Wikipedia

User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 20

< User talk:RegentsPark
Latest comment: 10 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 14 August 2013
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Neutral notice

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As an editor with an interest in New York City articles, you are invited to participate in an RfC at The Dakota. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Curfewed Night, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indian and William Dalrymple (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) 11:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
 Hello RegentsPark, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --regentspark (comment) 01:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

MrT

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I really do hope that you won't be engaging in another unblock without discussing with either myself or Bwilkins. I realise that this comment doesn't particularly assume gf but I'm sure you can understand why I might want to leave the comment. Spartaz Humbug! 03:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Favour II

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Can you search Jstor for any recent articles which discuss the Shah-Nanavati commission findings on the Godhra train burning, it has surprised me that there are no mentions of this report on recent books which discuss the Gujarat violence. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I emailed you a couple. There aren't a whole lot but can send more if you like. --regentspark (comment) 15:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, shall get back to you if these do not contain enough information. Strange that is is not being used ain't it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
You edit Wikipedia and find things in the real world strange :) Let me know if you want more. I'll scan the list and see if there is anything substantive and will send it along. --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  As near as I can figure the full report was never released? But I think the reason it is not really used by anyone is due to the fact that the fix was in Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I tried Vis Ed and then turned it off because it was complete crap. I realise that it will improve but suddenly my preference seems to have been usurped by some global change. The problem is, I can't spot how to reset my preference - can you? - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Crap is a polite way of putting it, I just went looking for how to turn it off and was unable to see how, so gotta press edit source now rather than edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, another SNAFU situation by the development team. This is getting worse by the day. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
It has its pluses and minuses. The big issue for me right now is how slow it is. By the time the page loads and I've typed something I've pretty much lost interest. Also, referencing is imperfect. But, edit source is available so, I guess, it's not a big deal. Someone will doubtless write a script to disable it completely. --regentspark (comment) 23:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
You've lost interest; me, in my advanced years, have forgotten what it was I intended to do ;) - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it'll be more useful on talk pages. That way, by the time DS can finish cursing, he'd be out cold on the sofa. :) --regentspark (comment) 23:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Which, for no particular reason, has just dragged up this ditty from the recesses of that which I deign to call a brain.

Oh, how sad it is to be/inert, defunct, inane/Oh, to be like yesteryear/Ert, funct and ane again. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Very good RP, perhaps you can persuade the codemonkeys to enable it just for me on talk pages.   Darkness Shines (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Nuke using Preferences → Gadgets → Editing section → hide Visual Editor. The UI is becoming a more confusing place by the months and the Prefs section is rapidly heading in the same direction. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hindi

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You are right. That careless edit/revert was my mistake. I should be more careful. Zyma (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I wasn't sure either and had to look up the meaning of Kangars to figure that out. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Zyma (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Latest comment: 10 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Thanks for your note, RP. There is still no replies in the talk page of the article. Now if I re-add the contents, would that be counted as revert? Also, the dispute is still not resolved and they are removing the tags. Is it licit? --Zayeem (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look but later today. Could you drop a diff about the specific edit you want to re-add? --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll wait a little more for their reply and leave a diff here after performing that edit. Thanks.--Zayeem (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have made this edit, they didn't show any concern regarding these contents, also I've made it quite clear why those contents are valid in the discussion here.--Zayeem (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
There you go, while I was writing this note, an SPA reverted me.--Zayeem (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have discussed why I have reverted you please drop your stick and assume good faith and stop edit warring with POV edits. ECTOPmopr (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore that article in question is about Biharis persecuted in Bangladesh not the persecution of Bengalis the causes section is far to pointy and is a way to try and justify the persecution by bangladeshi editors. ECTOPmopr (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to let you guys know, ECTOPmopr is Nangparbat. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
DS what do you think anyways? I reckon my arguments are decent ? ECTOPmopr (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh well. Blocked. --regentspark (comment) 19:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
RP, can you take a look at these edits [1], [2], [3], this user is just keep me reverting all the time, this often become annoying.--Zayeem (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's my take on this.

  • In Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, you need to clearly state what you want added to the article. I suggest starting a new section in the talk page with your suggested text and, if you don't get support, taking this to some form of dispute resolution. At that point, you could place a 'disputed-section' tag on the section where you want the text added. It seems to me that you have one concern, the actions of Biharis during the BLW, and that doesn't really warrant a POV tag on the entire article. And, it seems to me, that you're in a minority over the need for these tags so you might want to bear that in mind.
  • In East Pakistan, the situation is murkier. There do seem to be general concerns that the article is not neutral. Perhaps what you can do is to create a new section titled "Need for neutrality", state that you're doing so because of the concerns expressed in the 'Horrible Inaccuracy' section above, and that you're tagging the article with a POV tag because of that. Then, list a few of the issues that you believe make the article non-neutral. If you do that, and if Faizan removes the tag, I'll remind him that he needs to go get consensus before removing it.
  • Bangladesh liberation war. Not sure about this. I suggest leaving the text as per Faizan and discussing how to describe the Bangladeshi side on the talk page.

