User talk:Mrt3366/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Aridhaman

Just letting you know that I created the article INS Aridhaman, the second boat of the class. TheStrikeΣagle 05:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Water Squid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Water Squid (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review

Comment by Merlaysamuel (talk · contribs) at 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to review Doon School's GA nomination. I should address a few of the points you raised. The Faculty section does not have references, though it could be easily done, because refs are provided on their personal Wiki pages. If you wish, they can be added here as well. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Although Good articles do not have to be of the same standard as the featured articles, the quality expectation from GAs are fairly high. Importantly, the GA criteria are a standard, not the opinion of individual reviewers. Hence it doesn't provide much leeway in this regard, I think you ought to give reference(s) for the faculty section. The good thing is that for you it should be easy now. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do so. Thanks! 128.86.144.11 (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Damn, who logged me out! Ha, anyway...Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  08:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And while you're at it, I'd be grateful if you can say a word or two about List of The Doon School alumni. I had nominated it for a Featured list but nothing came of it. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  11:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Bruton Memorial Library: no longer an orphan?

Comment by Sylvar (talk · contribs) at 17:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Bruton Memorial Library has links from the pages of the city and county it's located in. Are you looking for more to satisfy your orphan tag or is it ready to de-orphan?

Check this you'll see only User talk:Mrt3366, User talk:Jodigeever, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tampa-Hillsborough County Public Library System link to the article none of which is an article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review for IIM Ahmedabad

Comment by Batram (talk · contribs) at 04:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the GA nomination of IIM Ahmedabad. I was away from Wikipedia for a while and was able to go through your list of suggested changes pending GA approval only today.

Request you to kindly extend the hold period for this review. Will resolve these issues shortly.

Thanks,

Batram (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay do it, your seven days time period is almost up. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Have addressed most of the issues part of the checklist. Let me know if anything is outstanding. Cheers! Batram (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You could have a look

You could have a look at this...pretty interesting..both of us were callled socks of some banned one...funny. Anyway, I suggest you don't comment to the user again. It's such a waste of time(trust me on this ) Cheers, TheStrikeΣagle 10:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It was on February 2012. A long freaking time ago , no worries!! Cool, I didn't notice it earlier. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

hehe of course...however, I thought I should let you know..:) BTW I'm pretty sure the GAN will pass soon..the article looks fantastic now.. ;) BTW we must start work on any other article...I plan to give up on Vikra for the time-being...I'm planning Shivalik Class as it seems in a relatively better shape...What say? Cheers, TheStrikeΣagle 10:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You won't believe, I was thinking about the same thing yesterday. I was in fact going through the images in the article and thinking of nominating it. Let's do it after Arihant. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

After Arihant? Arihant is done now..I'm pretty sure the reviewer will pass it in a day or two. Let's jump in.. TheStrikeΣagle 10:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your efforts to get Arihant-class submarine to GA which became the first Indian Warship to reach the milestone in the history of Wikipedia!!! TheStrikeΣagle 15:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366 likes it Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

E-Mail

If you could activate e-mail.... TheStrikeΣagle 01:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Consequential?

This article is about as consequential a subject as, say, geocentric model, Historicity of Jesus or The Bible, now we may quibble about the veracity of it all or try to label it as "garble", whatever that may be, it is not insignificant.

I'm curious why you hold that strange opinion. The community has shown, without question, that the topic of "Civilization Jihad" is most certainly inconsequential and insignificant due to the paucity of reliable sources. How could you arrive at the opposite conclusion? And based on your recent behavior on this topic, would it be acceptable to you if the community requests a topic ban for you on all articles related to Muslims/Islam? Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am tired of getting chased by you. Leave me alone. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Shivalik

I went ahead and nominated it for GA after extensive work... Strike Σagle 09:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

From the President of India

	You are honoured the Param Vir Chakra
	It gives me immense pleasure to honour Mrt3366 with the Param Vir Chakra for designing the "Slayer of Enemies" Arihant-class submarine and helping in promoting it to Good Nuclear submarine status. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Goodness me! I am humbled.
Well, thank you Mr. President! It’s hard for me not to feel the huge import of the moment when you deemed me worthy of such a prestigious accolade. I will treasure this for as long as I live Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Green

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Green. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hindu Taliban

