ostentatious display of gullibility is quite another. That's why some are against you acting as an admin. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

True. But I don't think Wikipedia gains when either you or DS are in a blocked state. Given the combative way both of you approach editing, you wouldn't be here very long if the only thing admins saw were the combats. BTW, re your dragging in the Lihaas unblock, can anyone have a proclivity or preference toward him? :) That's one clear case in which no one could be called involved! --regentspark (comment) 15:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to believe what you want to believe but many will perhaps specify in this context that you ought not to force others to abide by your personal beliefs. Besides, other admins and editors don't agree with that statement, esp. Spartaz. I am sorry RP but I can't, even after repeated tries, find any Gray area here. I think our personal beliefs are no excuse for over-riding others' painstaking decisions that's why we have notice-boards, to measure the weight of opposite arguments.

"Given the combative way both of you approach editing, you wouldn't be here very long if the only thing admins saw were the combats." - They don't. I mean if majority of admins find us unworthy or disruptive, then maybe, just maybe, it's true that I don't belong here in the first place. But I don't think majority of admins here are hell-bent on blocking either of us out of spite. If I am blocked without a strong case, I can always file an ArbCom case against the abuser and if ArbCom agrees with them in the end, then I am probably wrong. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I use the interaction tool daily as a function of being an SPI Clerk. For two established editors to have 100 common articles and pages is common, thus meaningless. You can compare me to a number of people that I would say I don't even know, and find 100 connections. Finding 20 intersects for an editor with 200 edits is useful. Finding 100 intersects with editors that have 15k edits or more each is nothing. For that matter, two editors that are edit warring on POV issues will also have lots of intersects. The intersect tool is very limited and doesn't show intent, and arguably, not even patterns. It shows only the potential for patterns. It requires diffs to establish any real link. Using it as stand alone proof is a fool's game, at SPI or anywhere else. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kal So-Won may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• first|first=dai|last=ko|date=January 4, 2012 |publisher=KoreanVibe.com|accessdate=January 3, 2012}}]</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://mwave.interest.me/news/newsdetail.m?searchNewsVO.news_id=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 June 17

Please read and heed the notice I just placed on this DRV. Comment on the edit not the person pressing the edit button. Importing extraneous disputes will lead to your comments being ignored as clearly motivated by personal animus. DRV thanks you for your understanding. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and please don't lecture other editors about what DRV is or isn't. I'm more than capable of identifying the policy based arguments and ignoring the rest. Badgering/bludgeoning inexperienced users at DRV not only makes the process unnecessarily oppressive for the uninitiated but raises the temperature too much and I'm afraid that you are not very good at disagreeing with someone neutrally. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not replying to you. BTW, did I say something wrong in that "lecture"? Cut me some slack, will you? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm the regular DRV closer and part of that remit includes supporting the collegiate level of discussion required by DRV. If you are going to participate at DRV you need to understand what is and is not helpful there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I now get that my comment was unhelpful (but no credit to you since you didn't even specify which comment was unhelpful). I frankly didn't like the dismissive tone of your comment above. I didn't wish to deliver a "lecture" on anything. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I did actually link the comment in question and you found your way to redacting it so I doubt it was that much effort, but thank you for fixing your comment. Much better. I do acknowledge that i'm naturally terse. Its a feature of the age of my user infrastructure I'm afraid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, albeit I am not getting my hopes up. ;) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Having said that, I thank you for your efforts. Cheers, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Mrt3366/File

User:Mrt3366/File, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mrt3366/File and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mrt3366/File during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

DS Incident page

Comment by RegentsPark (talk · contribs) at 19:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mrt. The keeping of this sort of page on-wiki is not encouraged. On the other hand, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody. (from WP:ATTACK.) Unless you intend filing an RfC/U immediately, I suggest deleting it. Note that there is no injunction against maintaining such a page off wiki. --regentspark (comment) 19:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I intend to do. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Which one

RFC/U or god help you AE? That I may prepare my diffs for the defense Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't decided yet. Time will tell. It may be a day or weeks before I deem my case to be solid enough. Don't worry I won't maintain that online list if I see I need more time than usual.