Hope this helps. A general suggestion is that you place only one tag at a time on articles. Tag bombing is not a good idea because it is usually unnecessarily aggressive. --regentspark (comment) 14:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes I've also agreed to remove the tags on the persecution article, but it is quite annoying when someone reverts you. The article on East Pakistan - an user has already expressed his concerns in the talk page here, but still the tags are being removed without replying in the talk page. The article on Bangladesh liberation war - I have already started a thread regarding this right after the first revert, but the user is just reverting without replying in the talk page.--Zayeem (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, since the Bangladesh liberation war issue is a content issue between you and Faizan, I suggest a WP:3O if you can't mutually resolve it. It appears to be ideal for that. --regentspark (comment) 14:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but it's more frustrating when the other editor is just edit warring without replying in the talk page. There is still no reply in the talk page of Bangladesh liberation war and since the user is on 3RR, I guess one of his associate would make a revert in the article as happened in other articles. Please keep that page in your watchlist.--Zayeem (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Lol, I think that it is not appropriate to accuse the other editor of such. As far as the article of Bangladesh Liberation War is concerned, it will have another RfC. And I am having discussion with on all articles concerned, both at East Pakistan and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. I ought to be invited to this discussion on RP's talk too. Faizan 15:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like handbags at dawn for Z&F. On a more serious note though, RP should you have a little time to spare I would appreciate your looking over my rewrite of a rather contentious article, it is still in progress but I really would like some feedback. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. They're both heading for a block. What's the point in that Faizan and Kmzayeem? The trick is not to keep reverting each other but to, instead, seek a broader consensus and be willing to let go if it doesn't come out in your favor. --regentspark (comment) 19:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For the extra mile you've gone on Mr T's page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I just hope this gets resolved favorably and soon. --regentspark (comment) 12:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "Nizams" from India

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hey regents can you pay a visit to the page India, there's nothing written about the princely Hyderabad State and the history behind its annexation. It is considered to be greatest history in india where its independence came a year after that of whole india. This state has a great islamic culture and tradition dated back to 16th century. They were considered to be the richest princely state with many palaces and guest houses spread across the country, they used to have their own railway, civil services, postal, currency departments and so do you believe that the page India is complete without that which you have reverted ??

Alurujaya (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Help

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

If you have a moment, please read this and explain the the user who is reverting six days of work and research out of that article, why academic sources are not "conspiracy theorists" who "always to create sensation to sell their books" and that academic sources are in fact a tad better than newspapers from the period of the incident. He has actually said the Johns Hopkins, Princeton, Oxford and Stanford are "biased 'academic' crap" Darkness Shines (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess you know WP:CANVASS. He is reverting six days of work and you are reverting 10 years of work. The Legend of Zorro 09:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused. I don't see Solomon7968 editing the article at all? Anyway, apparently there is an edit war going on so I've protected the article to the last version by The Rahul Jain (no idea who will be unhappy or happy with this one!). Please see WP:DR for how to proceed from here. --regentspark (comment) 12:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I have filled a DRN case, no doubt it will be another waste of time. Six days of hard research and reading down the shitter because of this, great hey. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@RegentsPark You should restore this version and protect the page if you want. Protecting version of DS is not fair. neo (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Heo, I protected a version by The Rahul Jain because that was the current version. See WP:Wrong Version (I haven't looked at the article itself). --regentspark (comment) 21:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec)Can you, if you have time see if A Journey into the Bleeding City Following the Footprints of the Rubble of Riot and Violence of Earthquake in Gujarat, India doi: 10.1177/097133360701900101 is on Jstor, I am after stuff about media coverage on the violence, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You may

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wish to clear up some misconceptions here regarding your actions. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks, but no comment. I'd rather see a discussion on the content and a back and forth on a did you know will only detract from that. --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RfC/J

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi RegentsPark. I know there is a lot to read but, in a previous 3-closer RfC, the closers were taking a long time and it turned out they had basically forgotten all about it. So, just checking up. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We haven't forgotten :) Should have the final statement in a couple of days. Two continents, holiday weekends, have all intruded. --regentspark (comment) 23:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Stuff