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 13:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Was there any new discussion to create this again? -sarvajna (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignore it, was deleted by an admin .-sarvajna (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I, OrangesRyellow of WPcity, hereby award thee the Writer's barnstar for superb contributions to the Minorities in Pakistan article and numerous other Pakistan related articles!!! Cheers!!! OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh thank sir for this token of appreciation! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at OrangesRyellow's talk page.
Message added 15:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

TB

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 09:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Ratnakar.kulkarni's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-sarvajna (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page.
Message added 08:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan -Let's talk! 08:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Barn star for you

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi, Thanks a lot for taking up and completing the review of Tiruvannamalai. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. good luck! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Temper

The edit summary here is unnecessarily intemperate and worrying. You should also review the talk page, where the issue of numbers killed etc was discussed recently. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush your edits worry me too but I don't leave you unhelpful comments on your talk page. You are being biased as well as profoundly hypocritical. You unnecessarily extend a quote from a source (but then you don't claim it is an OP-ed) when I extend it a bit further from the same source, you claim that I simply shouldn't extend the quote because that source, according to you, is an OP-ed now. You claim many baseless slanderous things as "your opinion" but never accept that you're biased. Kindly leave my talk page alone and keep it confined to the talk page of the article in question. I will not be harangued by you as to what is intemperate or unnecessary. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Launchballer 09:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Already replied there. Thanks for the note. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Modi

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 09:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I had not seen the quotes in the diff, sorry for calling it a copy vio. -sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, given some of the censorious attitudes towards me I was trying to be extra-cautious. Nothing against you though. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the reasons given for removing the information. They were completely illogical. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi MrT, just a small request, may be you can phrase the sentence in a different way ? I just felt that it might help .-sarvajna (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What sentence?

BTW, I explained here that in this edit Sitush is being reckless as hell. I think we should discuss BEFORE EDITING/EXCLUDING/ADDING anything to this controversial article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Go for a cup of tea, turn off your computer, just leave till you calm down. Logged in to see not one, not two, but three huge shouty edit summaries. You need some time off, please take it. You are also at 3RR, is this really the best course of action when there is an open ANI thread about you? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I will maybe. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Really?

Welcome to Wikipedia? I hope you realise how condescending and confrontational that sounds... (cf. WP:DTTR). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

He deleted my edit which he could have simply moved, I think you ought to talk to him Sir, BTW, I am believer of WP:TTR, I wasn't trying to condescend Salvio. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of my tolerance limit

Comment by Vibhijain (talk · contribs) at 10:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that I can jump into the dispute as of now. I will put my opinions once the situation is a little cooler. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Get involved at your convenience if you want to get into that at all. I understand, no pressure from me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

[Warning deleted by Mrt3366..I have been alerted by Multiple editors]

And really? What are you doing? — Abhishek  ^Talk 16:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You ask me what I am doing after this diff where I asked Sitush to stop edit warring...You've gotta be kidding me. Well, to answer your query I am asking Sitush to stop edit warring. Now leave my talk alone. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You just hit 4RR, you know you will be reported and blocked and warned under ARBIA. You should have just gone for a walk, you let your temper get the best of you, I thought that was my trait. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, repeated removal of sourced and relevant content with arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with policy is hall mark of Vandalism. 3RR doesn't cover that. Okay! You sit back and do nothing? Wow man just wow! You could have reverted him. But you didn't. If I am blocked I believe so should be some of the others. In a controversial article as this. Numbers don't matter, everybody is reverting everybody. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I did do something, I gave you very good advice. And why would I revert him? I already explained my position on the talk page, I honestly see no reason to be so explicit about this in a BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The question is, why are you choosing deliberate imprecision and vague claims over appropriate and clear description of that event? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, in pure jest, if I am blocked and ridiculed and/or slapped whatever people may call it, I will see it as a Martyr's death. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You never achieve anything by becoming a martyr. It is bad tactics. Good tactics involves letting your opponents have the opportunity to martyr themselves. And beware, SG is a chamchabelcha of S, and will go to any lengths to do S's bidding, like his pet tommy.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Mr T, you've been mentioned on my talk page (cf. User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 63#Modi); if you wish to comment there, you're more than welcome to do so. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhim SPH, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MAG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 08:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I will try hard not to make changes in the article and may be participate more on the talk page. -sarvajna (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Dwaipayanc's talk page.
Message added 12:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dwaipayan (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Soham321's opinion on the warning Mr. T gave