Kindly DO NOT LEAVE COMMENTS ON MY TALK (except for formal notifications to relevant discussions).
This is the umpteenth time I am forced to tell you this. Why don't you leave me the heck alone here? I don't particularly look forward to interacting with you(!) Thank you for understanding. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk restored

Comment by RegentsPark (talk · contribs) at 12:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Here

You may delete it now I have saved the comments on that page offline. I might use them later. Thanks for that. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2002 Gujarat violence may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• strongly disputed as Gujarat did not have a State Commission for Women to act on the ground.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/Godhra/godhra093.htm |title={{Wayback|df=
• in the state." The tone of their most recent report was reported by the Tribune as "lenient".[http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020426/main5.htm NCM rejects Gujarat report:Directs state to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

70.181.68.226 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Hello! Here's a cookie. I also have a question. Why is your username "MrT" 3366? --70.181.68.226 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

That number, or something about it rather, holds a deep sentimental significance for me. Thanks for the cookie. I like it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome. And I was talking about the Mr T part, not the 3366 part. But it's fine. :) --70.181.68.226 (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ANEW, again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

*sigh*

Everywhere I turn these days I'm seeing one or the other of you and DS reporting/complaining about the other. I'm quite fed up with this and this has to come to an end now as its disrupting and distracting for other editors. There are 3 ways this can go:

• I can start full protecting every article you squable over until you see sense
• I can impose an administrative sanction to prevent you editing the same article or allowing an admin to expel you from any argument you are fighting over or
• I can get my block stick out and start escalating blocks until you both get indeffed. And to be fair to you since DS is ahead of you on the escalating block I'll start you both off on a month.

The alternative is for you to negotiate a way of working with each other that doesn't involve squabbling in a way that my 9 year old is too mature to engage in. This is pretty much your last chance to sort this out yourself. Please take it and don't wait for me or the community to resolve this for you as I assure you that you won't like how that ends up. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Mature reciprocation is a necessary precondition for a proper negotiation. Besides, I am already banned. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the essay. Contentions from two sides of this dispute are not equally worthless. Decision is up to you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Formal Notification of Possible RFAR related sanctions

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

I have said what I could here. I don't need orange bars for this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I gave you a final warning about tendentious editing just a few days ago, and pointed you to the discretionary sanctions rule of WP:ARBIPA. Despite this and other warnings, you have continued to edit in an openly tendentious fashion. This [3] edit, made by you today, is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. In this edit, you are taking an obviously tendentious, unreliable individual witness's voice, which lays the blame for the events to one side of the conflict in rather blatant contradiction to the consensus of independent academic and journalistic sources, and stick that voice right in the beginning of the section as if it was a serious summary of the events. This is unacceptable. Under the rules of the Arbcom decision pointed to above, I am now formally topic-banning you from all edits related to Indian and Pakistani politics for a period of six months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC) is this a joke, that edit was neither objected by any editors(excluding myself) who are active on that page nor was it unsourced. It was not even discussed by anyone. Interestingly this topic ban comes from an admin who was already accused of bullying MrT here .-sarvajna (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC) It is certainly a case of shooting from the hip and not giving due process a chance. There is the talk page and other dispute resolution processes to address neutrality concerns. This admin neither explains their neutrality concerns (even when requested repeatedly) nor gives due process a chance and their communication solely consists of waving the admin gun and shooting. They just seem to get people into their cross-hairs and shoot at the first possible chance. Period.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week for making personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith (cf. [4]). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought you said, "That said, MrT, I'll give you a couple of hours to remove the various personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith from your appeal; after that, you'll be blocked." (My emphasis)

I was about to ask you to clarify but you blocked me already within minutes. So kindly explain the assumptions of bad faith and unblock me and I promise I will rewrite the lines that you think are personal attacks or ABF, my sole aim was to make the reader understand the bias from my stand-point. I was banned for six months and not merely blocked so I had to explain the graveness of the situation. Please understand the issue. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I interpreted your reply as a way to say that you were unwilling to rewrite your appeal. Since I misunderstood, I'm about to unblock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin kingdoms