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Remember a while ago I had as a nickname in my sig "Facts not Fiction"? FPaS asked me to lose it and I begrudgingly obliged. A "new"</sarc> account just popped up on my radar, obviously not a new account of course first edit first edit, adds a POV tag. Second edit, adds a fact tag. By edit four he is removing content critical of Modi and by edit number 7 he is adding advert tags. Anyhoo, I am posting this so should anyone say that this is a sockpuppet of mine (given the name) and that I am being incredibly devious by playing both sides of the fence, I am not and it ain't. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Quack. Best to ping Dennis or Salvio on this. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Dennis is faaaaar too busy - see User_talk:Dennis_Brown#Speedy_renominate. In fact, I'd appreciate your thoughts on my query raised there. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I did see that. I rarely close AfD discussions but would have thought that no discussion equals consensus to delete. I suppose the 'speedy renominate' means you can renominate the articles (which makes the close quite pointless). I'll ping the closer. --regentspark (comment) 13:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

user:Maunus

Latest comment: 10 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion
Since I can't unblock DS, I guess I can't block him either. Best take this elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 21:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Maunus has violated wp:TPO by deleting my talk page edits.[4] I tried to discuss this on his talk page[5] but he shooed my away.[6] I seek appropriate remedial action. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not going to go anywhere YK, let it go. You have to learn to pick your fights.--regentspark (comment) 16:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand: "You have to learn to pick your fights". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
My point is that it is DS's talk page and if he doesn't object to Maunus removing your comments, you're not going to get anywhere with doing anything about it. That's not a fight worth fighting and it is a fight that will cost you (a user pretty much has discretion over his/her talk page). Stick to making comments on article talk pages if you want to engage with DS. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. I was discussing DS incivility with DS on his talk page, do I take Maunus' deletion as an action approved by DS? I mean before going any further on any issue it is a policy that it be discussed with the concerned editor. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
What I mean is I can go to Maunus and say you can't delete Yogesh's comments from DS's talk page. Then DS will surely chime in and say it is ok with him and that he's told you not to post on his talk page (or rather, indicated that). If you have a comment about DS being not civil, let me know. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
DS is making accusations of hounding[7]] calls me disruptive[8], he is indulging in base remarks on talk page considered controversial: "I have already added a little about how the Hindu right wing extremists are afraid of babies, It seems the facists are unable to get it up enough to pop out as many kids as their Muslim counterparts, that has also been cited as a reason for the mass rapes during these incidents, they are actually afraid that Muslims are more virile, and the rapes are done to prove they are not, prety sick heh." When discussion was sought on his talk page regarding his remarks, he refuses to discuss retorting in rude comments: "I have >< that much interest in your opinions."[9] Attacks me at another place.[10] We have had one editor being severely sanctioned for reacting to such provocation. I suggest that action against provocation be taken too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The primary method in resolving a dispute is to discuss with the other party, I am surprised that you take DS's refusal to discuss a benign act, also Maunus' help to him in doing so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
YK, if an editor banishes you from their talk page, you can't really discuss things with them. In that case you have take recourse to some other method of dispute resolution. If the dispute is on content, then use the article talk page. If it's on behavior, then you need to go to an admin or ANI or an RfC. It is unfortunate, but that's the way Wikipedia works. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
One must wonder indeed why my comment, which BTW can be backed by the best sources, that the actions of child rapists and murders upset you so much? I myself find the subject distressing, as is obvious from various comments I make, and the fact that after seeing a photo of a child who had been raped, tortured and then killed tend to fuck me off, a lot. RP scuse the cussing. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
DS, regarding this edit summary, and assuming you were referring to YK, please don't label an editor as disruptive without providing evidence in the form of diffs. --regentspark (comment) 17:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
DS I'm glad you're talking. You've every right to be disgusted by whatever disgusts you. However Wikipedia and its talk pages are not the forum for expressing disgust. Doing so is abuse of editing privileges which tends to disrupt constructive editing work. Please undertake to desist from doing so. Also undertake to desist from making personal attacks. RP: if DS makes such an undertaking I'd be happy to leave this here, as I'm not a pro-sanctions fellow. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
RP, terribly sorry to abuse your talk in this manner, however certain things do need to be said. YK I will say what I want, when I want, and were I want, and quite simply there is sweet fuck all you can do about it, as everything I write can be backed by the best of sources. so take your false outrage elsewhere. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you fucking shitting me? Teesta one of the most prominent human rights activists is undue sources misrepresented removes academicaly source content [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=next&oldid=563795394] what more "disruption" would you like? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