[Header changed by Mrt3366 to make it clearer]

Comment by Soham321 (talk · contribs) at 09:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a violation of Wikipedia rules to give warnings without any concrete reason. You are liable to be banned or blocked if you give a warning without a good reason. I have explained on my talk page why you made an error by giving me a warning on my talk page. Please do not do this again unless there is a good reason otherwise it will be considered harassment and you may be banned or blocked. Soham321 (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here you added some things, but it was reverted and you were asked to take it to talk, you ignored that message and reverted it, that's edit warring. I gave you a warning in good-faith to alert you but you erased it all. If you had read the warning more meticulously you would have found that it said, (in bold) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made and Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. That clearly fits your editing pattern. If you believe I am wrong and that I was harassing you then you're invited to explain: how is it so? Till then read WP:AGF, cheers Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• P.S. you are edit warring here also. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• As Nick told you^[1],

  Furthermore, please do not remove warnings and talk page notices from your talk page – [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] – as it makes it difficult for other users to judge your edits.

Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Comment by 63.110.51.11 (talk · contribs) at 18:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Can your please activate your mail id. I need to inform you something very important.

Pardon me for asking, do I know you? I don't remember interacting with a person from this IP-address. Well, if you're a known editor to me and inadvertently logged out, then kindly log in and put in the request again. Till then, for various concerns, I cannot allow you to send me an email. I have received a whole slew of unwanted emails ranging from spams to death-threats from people who claim to be Muslims, even though I don't know them (nor do I remember ever conversing with them). I have had enough of this malarkey. If you really have something important to say to me, say it here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 11:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May be we can stop the discussion about the controversy thing as of now, there are discussions on other forums, may be we can take it up on article talk page when those discussions either get results or get archived without any reults.-sarvajna (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanx for the welcome!! I just looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics,_government,_and_law and saw there are two comments for Modi.

The first comment cannot be read (and clicking on edit, I saw it was yours).--MarcbelaD (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I became aware of this controversy and article only because of the link above. The formatting of the table is wrong there and should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcbelaD (talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Comment by Crtew (talk · contribs) at 10:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I threw in my two cents about your question at Reliable Sources for what it is worth. You'll find it here! Crtew (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification

---

• Clarification: Darkness Shines gave me (Mrt3366) this notification for the second time, where each time he has been involved in concurrent disputes at other venues (first notification can be found here). I am accused of edit warring at Narendra Modi, but I myself requested a full-protection and then after a few days of this I again supported a full-protection of that page (I can't seem to find the link). I wasn't even trying to edit war. I was trying to stop it. I elaborated my position here while asking the protecting admin to elongate the length of protection (which at that time was only for 24hrs). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Note: This notification comes here after the discussion that happened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#What_I_would_really_like. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully supported your decision to delete these names on the list here. Please let me know if you get any flack. Crtew (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, I appreciate your concern, I will notify you about any further development! DS is getting out of control. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Since the whole warning thing has now been turned into a farce, I would like to be aware of my misconduct and counseled on how to avoid getting blocked for this. Kindly an uninvolved editor explain to me what I did that was unacceptable. Where have I repeatedly or intentionally failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or follow any normal editorial process? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? Violating 3RR on Narendra Modi, edit warring is disruptive. This violates principle 5 of the committee's findings. Failure to AGF here here (accusing editors of bias) here & here This is all from one talk page BTW and violates principle 1 of the committee's findings. Want more? Do you even realize how often you edit war? Or comment on editors, and then accuse them of what you yourself do? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You're partially picking and choosing out of context.

1. Edit warring is disruptive. - it takes more than one to tango, I was not the only one warring.
2. Talk:Narendra_Modi#Sitush.27s arbitrary and clever reversal of valid edits That was an observation, not allegation. Asking Sitush to be careful (well, to not be RECKLESS) is not a failure to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia.
3. Drmies was instigating me to do something extraordinary and against my best judgement. [11] What do you call that? Maybe you should also place Drmies under the warnings. As it seems calling a spade a spade is a crime when I do it and when Sitush, Drmies abuse their editing privileges nothing happens.