Sorry to know that you are banned now. We will get you out of it and then we will get a list of admins who are very much involved in India-Pakistan-Bangladesh articles and are still acting as admins. They need to be banned from using their admin tools here. Let them do that on American Highway articles. Of thousands of admins present, why do these same faces keep showing up? If they themselves have no shame in breaking such rules, we have to bring it on them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know

Comment by Anir1uph (talk · contribs) at 13:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Lately, I have not been around here a lot, but I am commenting here to register my disagreement about the way the situation has been handled during the past few days. You are a fantastic editor, and I can state that based on my past collaboration with you on numerous topics. I am frankly disappointed seeing all this. Bans and blocks seem to be flying too quickly here. I just hope that cooler heads prevail, and you are given a patient hearing. I can only imagine what would be going through your mind right now, but I do hope that you can remain calm and cool during all this, and not get into a funny mood yourself. :P Best, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, the ban is the worst of all the things that have happened to me on Wikipedia. I think until and unless Wikipedia incorporates some kind of effective and quick deterrence against patent abuse of Admin privileges among other things, nobody can be editing without redundant and unhelpful apprehensions about retribution from an offended admin. Just to clarify, I am NOT trying to imply that this has happened to me, no, all I am saying is there is a possibility. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be getting worse and worse day by day. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia — if this is allowed to continue — will one day get reduced to nothing but a haphazard accumulation of separate fiefdoms under administrators and bureaucrats. In those fiefdoms their intemperate biases and political propaganda will rule the roost. Exceptions are becoming the rules here and that's where our project is headed. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it surprising that paid editors are not being doubted, whereas a trusted user is being topic-banned. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I am astonished too. The inaction and apathy of Mr. Jimbo wales is to blame for this. I have, in recent past, tried to bring this issue to his attention, but he didn't even deign to provide a response, he doesn't care to descend from the mighty throne to mingle with a commoner like me. Let's see what happens. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at this. Its a good bog about Wikipedia's black side. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hang in there mate. Irondome (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your signature

Can't see this?

Hello, I must sadly point out your signature is in violation of WP:CUSTOMSIG, I'm counting 355 characters in your signature, and the maximum allowed number of characters are 255 (which is what the software truncates when input in the signature box) As I assume you use substitution of template when you are signing, which is permissible, but highly discourage WP:SIG#NT. Please make sure your signature is reduced in length. _→AzaToth 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Section new link, I cant see any "clear box" anywhere, thus without having to enter section=new in the url, I can't make a new section here, which in my opinion is not a good tactic to allow people to post on your talkpage. _→AzaToth 15:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sir, I will truncate it in a day. Is that okay? So far nobody has complained about the length of my signature. I don't remember interacting with you ever. Is there anything else I can help you with?
Please do not fiddle with my code[5], if you have a request, suggestion kindly state it here but don't change the codes unilaterally. There is a box above that allows for commenting (″post a new comment on my talk page″), I am not stopping anybody from commenting. I welcome comments. I am very agitated, please understand. Can it not wait? Please Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If you promise to truncate it in a day or so, that fine, just wanted to avoid problem following the discussion on WP:ANI due to your signature breaking two lines (which also gives undue exposure to your additions relative others). Also I cannot find a "post a new comment on my talk page" link or form anywhere on your talk page, perhaps I'm blind. _→AzaToth 15:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you sir. I have, in good faith, left a comment here asking about the length of my signature. I hope you don't mind? I need to be informed about everything, because I run a risk of being blocked on any pretext. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Also I cannot find a "post a new comment on my talk page" link or form anywhere on your talk page" - really? No it's my bad-luck. My life is bounded by Finagle's Law. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

People should not have to learn each time how to use every individual user's talk page. Why do you force them? How does that help in encyclopaedia-building-related cooperation? Keφr 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

And lest we forget: this is not your code. WP:UP#OWN states that "[P]ages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." Making collaboration harder goes against their purpose. Keφr 04:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats Mr. T! Whatever be the reason you at least got a different admin talking this time. You should go and spread some wikiloves and throw away barnstars maybe and then no one would bother even if you have an .exe file in your signature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just so ya know...