DS this abuse isn't helping you. We aren't discussing content but behaviour. I request RP as an admin to appropriately react to "YK I will say what I want, when I want, and were I want, and quite simply there is sweet fuck all you can do about it," "Are you fucking shiting me". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Funny, cos he cannot. You guy keep insisting he is "involved" remember? And other funny thing, no admin can do anything cos, A no personal attacks. B NOTFUCKINGCENSORED. So ya, I will say what I want, when I want and where I want. So long as I make no personal attacks, IE calling user a wanker, or a prick, then I am free to express my opinions within reason on certain subject matters. I very much doubt that too many editors will censure me for expressing outrage over the rape and murder of children Darkness Shines (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Bun cha

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, you took part in the previous RM at Bun cha so may wish to be informed it has been submitted as part of a larger RM at Talk:Bun rieu, Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles of Sugauli

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Am I supposed to contact an admin to get a article transwikied? There is now a tag on it for 3 years. I already contacted an admin in wikisource but he has not responded for a week. Can you help pointing out who am I supposed to contact. Thanks. The Legend of Zorro 13:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume it has to be copied to wikisource by a wikisource admin. My guess is that the history needs to be preserved. So it'll have to be a wikisource admin. Try contacting someone who is an admin there and also active here. User:EVula, User:Billinghurst perhaps. --regentspark (comment) 12:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I have transwiki'd the article to English Wikisource. Someone will need to work out whether the articles should be a redirect, or whether there is to be an article there. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: Redirected to Sugauli Treaty. The Legend of Zorro 13:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Shiva temples in India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pashupatinath (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) 11:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Standard offer

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

HI RP this is nangparbat I have a question to ask if I agree to not edit for more than 6 months 8 or 10 maybe a year? could I still be offered a standard offer I understand I have been offered this before last year but could you please consider this? 109.145.249.101 (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will stay on this IP for messages 109.145.249.101 (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have been thinking about this since Nang posted. So this is just to let him know, I will support his unblock should he apply once the time set for the standard offer has passed. And not because I am bored of playing whack a mole with him, but because he has actually made some decent edits, yes he needs to work on NPOV a little bit, but other than that he has contributed decent content. Nang, I have given this offer once before, please do not mess it up this time around. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks DS. But what now do I come back to this talk page 6 months later or does RP need to accept or confirm this offer before its initiated? I will wait for RPs reply. 109.145.249.101 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why not. It'll have to go through ANI of course and I don't know enough of your history (why were you banned in the first place?) to formulate a request properly. Is there some other admin you can ping on this? --regentspark (comment) 13:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply are you sure you dont remember? I am prolific socker I am sure you have dealt with me many times I could also ask Maggog or any other admins whos blocked me but thanks for the reply 109.145.249.101 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Never mind other admins I see you have contacted Salvio hopefully he can give his two cents on this request 109.145.249.101 (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Let us keep it in one place mate, @Magog the Ogre: @Elockid: So they can comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nang, I am familiar with you because I have dealt with a couple of your accounts, but I don't really know the reason why you were blocked in the first place. If it was merely sock puppetry, I wouldn't object to your taking advantage of the standard offer, provided you agree to stay away from Wikipedia.

Please note, however, that there's no guarantee that if you keep away for 6 months you'll necessarily be unblocked: you will have to convince us you understand why you were blocked and commit to avoid the behaviour which led to your being sanctioned in the first place, but, if you want back, to comply with the requirements of WP:OFFER is the only way. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply I was blocked so I could not reply quickly I was blocked back in 2008 for sock puppetry I was new to wiki etc and kept on making new accounts an Admin named Nishkid64 blocked me without any sort of information on standard offer I hence therefore refused to communicate with Indian users due to their bias they did not like me removing their nationalist content but through the years I made many other accounts as that was the only way to get my point through but I will stay away and hopefully contribute more positively to wiki in the future I have some good content added as of late I hope you (and RP) accept this offer 86.179.186.8 (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I dont no how my ip changed I did not reset the router this time either :/ 86.179.186.8 (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    I dropped a note at User talk:Nishkid64 but, as far as I'm concerned, your six months has started (note the caveats in Salvio's post though). Good luck!--regentspark (comment) 12:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks RP, Salvio and DS I guess I will be back around mid January 2014! till then Adios. 86.179.186.8 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hope I'm not a little late. If memory serves me, NP did go on a hiatus before (similar to the duration of the standard offer) and was also given the information of the standard offer awhile back after the hiatus (I think it may have been Magog but I'm not entirely sure). However, upon return from the hiatus, NP exhibited the same past behavior with edit warring being the main problem. Even with the most recent editing, there still appears to be an edit warring problem. I have nothing against him coming back and editing constructively, but I'd like to see if he's really willing to change.