Drmies has not been even-handed either. Talk:Narendra Modi has been turned into a battlefield and you're quoting out of context. That is the precise reason why I asked for an uninvolved editor, not an involved editor like you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• violates principle 1 of the committee's findings - link to these findings? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You know the whole point of the links it the template are for you to actually follow them and read? here is the part you need to read. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Do you even realize how often you edit war? - every reversal is not edit war. And like I said, edit wars take two editors. I edit controversial pages and that puts me at a higher risk of getting dragged into needless edit wars. And you should not be the one to lecture me about the demerits of edit warring. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop

Misrepresenting what I have done, this is a blatently false assertion. I reverted your addition of that see also. I had not seen the one to Saffron terror, which belongs there as it was hindu nationalists who carried out the pogrom. I did not re-add Anti- Muslim pogroms in India as I was reverting your addition of an inappropriate see also. Kindly rectify your misrepresentation of my edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"I reverted your addition of that see also." - is that an excuse? You should have done more than just blindly reverting me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't see Saffron Terror!?!! It was like:

• Saffron Terror
• Islamic terrorism

One after the other, and you say you didn't even see Saffron Terror? You really should have sought a better excuse. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I clicked on the diff, saw you had added an inappropriate see alos and reverted it. That is not an "excuse" it is the facts of the matter. Now you can correct your misrepresentation on Ed's talk page or not, I personally am going back to editing and creating Anti-Muslim pogroms in India. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, it's too simple. You're being disruptive. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

New York City GAR

New York City, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tiruvannamalai

Comment by Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) at 22:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think the revert has been effected on a renaming that was not discussed at all. The original article carries the name Tiruvannamalai, while it was renamed to Tiruvarunai without any discussion/rationale. I reverted to the original. Also i am really suprised that renaming is so easy, while reverting to original results in a warning. Infact none of the history will be lost for the new name(as there would be hardly any) as well as the old name as it is a redirect. Please revert to the original "Tiruvannamalai". Thanks a lot in advance.Ssriram mt (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't know exact steps to undo a move (while keeping history intact), I believe it is not that skewed in favour of the initial mover. I have, in past, been reverted immediately after a move (by a non-admin). I think the crux of it all is that one should avoid altering the contents of target page or redirect in case of an unwanted move in order to revert that change.
"none of the history will be lost" - you don't understand, the history has to be directly attached to the page containing the contributions of those editors, this is a legal obligation and Wikipedia takes it very seriously. That's why such a minuscule change may create a colossal heap of issues for editors who are not as tech-savvy. I would very much like to help you, but I am also out of my depth here. Ask an admin kindly! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking up this to closure.Ssriram mt (talk)

I appreciate that, but don't thank me, thank Malik. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 21:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Modi

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 11:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The current lead proposed by Maunus leaves nothing for the body and also adds more things like Maya Kodnani to the lead which is not even present in the body.-sarvajna (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, what's up with all the unsubstantiated accusations?? In case of any other controversial Politician, do we leave unfounded accusations and nullified allegations in the lead? No. Why is Modi article an exception to this nice rule of thumb?Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am willing

To educate you on pograms should you wish to learn. I suspect your mind is closed, but can perhaps be opened. I am quite willing to teach you on this if you wish, feel free to use my talk page, you will however have no option but to accept the truth because in the end, that is all that is ever left. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"pograms"^[12]? hahaha...You cannot even spell pogroms correctly, let alone educate me about it. This is the last time I am willing to listen to your nonsense. I don't care what you believe or anyone believes. Those are not the common names.

My mind is closed, huh? WOW. I don't particularly wish to converse with you here. Do not comment on my talk page ever again. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: "you will however have no option but to accept the truth because in the end" implies that I don't accept the truth now or in some way resist it. My mind is closed, DS says. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I am so terribly sorry for my typographical error, however shall I live that down? Your response to my offer has shown me but one thing, I was entirely correct in my previous assessment of you. Good luck, you are most certainly going to require it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I have had enough of your incivility for a lifetime [13], [14] and you defended that on WP:AN, then again on your talk page by questioning the block itself. Now, you have the gumption to claim on my talk that my mind is closed?
Leave my talk page alone, I will delete it next time I see any of your comments here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at OrangesRyellow's talk page.
Message added 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk Back