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Bwilkins's talk page.
Message added 16:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Re. my request to rephrase your appeal

First of all, I apologise for my tardiness in replying, but I've been kept away from my computer... However, the parts of your appeal that I consider attacks and assumptions of bad faith are mainly concentrated in your "context" part; more to the point, I'm referring mainly these two sentences: user Darkness Shines is pushing an obnoxious agenda in each one of them & Now, it's no secret that because of some recent changes in his proclivities he has managed to garner a few hardcore sympathizers who would want to see an exclusive and utterly one-sided focus on only anti-Muslim violence in India, who incessantly strive to blindly label every anti-Muslim violence in India as "pogrom". In these you accuse DS of pushing an "obnoxious agenda" and unnamed others to connive with him. Other parts that you might want to rephrase or remove are (even the extra-scrupulous Darkness Shines let it stay) (why are you singling him out?) and ban me based on a subjective pretext (here it's the word "pretext", which is an assumption of bad faith, because it implies that FPaS was acting with a different intent than the one he stated, which is the protection of the encyclopaedia). These last two examples are minor, but the first ones, in my opinion, are not. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for a delayed response. I will rephrase. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Salvio did you see the sweeping comment from "Boing! said Zebedee" "editors who take part are entrenched nationalist and/or political POV-pushers, on both sides" or is it just me who should assume good faith everywhere? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that might indeed have been worded better (though I admit that, unfortunately, there really are editors who are entrenched nationalists and/or political POV-pushers), but that's what I'd define as "quibble". I understand you're angry now; however, your original appeal, in my opinion, contained worse attacks and assumptions of bad faith (not to mention that you had already been asked by another admin to tone down your comments about DS). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Comment by Mrt3366 (talk · contribs) at 14:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So far only one edit [6] has been raised as justification of my ban. I have not seen any other edit (except "Minorities of Pakistan" which I already left because of personal fear).

1. That edit was sourced.[7]
2. I didn't misrepresent the claim/quotes, it clearly says "Pak flag was hoisted after Godhra carnage: witness" and also mentions the remarks by Bharatiya Janata Party member and municipal corporator, Ashok patel, a witness DEPOSING before the investigative commission inquiring about the riots of 2002. We should not sit on judgement on whether an witness is telling the truth or not. That's not our job. If the reliable sources mentioned it ought to be included.
3. Only one issue about that good-faith edit might be that I, perhaps, miscalculated the weight of that statement. There was no discussion after that, I was directly banned!

May I know what the issue was? Please comment and keep it ordered. You can comment here, albeit there is a similar request on the ANI currently. Does this merit a ban? Mr T^(Talk?) 14:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• No: Per this Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

However for the time being it would help per Dusti if you stayed away from trouble, give yourself a 1R ban, stop commenting about DS, and enjoy the other parts of Wikipedia, I've created article stubs on tiny American rivers. Enjoy Wikipedia don't let it stress you. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion/Suggestion

• TLDR - let's give a big all I don't care! :) - here's why - it doesn't matter. You need to be adopted by someone with the patience of the Virgin Mary, and you need to keep your head down low, and you need to keep yourself out of trouble. If I had the power, I'd topic ban you from anything besides puppies and bunnies (cause let's admit it, they're cute), and I'd ensure you'd never see the light of controversyagain. Here's your downfall - your fault... You care too much . You are about what others think, you care about the small things, you care about things that (in the grand scheme of things) don't matter. What's your ultimate goal? Here. What do you want to accomplish here? Do you want to become an admin? A 'crat? Create a ton of DIY's? What actually matters to You? Dusti^*poke* 06:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you just say "it doesn't matter"??