@NP: perhaps if your willing to stay out of the Indian/Pakistani topics for a few months or trying to stick to a 1RR on those areas, you can more easily convince the community that you're willing to change. Just some thought. Also, personal attacks have been a problem in the past, you need to address to the community how you're going to work on this as well. Elockid (Talk) 15:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Regentsparks I accidently copied the same section on DRN and pasted it. Actually it wasn't that much of a fault of mine. The browser I use is quite buggy and it sometimes automatically copies and paste the given text. My mistake was not noticing this before saving the edits. I'm sorry for that. I won't use the browser again to edit Wikipedia. TransVannian (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize over - it was clearly a mistake. I tried figuring out what went wrong but it was easier to let you fix it! --regentspark (comment) 18:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

DS

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(1) I've mentioned the earlier discussion regarding DS here at AN/I. (2) I wonder whether you've checked my edit to Namantar section above? Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks YK for the note. I hadn't noticed the Namantar comment above but feel free to propose changes, include alternative titles, on the article talk page. I'll keep an eye open (but, to be honest, am as clueless as everybody else on the andolan itself!). --regentspark (comment) 15:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Peroxwhy2gen is reverting you

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, User:Peroxwhy2gen reverted your edits [11] and [12]. I have corrected him but a watch has to be kept due to his stubborn nature. I hope you have added that article to your watchlist. Thanks.--Neelkamala (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented on your talk page. --regentspark (comment) 15:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Digvijay Singh problems

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

You may recall Soham321 (talk · contribs) from the Modi article. They're pov pushing, breaching 3RR and all sorts at Digvijay Singh, apparently believing that they understand policy but generally not even explaining themselves properly, eg: one edit summary of a few minutes ago seems to accuse a journalist of being tendentious. Could you perhaps have a word? I shall not be editing that article again until probably Monday. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact it is User:Sitush who is doing the POV pushing. I am simply trying to make his edits conform to the Neutrality rule of a WP:BLP which Sitush violates quite frequently through his tendentious, incomplete, and inaccurate edits. Soham321 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:TE, since you clearly have swallowed a dictionary without reading the thing. Please read the BLP and NPOV policies that you cite.and perhaps also WP:3RR and the introductory section at WP:DRN even though you have been burned there before. Please note the efforts I made to improve vast chunks of the article that you then attempted to sanitise somewhat: I am here to expand and improve but you are here merely to suppress. And please note that your edits to the Modi article were condemned as extreme even by those who were then seeking to make the article less anodyne. You are a POV-pushing, fancruft-generating, politically-motivated contributor and have no place on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You have repeatedly violated the NPOV rule. In the present instance (Batla House Encounter case) you failed to mention that Singh had denied reports of his declaring Batla House Encounter as 'Fake' (but had reiterated his view that the incident should be subjected to a judicial probe) because he said he is unable to personally verify the authenticity of the incident. Your edits are frequently incomplete, inaccurate, and/or tendentious.Furthermore, it is an old trick to do some good work on (perhaps unimportant) specific WP:BLP pages and then claim to be unbiased and detached and go on to inject tendentious and inaccurate edits on some other wikipedia page which is of interest to you. So please spare me your excuses. Soham321 (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Soham, you can't go around editing like this. Edit summaries like Added extra details to this edit to make it conform to the Neutrality role for a WP:BLP entry are completely meaningless without further explanation - you need to explain why something is not neutral otherwise the entire statement is gratuitous. Repeatedly referring to policies and guidelines in edit summaries is a really bad idea - use the talk page if you need to explain why something is a violation of policy. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Gratuitousness doesn't seem to have stopped, almost violating WP:DRNC here today by removing a heavily cited and referenced content (even when a dozen notable news sources were referenced in these 4 lines) and mentioning irrelevant WP policies. A m i t  웃   00:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Added a note on the editor's talk page. Will wait and see. --regentspark (comment) 01:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wheel warring issue