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) at 13:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Ratnakar.kulkarni's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-sarvajna (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Re essay on consensus

Hello, Wikid77 here. I have read your essay about wp:consensus, and understand the frustrations with the current system. In many cases, "management by consensus" has become a slanted form of "management by committee" as "management by self-appointed committee" rather than control by a broad consensus of active Wikipedians. To overcome the current powerplays, in gaming the consensus viewpoints, I think Wikipedia will need to run wide-ranging user surveys to gain "1,001 random opinions" (3% margin of error) as done with political polls. However, I think your point about "governance" is a valid priority, if only those in charge were more objective and pro-active to stop the games. The core concept behind "consensus" was to be a near unanimous consent, focused around a mutual compromise agreement, of editors working together in good faith (not insulting others, or else removed from the agreement). The deduction I have used is: "Two people discuss an issue, and one says they have reached consensus but the other disagrees". The way true "consensus" would stop the committee could be a lone voice insisting, "I object" and then the decision would be stopped, until a true consensus was formed. Unfortunately, such mutual agreements (as compromises) are very time-consuming, and the result in practice has been, instead, "We discussed this issue in an RfC last year which established consensus, and 'You do not have consensus' to change that viewpoint". For people who want to control the rules, then majority vote (with "consensus thumping") is the preferred method (as "tyranny of the majority"), and they often drag any dissenter to wp:ANI claiming the dissenter's repeated requests to change consensus as wp:DE "disruptive" to so-called harmony on Wikipedia. So, we are back to "governance" which depends on fair-minded admins to police the consensus games, and declare "consensus dissolved" when dissenters say no. Hence, I think the solution is to have more fair-minded admins, and they could block the biased admins who do not respect a broad consensus which includes most people but instead favor the majority-vote style of powergames. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment was so spot-on that I couldn't help shifting it to the comments page of that essay. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful condescending note by Faizan, based on wrong presumptions

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:109.145.244.1 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Faizan 11:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP was edit warring, I did not see anything wrong with MrT's warning template.-sarvajna (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is not vandalism (removal of well-sourced content and that too without any explanation in the edit summary), then I don't know what is. Are you operating the IP? If yes, you need to be upfront about it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he is operating the IP but he did award the IP a cookie, Faizan may be you should have asked MrT the reason why he placed the tag before wrning MrT for placing the tag. -sarvajna (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Faizan, don't revert my comments on others' talk page without prior discussion, it really annoys me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this warning is more than appropriate for your vandalistic behaviour Mrt Faizan just beat me to it or I would of put on a more severe warning 109.145.244.1 (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

// needless header removed //
Mrt please stop your vandalism edits and refrain from removing legitimate tags from articles do not engage in edit wars due to your nationalistic indian pov and one last time adding tags is not vandalism go read rules first 109.145.244.1 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"legitimate tags" - or tag bombing? Tagging should be the last resort. Unjustified tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing. Editors who engage in tag bombing after being asked to stop may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tags should be added as a last resort.. (cf. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not twist wiki rules to cater for your nationalism that article is pov mess with cherry picked sensationalism 109.145.244.1 (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You don't even know the difference between vandalism and addition of tags. Faizan 12:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Roberto Azevêdo

Comment by ZackTheJack (talk · contribs) at 14:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It isn't. I was with several open tabs and reverted the wrong page. My target was this article. One i noticed the mistake I reverted it myself, as you can see here.

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at OrangesRyellow's talk page.
Message added 17:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning

You get the same kind of warning from me as DarknessShines did: this [15] edit is completely unacceptable. You guys all need banned, the whole lot of you, on all sides of this sorry mess of a POV cesspit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would not like to comment on the content and don't like to get involved in that article but the IP was a sock and was blocked [16] .-sarvajna (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but Mrt wasn't merely invoking the revert-a-banned-user rule, but was also explicitly endorsing the content in question as "valid" (see his edit summary), turning a blind eye to its obvious, gross tendentiousness. This, from an editor who at the same time complains about POV wording in a different article, is a clear sign of disruptive tendentiousness. (The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the other participants in this set of mirror-image tit-for-tat POV games.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarvajna I know you and Mrt have tag team relationship and use this to push your pro Indian and anti pakistani pov on articles but I am shocked that you try and endorse such ridiculous pov pushing on minorities in pakistan considering your all bleeding hearts and victimised on the anti-Muslim pogroms in India article such hypocrisy is hilarious 31.54.56.16 (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) ← Who is this guy? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)}