Little things? Last time I checked 2002 Gujarat Violence was not listed anywhere as a "little thing". You want to topic ban me from anything besides puppies and bunnies? You know what? I don't think my invitation to you (below) was such a great idea. Your comment greatly bothers me. You shouldn't belittle what other people genuinely care about. Mr T^(Talk?) 06:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not reading what I wrote Mr. T - please go back and read again. You're taking what was said as something meant to be encouraging and turning it into a negative. Do you honestly think I would topic ban you to puppies and bunnies? You're missing the point m'dear. Go back and read it again, this time slowly. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Dusti^*poke* 06:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"do not collect $200." - what on earth are you talking about? Mr T^(Talk?) 06:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. T you'r making yourself unhappier, you are a great contributor, see you just proved Dusti right about the biting part. Relax. Six month would fly, (in case you don't contest the ban), Wikipedia is a big place, your ban area India-Pakistan politics is tiny, you could cleanup all the big and small towns of India, they're in a mess, this suggestion comes from someone who is under a topic ban so I know what I'm talking about. Cheers! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not collect $200 or Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

<outdent> You're obviously not understanding what I'm getting at. What I'm telling you is simply this - You've got to figure out what actually matters. You're getting upset with me for giving you advice. The above is excellent advice (if I may say so myself). If you get upset with me for (jokingly) saying you should be topic banned to only discussing bunnies and puppies and staying away from controversial edits - there's something wrong. This simply goes to show you what's happening. You're getting upset over something that doesn't exist. There's no problem above. I asked you a question - what really matters to you? What's your goal here. On the more serious note, this little edit is crap. It's as if you're saying that I'm bullying you and you're asking Jimbo why is he allowing it. I'm trying to help you. Me saying you care too much about the little things says a boatload about my intentions. I don't even know why I'm writing here trying to help you. I don't know why I care. Hell, I should be off writing about those puppies and bunnies right now. Do you want my help, or not? Dusti^*poke* 06:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And (for what it's worth) - I'm attempting to keep your ass out of hot water. Let's cool things down a bit, shall we? Dusti^*poke* 06:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Aaaand you've got it. I'm done. I tried to help, yet you can't distinguish between the difference of someone trying to help you and someone that's an enemy. Good luck. Dusti^*poke* 06:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(One last thing - since you may not have caught on) I was closing the conversations so what is done is done (You're not currently blocked) and you could Save face in this issue. But you couldn't leave well enough alone, and you've got to keep pouring gas on the fire. That, my friend, is where I was trying to help you. The advice, the closing of the discussions, etc. - Now I shall go, and let you clean up your own mess. Dusti^*poke* 06:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, I am tremendously shocked right now, for all that is happening, I learnt a dreadful lesson recently. Also I like being neither ventriloquized nor misconstrued, Sir/Ma'am. Please I didn't say you're bullying me anywhere, did I? I am in no mood to be decrypting allegories/metaphors. What hot water?
Secondly, I specifically asked you to comment about the edit. That actually would have really helped me a great deal. You didn't. You didn't even read it.
Thirdly, you're asking me to accept the blame for something I didn't do. That's why I am unsure if your methods will actually help me or not. You're not saying something in my defense, you're not even trying to show me how to appeal this hegemonic and utterly unilateral ban from a seemingly involved editor who, for mysterious trepidations, won't ban the other guy. AGF has its limits, you know? I don't need your tutelage if all you can do is condition me to behave meekly and submissively. I'd rather stay banned and edit only my talk or leave Wikipedia than bearing this nonsense with humility. Mr T^(Talk?) 06:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd expressed exactly the same ideas, "I'd rather stay banned and edit only my talk or leave Wikipedia than bearing this nonsense with humility." You could see my ban discussion. Trust me the world is not exactly what we imagine it to be, it is in shades and not black and white. "They're still there he's all gone" comes to my mind. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Let them stay here. It's not solely my responsibility. I was wasting my time on a lost cause. Nobody can save wikipedia if this continues, more Qwortys and Jagged 85s will come and the cabal will guard them while blocking those who actually want to work towards a balance and uncover the guile.
There was nothing majorly wrong with my edit apart from a probability of miscalculation of the weight. Period!
But, I am banned now, and there is no pride in playing a RIGGED game. I am rightfully angry. I am not the first nor am I going to be the last. I am just an accidental drop in an ocean filled with despondency and outright deceit. Assuming Good Faith is like turning the blind eye towards blatant abuses of others, it's masochistic. Mr. Wales's colossal apathy will sooner or later cost him greatly, if he doesn't do anything to address the issues.
There is no way in hell I am going to cooperate with people who sanctimoniously ″advise″ me to meekly accept disingenuous POV-accusations as though that was the righteous thing to do. If this is what Wikipedia is all about then I don't belong here. I am too idealistic, perhaps "the others" will disagree. You know what the worst thing is, even if I am unbanned now it won't matter. I alone can do nothing to stop that coalition of cabals who really are dedicated to pushing POVs with the imprimatur of their Admin/Bureaucrat pals.
It should be "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit but ... if you go against the major biases the hive-mind will eliminate you".
If the general thinking doesn't shift away from nonsensical assumptions Wikipedia is gone! One should know when to leave the party. What people don't learn is that the problem with false, comforting assertions is that in the end game you WILL pay for it. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" Mr T^(Talk?) 07:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You check this please.[8] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's some advice