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Hey RegentsPark, on 7 July you posted something on the BN board, about how perhaps we should rephrase under what conditions an admin can unblock. If I understand it correctly, your intent was to get away, even if slightly, from the blocking culture as we currently have it. Did this idea ever get farther than the thread on the BN? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No. If I remember correctly it got zero attention on that thread. Given the latest Eric Corbett block/unblock/block/unblock mess, we really need to make unblocking easier. --regentspark (comment) 19:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Or how about this: only indef blocks from now on, and they can't be overturned. At least one good (or decent) thing came out of the recent mess: admins who were just dead wrong were very much in the minority, vocally and numerically. If you propose it somewhere, please ping me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Serious (and hopefully calmly received) question: what's the problem with the basic concept that you don't unblock unless you have reason to believe that the behaviour that led to the block won't reoccur? Or the idea that if the block was discussed at a community board and upheld, you shouldn't undo the block without a visit to the same board to rediscuss?—Kww(talk) 20:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is with the definition of incivility rather than our blocking policy. For some admins the use of the f-word (I suspect that these are younger admins who haven't really held down a job in the real world but I could be wrong) is unacceptable. Others, and I fall in that camp, can easily parse them out of a sentence and move on. We need a better way of figuring out when curses are disruptive and when they're merely a part of normal discourse but I don't see that happening. Indef blocks are not a great idea because they're an invitation to long term socking and disruption but, if we're going to use escalating blocks on the likes of Eric Corbett for using the arsehole word, then we might as well use indef blocks because he ain't gonna stop. Either way, not my problem. I have no stomach for long discussions that end up going nowhere! --regentspark (comment) 20:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we are closer to agreeing than you would expect. I draw a pretty clear line between cursing and attacking, and cases are rarely ambiguous.
I think timed blocks are generally a bad idea: I've never understood why delaying an edit war by 31 hours is desirable. I tend to block indef with no more stringent of a requirement than "agree to stop edit warring on article x" as an unblock criteria. The editors that cooperate are usually blocked for under an hour and seem to genuinely improve. The ones that don't, don't, and I suspect that they are exactly the same editors that would run up a series of blocks for the same bad behaviour in the 31 hr, 72 hr, 1 week, 1 month, 3 month system.
What I do have problems with is undoing any block unless you think the reason for the block has legitimately disappeared. Acceptance of a genuine-seeming unblock request is fine, but if an admin is doing it because he thinks the original reason for the block was wrong, he should seek a consensus that the block was wrong.—Kww(talk) 21:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a moot point. It's clear that Eric is not going to stop calling a spade a spade (though I hope he tones it down), so by your logic you should indef him. I cannot fathom what benefit there is to a one-month block as opposed to a one or two-day block besides pissing off the blocked party. Even with a short block the point is made: "we don't like what you did and you shouldn't do it again". That's the only possible point we can make, short of indeffing. (And if you indef someone like him, a great content editor, you should expect consequences--Eric is not the only one, and not all of them are "friends" of mine.)

But there's something else here in your response that is relevant to the conversation I was having with RegentsPark: the fiction that the block was upheld. It's been pointed out that "no consensus" was the only possible conclusion, and I agree with that observation.

Thing is, if we trust admins to block without gaining consensus, we should also trust admins to unblock without gaining consensus (or discussing it with the blocking admin). That's merely a matter of logic: if I am trusted to block you (speaking hypothetically, haha), RegentsPark should be trusted to unblock you. Why not? I am not against seeking consensus for a controversial unblock, or for discussing it with the blocking admin (and their agreement should not be a requirement for an unblock), but the very fact that we entrust someone to block means, as far as I am concerned, that we should entrust someone to unblock. There is no reason (none whatsoever) to presume that the blocking admin is more right than the unblocking admin.

I think Fram's block was wrong; I think it sucked; I think it made us all (well, you all) look bad. It made us look like assholes, fucking assholes even. But I didn't undo it since I'm still a team player, even if I'm not on the team anymore; and if you look carefully you'll see that I was baited into unblocking unilaterally. Instead, I chose to put my clogs on my head and walk out of the temple, so to speak. (Again, this was not my only reason, far from it, but it will suffice for now.) A cowardly move, but the only one that fits my personal ethics, which are my own but not incompatible with the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia. Well, three weeks later INeverCry is right to unblock Eric. What possible purpose was served by one month that isn't served by three weeks? In my reading (and that's my own, you don't have to subscribe to it) it was a vindictive block, a low blow. The intent was not to spare us for a month from reading the word "asshole". If that word was so offensive, all we would have to do is filter it out.