I and MrT do contribute to similar articles sometimes but I am not involved in any pakistan related articles currently.Saying that I am trying to push some anti-pakistani pov is nonsense. I might have made some made some comments on some articles related to Indo-Pak conflicts sometimes but I do not have a much interest in that area.-sarvajna (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I claimed, restoring valid content unilaterally deleted by a blocked editor - yes the claim was valid (google it) just the source was an editorial and, according to some, was below par. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Admin, I empathize with your contemptuous antipathy against editors who have nothing better to do than engaging in petty mudslinging (maybe I seem as one of them to you and that's perfectly al right). But please don't equate the above-mentioned inadvertent lapse of judgement with a deliberate and disingenuous attempt to propagate a big chunk of false information that the sources themselves don't collectively support. If you're so exhausted just by coming across a few of the controversial articles then imagine the level of frustration a guy like me must be bearing when his ardent pleas for intervention from uninvolved admins, editors are treated like pariah and met with absolute inaction and silence, sometimes retribution even! (Read this essay on flaws in the Consensus-building process)

I occasionally succumb to the calls from my conscience which sometimes is misconstrued before hand by bleeding-heart liberals as a just cause to frame me as equally culpable as the one I am opposing, but that's not the reality. I don't agree with the sanctimoniously even-handed philosophy of treating all alike, or the view that "wars are fought only between two evils"; all the parties which engage in any fight may not be equally bad. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Final warning. The material you just reinserted is crammed full with expressions such as "tyranny against religious minorities", "miserable", "bloody violence" and so on. I believe that not even you, if you are an intelligent person, could possibly believe this is a neutral treatment. It is not a matter of being sourced; it's a matter of you taking over not just facts but also value judgments from the sources and passing them on as Wikipedia's own.

Do you really not understand why this writing is unacceptable? If you don't, then you must be topic-banned for lacking the basic intellectual competence to contribute fruitfully here. If you do, and reinserted the material knowing it was unacceptable, you must be topic-banned for willfully tendentious behaviouer. Which of these would you prefer?

Your very next edit after reading this should be a self-revert on that article; otherwise you will be at WP:AE for a topic-ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Read what the sources are saying, then comment on neutrality.

Give me one day (24hrs), I will clean it up. Why don't you help me as opposed to reverting everything? And the same words are used in Anti-Muslim_pogroms_in_India and worse uses "pogroms" randomly are you going to delete that too? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for that edit of you that demonstrates some sign of good will and willingness to really move the text in the direction of more neutrality. You seem still to be implying that you don't understand the need for doing so. That's a pretty bad sign, and makes the prospect of a topic ban come closer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you want to ban me from and based on what? Explain to me so that I can better myself. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, I'd go for a topic ban from all Indian and/or Pakistani politics. I already have explained to you what's wrong with your editing; if you didn't understand that, we got a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am trying my best to cope with your comments. I just can't fathom the reasoning is all. Please elaborate a little further. So far what you claimed makes me wonder many things. I ask again,

What do you want to ban me from and based on what?Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I think I have been quite explicit in explaining what is wrong with your editing. We expect a basic level of competence from our editors, so I'd expect you to understand what I said. Oh, and just so you can't say you weren't warned properly, the relevant Arbcom decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What I understand is that he has issues with the wordings or source I guess, Future Perfect at Sunrise, if he asks for clarification you can provide one rather than threatning him with a ban. -sarvajna (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• @FUT, Why are you assuming bad faith?? Why would I say I wasn't warned properly? Explain to me what I did that deserved a BAN? What is this???????????? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You turned an article into a tendentious POV screed in furtherance of a political agenda. It's really that simple. We don't want people to be doing that, so we ban them if they do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"tendentious POV screed in furtherance of a political agenda" - and you claim that it's really that simple? It's not simple for me. I didn't know that anything below an IQ of 184 is considered incompetence. I don't have that IQ, I don't understand how do you judge that my motive was to "further a political agenda"??? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal: Mr. T, you should simply skip editing the article Minorities in Pakistan for few days. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