I know that you're a passionate editor, it shows in your work, contributions, and in your style of writing. Here's what you have to remember - stop biting people in your threads. Stop attacking everyone who speaks to you. We're not all out to get you - trust me, we really aren't. I closed your thread on Jimbo's talk page because I know what you're after, and it wasn't going in that direction. You need to take a few moments, find the red X in the upper right hand corner of your screen, and take some time to cool off. Walk away. It's a much stronger message then getting yourself blocked over nonsense. If you need a mentor or want someone to guide you, you can post a message on my talk page. Dusti^*poke* 22:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• As Dusti said, you're being your own worst enemy here. See Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You closed the ANI-thread also? Probably for the best. Dusti, would you be so kind as to commenting on the thread immediately above this one? I would obviously like to discuss with you some things. If you are open to this kindly respond above. Mr T^(Talk?) 05:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Shahid M. Malik

Comment by 77.101.240.244 (talk · contribs) at 19:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

shahid m malik is my page on wikipedia someone messed around and chagned many things on my page i want to correct it but dont know how to do it please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.240.244 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I know your wish is to improve the article but it's not your article. Read WP:OWN. I don't know much about the subject of the article so I can't be of much help to you. Sorry! Mr T^(Talk?) 08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think he means he is Shahid M. Malik. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

This is a violation of your topic ban. I have blocked you for 72 hours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

How? I didn't comment on any article. I proposed a topic ban on the ANI. I am already topic banned and now you want to stop me from proposing topic ban for the one who needs a ban more than me? Mr T^(Talk?) 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. You were clearly banned from anything to do with IP articles so this is a clear violation. Whether or not DS needs a topic ban is another matter that I haven't got time to research right now but I may come to it if I have time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't comment on any article on that edit. FWIW, I didn't know that commenting about editors active in an article about about a subject from which I am topic-banned is a block-worthy offence. I get it now, good job!
"I may come to it if I have time. " - no you've certainly got time to block me. Mr T^(Talk?) 13:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This pattern of "block-first-talk-later" is it only applicable to me? Now people will pontificate on AGF. Now people will, after aaaaaaaaaaalllll this, harangue me on the merits of assuming goood-fuuuuuuucking faith. Good job. Mr T^(Talk?) 13:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Baiting after baiting after baiting...Mockery after mockery....Just block me indefinitely because you fuckers won't stop until you eliminate me by abusing your little admin toys. Mr T<duo>(Talk?) 13:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You know what just fuck it....<BLOCK ME INDEFINITELY> Just do it.. My Lord, just fucking do it. There is some demented shit going on. This is an orgy of idiocy. Mr T^(Talk?) 13:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have turned off your talkpage to prevent you from doing yourself even more damage.Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

MrT ... I'm going to agree with Spartaz's removal of your talkpage access at the moment. You're pissed off, but you're not reacting well. Although we allow some venting, your comments were doing you more harm than good. I know this is a 3 day block, however, after a day passes you're welcome to e-mail me to request access to the talkpage back. You'll need to show me that any potential unblock requests will be more coherent and less attacking, but at least you can gain the right to try to request unblocking. I will, however, ignore any such e-mails until at last a day has passed. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please consult me before unblocking. This is effectively an arb enforcement block and I'm fed up with disruptive users being unblocked early. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