In short: a. EC is blocked by a single admin who sought no consensus (note: I am not saying that this was against the letter of the law; it's not, since we have you have that discretion, though I think it was a crap block). b. an AN discussion neither upholds nor denounces it. c. Someone unblocks, without gaining consensus (note: I am not saying INeverCry unblocked without seeking if there was consensus). And d. : no, that should be the end of it. That is, I think, what RegentsPark was proposing. If you trust Fram to block, you should trust INeverCry to unblock. Or, if not INeverCry, then admin X. Or Y. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The way we're structured right now, we have a greater respect for a block than for an unblock (because the block comes first). That would be easily remedied by allowing admins to unblock without the need for discussion (though, of course, with an explanation). Also, the idea of escalating blocks for a 'fuck' or an 'arsehole' is ludicrous. Some people use those words just as easily as others use hello and thank you. If we're going to issue escalating blocks (or an indef block until the 'learn') then we're better off just kicking them off Wikipedia - much less drama. We need a definite policy on this, perhaps one of the following:

  1. Any uninvolved admin can lift a 'civility block' without discussion but with an explanation. If they're truly uninvolved, it's no big deal.
  2. The use of a banned word results in an automatic 24 hour block. For each instance. No escalation. No discussion.
  3. The use of a banned word results in a block of x duration. Three strikes and the editor is banned. No discussion.

Either of these is clear enough for everyone. A one month block for Eric Corbett makes no sense whatsoever. Either we kick him out, or we let him edit. The way we're structured right now we just end up with a lot of drama, many content editors wasting their time on ANI or at Arbcom, and losing Boing! I can't see anything positive in any of that. --regentspark (comment) 01:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fully in favor of kicking him out until he agrees to stop attacking people. It's not just random cursing: it's directly targeted and intentional insults. I agree that a one-month block doesn't make any logical sense, but the indefs don't hold. Note that all I initially did with INeverCry was take his action to AN for discussion. My opinion was clear, and my hope was that most people would chastize INeverCry for having made a stupid move. I didn't even expect to see a consensus to reimpose the block. When INeverCry went for the same action twice in an hour, it went to Arbcom, but that's not for unblocking Eric: it's for breaking one of the most basic policies there is about admin actions.
Conceptually, and this is where I know I'm in opposition to both of you, I see the unblocks in Eric's case as the root of the problem. If people would let the normal escalating series of blocks hold, then he would at this point either be behaving or be gone. Every time someone unblocks him, it disrupts the cycle and prolongs the problem.—Kww(talk) 02:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two problems with your analysis kww. First, some people use words like fuck as a part of their normal discourse and we can't change that. Skinner's approach is just not going to work and, if we don't like the f-word on Wikipedia, then some sort of 3 strikes law is the best solution for everyone. Second, not everyone agrees that these words are necessarily an attack in the first place. There are plenty of better ways to attack people without ever using a no-no word and these are often far more insulting than a mere "stop being an arsehole". In the end, all we're doing is meaninglessly policing the use of certain words and, over time, ejecting the set of people who use these words as well as the set of people who don't but are unable to understand why they carry such a high penalty. Better to either ignore the words (option 1) or to have a low but consist penalty that doesn't carry a death sentence at the end (option 2), or quickly get rid of the potty mouthed set before it becomes an issue that drags others in (option 3). --regentspark (comment) 12:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
So if a block length is ludicrous (you yourself agreed that it made no sense) it can't be undone? And you think that after you paddle him some he'll fall in line, like a good schoolboy? And you think that the re-block (the undoing of a legitimate and well-explained unblock) is not a problem? RegentsPark, I'm with you on item 1, not on the others. There's always context, and we allow for heated responses in heated disagreements, as is right. Besides, there's baiting, and there's acting like an asshole (for instance) without saying the word, which won't trip any filters besides the human filter. It would be nice if it were that simple, but we're all-too human, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not "heated responses" it's intentional and purposeful insults. If there was any reason at all to believe the behaviour was going to stop, it would have been legitimate to lift the block. There wasn't. Eric even says he has no intention of stopping. Extending the block to indef? Fine. Lifting it? Irresponsibly enabling disruptive behaviour. The escalating series of blocks is a crappy technique, but if people keep lifting the indefinite ones when they have no reason at all to believe he will behave, it's the only other alternative that seems to stand a chance. —Kww(talk) 05:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Arun Jaitley problems

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi RegentsPark, could you please take a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arun_Jaitley Please go to the 'Controversies and Criticism' section. You will see there this message: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2013)" The problem is that none of the edits in this section are being discussed in the talk page. There was one other edit in this section (written by me) but it was removed by User:MohitSingh and the relevant discussion is in the talk page of the article. But i am baffled as to why this "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag is present when in fact none of the edits are disputed (at least not so far). Soham321 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

if someone adds a pov tag to an article but does not explain the tag in a reasonable amount of time (1-2 days), you can remove it. --regentspark (comment) 16:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Namantar Andolan