May be there is some more need for the discussion on the article's talk page, that might solve the issue. -sarvajna (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to edit it. What I have seen recently is really really disheartening. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at OrangesRyellow's talk page.
Message added 10:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at OrangesRyellow's talk page.
Message added 13:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

Comment by GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) at 13:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have reverted your removal of another editor's comments here; however, as I agree they are off topic, I have simply hatted. Regards, GiantSnowman 13:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is discussions like this one about the extremely biased article title "antimuslim progromos" which make me believe that wikipedia is a waste of time. Something I have already known of course. But it is not something that happened overnight, it has always been like this, compare with this article on Google Groups alt.wikipedia [17] --Cuffasofas (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

You will always get it after that. Thanks for your message on my talk. More text waiting for you there. Consider revisiting your comment there? It really hurted me. Faizan 09:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Thanks

• That type of fluctuation won't reflect nicely on me, but I will strike the allegation part out. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ty. Faizan 09:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page.
Message added 13:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan 13:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WP India discussion invitation

Namaste, Mrt3366. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Godhra train burning

You are on 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You've passed all limits. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You just violated 3RR, self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You self-revert. I reverted your unhelpful edits. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

ANEW Darkness Shines (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours. It will be longer if you don't play nice when you come back. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What is this? Did you block Darkness Shines also? Okay fair enough. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 19:18, 9 June 2013 (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).

Mrt3366 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand I have not played nice always, but please, Sir, empathize with my predicament. I was up against an editor who really didn't want to listen to anything me or anybody else was telling him, it always happens with him only. I did not, I certainly will not violate any policy willingly. I got frustrated and angry at his abominable behaviour, I shamefully admit, that's why I forgot to stay positive. I don't know what else to say. It won't happen again. Actually any block is very embarrassing for an adult like me. Whatever wrong happened won't happen again. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 19:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"Whatever happened won't happen again"? Is that even remotely WP:GAB-compliant? Even in this unblock request you make personal attacks, and try to defend your behaviour. WP:DR and WP:CIVIL are not optional (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:14, 9 June 2013 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mrt3366 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't know what I said above that was so unacceptable, I never argued, not even once, that my behaviour has been up to the par. I do have compunction about the way I myself handled that difficult situation, I regret the way I gave in to the temptation of reciprocating a bad edit with reversals. All I am saying is it's not gratuitous and asking others to put it into right perspective, I am not generally like that. However, I am a human too. It's not an excuse, it's the truth. I do not wish my pleas to be misconstrued as signs of hypocrisy. That frustration was building for the last few days, eventually I couldn't control the frustration, I got fed up by the behaviour of one editor, again it's not an excuse, it's the reality, and like I said, I couldn't handle the bad situation with more finesse, albeit I should have.
Now I am not angry, now I have the ability to handle the issues with more care. I think unblocking me won't be unhelpful. I have been blocked for allegations of edit warring. I promise I will be extra-cautious. BTW, if anybody wants to check them these are the ones that were listed here [18][19][20][21]. I would prefer if an admin reviewed this block and unblocked me.

P.S. if you want to ask me a few questions before deciding on this, please feel free :). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 2:53 am, 10 June 2013, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

time served works! regentspark (comment) 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I usually discuss the issues thoroughly, but when the prime interlocutor says, "You seem to think I need to discuss this further, I have no need to do so. I am right, you two are wrong."[22] then I think one can validly claim to be in a quandary as to the right course of action. In that rush I lost sight of what's right and what's not. I angrily kept on reverting him in a hurry, he was not amenable to discussion, not to me, not admin:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, not User:ratnakar.kulkarni, not user:Dharmadhyaksha, nobody. Here I am blocked for 3 days, these are not excuses, or attempts to sanitize what I did, but the truth. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Here admin:Spartaz says[23]

  "DS was edit warring simultaneously at two articles at the same time with the same figures. Good thing I didn't see it when I dished out this block or I would have made it a month. EW does not require 3 reverts for a block. You were blatantly baiting MrT and editing without discussion. That's not acceptable."