MrT, asking for someone else to be topic banned is a violation because you're attempting to impact the articles that you're topic banned from. I don't think you should be topic banned from India Pakistan articles but the ban is there so you're better off abiding by it. The way you're going about it, the ban will only get lengthened and it'll be harder to overturn it. Better to wait a bit, work on other articles, and then ask for it to be lifted. (Meanwhile, I had a question for you but will wait till you get talk page access to ask it.) --regentspark (comment) 14:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

MrT, I tried to help you. Go back to the top of this page, read the advice, and start fresh. Dusti^*poke* 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing a disgusting screed e-mailed to me by MrT, I rescind my offer to assist by re-enabling talkpage access. Based on the content of that e-mail, and as I am aware now that MrT has sent similar e-mails to others, I should be extending this block to indefinite. I'll leave that in someone else's hands - however, should ArbComm wish to see the contents of the e-mail I received, I will provide it as evidence. So much for trying to help (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please publish the email. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Doing that without the permission of MrT would violate the foundation's privacy policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

For misuse of the email system, I have extended your block to indefinite and removed your access to the email system. To be clear, the 3 days initial block is an artbitration enforcement block but this one is an ordinary adminstrative action. I am prepared consider turning on your email and talk page when you are calm enough to engage with other editors in a satisfactory manner and you will then be welcome to make an unblock request. Per the privacy policy, I am willing to forward the email you sent me to the arbitration committee or any functionary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what Mr. T said in any e-mail, but I feel this sort of situation is not how the process should work. The underlying topic-ban was wrong, in my opinion, for a variety of reasons and everything since then is simply a consequence of that initial wrongful action. One thing I can say is that this whole confrontational "you done broke da rulz! you must be preventished!" response tends to rile people up and when a person is already riled up this can turn quite bad quite fast. You could have informed him that his comments at ANI were a violation as it is reasonable to suspect that he may not think his restriction applied to projectspace. Revoking his talk page access for pretty mild drama in response to your block gives the situation an Orwellian boot-to-face feel to it. People who feel they are being repeatedly stomped on can react in seemingly unpredictable ways.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I do tend to agree in the sense of a potential overkill here. The Ed has been a very useful member of the project and has contributed much, especially to technical articles and lists. I would advocate a topic ban of a short duration based on the issues that have got us here. At the least I would suggest the Ed is allowed to comment on talk page, to defuse this. I have had interactions with this Ed, and he is not totally unreasonable in my limited experience of occasional conflict on tech articles :) Can we not take this to an appropriate forum for a consensus based "judgement" that deals with the issues holistically, and not as knee-jerk sanctions, justifiable as they might have seemed at the moment? Obviously unaware of the email issue, but with the permission of the Ed, they should be made public. Many of us, me included, say utterly crap things when stressed, perceived as feeling vulnerable and temporarily alienated, especially from something one is close to. Irondome (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I realise that it is traditional to blame admins without knowing the full facts but in this particular case I only acted after I became aware that MrT wasn't just sending messages to me. I do actually get that he is venting and very upset which is why I didn't act after getting either of my messages. Had this happened in the real world and in my workplace, I would have suspended the author on the spot and they would have been extremely lucky not to be dismissed. I have never received anything like this before from anyone! Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone mate. I am not an admin basher, unless admin is seriously off-line. You have a job I wouldnt go near, not least due to workload and stress. It's just spun out of everyone's control at this time. Cheers Irondome (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Spartaz has offered to provide ARBCOM with a copy of the email. It can therefore be assumed that it is of a nature that needs reporting. It does not need to be published for the Arbs to act upon it. I think the thing to do is wait and see. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. Time to chill for all would be wise. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    • We need to spell indefinately right. On a more serious note, Mr T seems to have scored a self goal. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your WP:AE appeal is on hold

Hello Mrt3366. Please see the result of the appeal of your topic ban at WP:AE. Your appeal has been placed on hold since your indefinite block keeps you from participating in the discussion. The appeal can be reopened after you are once again able to edit. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Take these strawberries as a gift from one of our friends. I wish I could have helped you but I don't have as much brain to burn as needed to debate with the admins. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)