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

I am struggling to keep on top of changes that are being made by a more-or-less SPA at Namantar Andolan, so much so that I've not even found the time to check many of the sources. I've raised one source at RSN - here - but I have more general concerns relating to POV and dealing with them is difficult when I am spending much of my time on that article merely trying to consolidate cites, fix dreadful English, repetition, overly bold claims, probably mangled section organisation/chronology etc. Any chance that you could add it to your watchlist while I try to work my way through things? Or even have a word with the SPA, Bhooshannpy, because I don't know where to start with that: they clearly mean well even if it seems likely that they may not be entirely neutral in their approach. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith editor. Might be better to let them edit and then fix the material at leisure. If it begins to get out of hand, warn him/her and I'll protect the page. Will leave a note on their talk page as well. --regentspark (comment) 15:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to come back to this after so long. I am trying and trying to communicate with them and they are not responding. A lot of the stuff is good (or will be when I fettle the phrasing etc) but some of it is trivial and they seem to be on a dalit-inspired mission to document every instance of violence that occurred, everywhere, often using sources that are of dubious reliability. Often, when I've attempted to sort some of this out, they've reinstated but continue not to talk about it. I'm deliberately not tearing into the thing but even so, there are concerns and they are being ignored. Could you perhaps try having another word, starting with "Hello, I'm an administrator here ..." just to see if that catches their eye. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I've left a note on their talk page but I doubt it will help. If you think it helps, a series of escalating warnings may be necessary but that would be a shame because the editor is adding at least some useful material. --regentspark (comment) 18:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that they've added some useful stuff and it will be better still when it is fettled. Trying to get them to communicate is thus something of a balancing act but they are going to have to do so at some point because we do not operate in a bubble here & someone else may well be more bite-y than me. And I'm not exactly a Dennis Brown-type diplomat myself. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't look like they're paying attention to their talk page so not sure what more we can do. Let's wait and see. --regentspark (comment) 18:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, I'm not really editing a whole lot these days and, a bit like Boing, I see my main role as making sure that editors like you are given the space to work. So, just let me know what you want! --regentspark (comment) 00:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't work like that. I'd rather muddle through when someone is clearly trying to do The Right Thing, although I can see this one becoming an issue in due course. Which, obviously, is just my opinion and, hey, lots of people will disagree with me. Or, at least, they usually do! - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear regentspark, There is one brutal incident from Bolsa Villege, I have edited this incident vaguely. Many other sources confirm this incident.Could you please edit this particular incident from Bolsa Village for Namantar Andolan. --Many thanks. Bhooshan NPY (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, looks like I missed this note completely (the new notification bot gives too many notifications!). I'll take a look sometime today or tomorrow. --regentspark (comment) 18:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear regentspark, Many thanks for your edit. ----- Bhooshan NPY (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for adding information on an underrepresented topic! --regentspark (comment) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear regentspark, You are aware that I really worked very hard on this article. Can you please have a look over article again? [Especially for grammatical errors (if any).] -----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Will be happy to! --regentspark (comment) 12:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

RP I found this sub-section and then had a look at the page, (1) We have a statement about Fauzdar Bhurevar, sourced from "The caste question [electronic resource]: Dalits and the politics of modern India" this book informs that Maharashtra's chief minister was Sharad Patil (page 212) and that Nanded has a Kanher taluka (page 210), both bad facts[13][14] afaik, now this book has been used 8 times in the said article. Can we use a source that is poor on simple facts? (2)Shouldn't we move the page to an English title, "Namantar Andolan" has as good as no use in reliable sources say google books Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

:Q? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


Dear regentspark, I read about Namantar Andolan in Vernacular newspapers. Can I consider it as the reliable citation source in our article? Many thanks-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at it source by source because the answer is "it depends". If you can't find an English language source for the same information, then my suggestion is that you use the vernacular newspaper source evaluating the quality of the source the same way you would with an English language newspaper. Then follow the guidelines in WP:NOENG (include a translation of the part you are using, etc.). --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear regentspark, I understood what you trying to suggest me. I have added vernacular reliable source in Namantar Shahid Smarak on your suggestion after reading WP:NOENG, I believe, I have fixed citation correctly. Please have a look over Namantar Andolan [Especially for grammatical errors (if any)].Many thanks-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting!

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"I will be traveling until September 5th with limited or no access to the Internet." Wow! Tell us about it, when you comeback. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DRN board notice

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello RegentsPark! there is currently a discussion at DRN board where you are listed as involved. As your username wasn't written correctly so the bot has missed informing you. --SMS Talk 15:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_20&oldid=1168307393"