This is the editor I am referring to. I am not picking them as an excuse to justify anything that could be seen as a misbehaviour on my part, but as a plea for mercy on me. I didn't wish to be disruptive but I forgot that sometimes to fight disruption in a certain way, means to cause further disruption. That's all. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that this is my fault. I was about to protect the page yesterday morning before someone got blocked but got called away and you were all blocked by the time I got back. Protection is a much better alternative than blocking when established editors are edit warring but not every admin appears to think so. --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, no. It's not your fault Sir. Well I cannot really speak for others, but my block, I can say, was due to my own inanity. Cheers, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already served 65 hours, is it really necessary to extend this drudgery for 7 more hours? I already said I regret what I did, I really do. I am contrite. I am not angry any more. I thought that the block is not punitive, why am I being humiliated this way? How is it preventing disruption? Is there nobody who is hearing me? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks User:RegentsPark. Like Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Somebody block this guy out

[24] This is blatantly a sock of NangParbat, a long-term abuser. CorrectKnowledge added a {{spa}}[25] but I think that's not enough. This guy created an account on 8^th of June and his first edit was at article Bride burning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the second page he edited, within 24hrs, was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Read the "vote" at one time he couldn't conceal the presumption that "many nationalist views are being expressed in order for a delete of the article but this is article which is justified and relevant and nationalist sentiments should not come in the way it would be a shame if this article was censored for ridiculous and unclear arguments."[26]. This is nang. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I can not identify the master behind that editor. I'll ask CK and Spartaz to have a look. BTW, does "mention" work for blocked editors? --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 12:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"does "mention" work for blocked editors?" sorry, I don't understand the query!? Please elaborate. :) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooo. I get it, I think, no it doesn't work. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Tito, tell Dharmadhyaksha to come visit me in prison. He seems to have eloped with somebody richer and fairer. ;) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Let me check that "mention" thing, Titodutta. ←Did this notify you? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Here, as it seems, RP is using his admin powers in a page where he is deeply involved. I may be an incompetent boor to some, but doesn't that violate WP:INVOLVED? He can comment as a normal editor but shouldn't edit that fully protected page. Edit requests for fully protected pages must be handled by an administrator. since RP is involved and can't use his admin power there, he shouldn't decline or accept the requests. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• That mention thing is really flawed. I never got any notification when you mentioned me. And, i have no fascination for richer or fairer. Rich, maybe. Fairer, never! Modi article is just gone way out of control. I simply reinstated that request because some IP and new editor were interested in getting it done and procedural problems were present in it. I never would have bothered myself to get any addition as i know that getting the article rot and stale is the main motive of those we-are-so-neutral editors. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks DD for undoing my 'answered' on that edit request. Mrt is right and I shouldn't have closed it. I wasn't thinking. :) --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You should caution RP about that. If the sources support it, which they do I think, then that claim is important and indispensable to the article there is no need for discussion, verifiability is the threshold. Whether it should be placed in the lead or not, that is another thing.
"I never got any notification" —maybe it's because I am blocked, in that case would you watchlist my page for, at least, the next 48hrs? That would be helpful.
Another thing, I think you should remove that "clarify tag" from Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, frankly because there is nothing to clarify. It's undue, hell yes, but there is no ambiguity that it's one man's opinion. It's another debate that the line shouldn't be there to begin with but that doesn't justify the "clarify" tag. The article already has POV and TONE tag at the very top. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you give a ping to Spartaz for me? I need to reconcile and explain my previous encounters to him. Getting blocked is already embarrassing enough, I don't need 72hrs to rectify my issues. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Tito, Dharma for trying, I notice he said, "like everyone else I'm a volunteer and I'm not spending my limited wiki-time on sorting out MrT's need while he is justifiably blocked." I guess that settles it then. He is in no obligated to pay heed to my requests, courtesy is very under-rated these-days. Just for the record I am asking anybody sort out my needs, I thought we should treat each others like colleagues.

  In real life, unless a colleague is very rude to me, I try to respond to his calls for help. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Most probably you need to link user page. I did not get any notification. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 09:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I did and it probably means when you're blocked, "notification-mention" doesn't work. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you linked to their usertalk page, not their user page...I think that's the difference...or maybe it's that you used a template. Use User:Mrt3366 in all cases when you're trying to use echo to ping someone (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bwilkins. Did it notify you? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

yes (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

SPA

[27] use {{spa}} here somebody. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)