User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

lord rama edit

hello. kindly note that Lord Rama maybe considered mythology in the west but is 100% considered a historical figure within India. there are many archeological findings that keep coming up to corroborate this via rama setu etc. hence please do not disrespect/interfere with/dismiss indian systems that you do not have knowledge of. leva and khari lineage records go back thousands of years in India and this is no myth.

thank you.

St. John's Park

Hi. About a week ago, you locked the St. John's Park article, and rightfully so. Since then, I've posted a message on the article's talk page, addressed and pinged to the editor I was in dispute with, Djflem, suggesting that we bury the axe and try to work together collaboratively. Getting no response, yesterday I posted a reminder, but, again, there's been no reply.

I'm concerned that when the protection lapses tomorrow, Djflem is going to return to the same mode of operation that prevailed before, and we'll be right back where we were when you locked the article. My concern is fueled by the fact that the majority of Djflem's editing during the article's downtime has been focused on crafting his next riposte on the talk page; see, for instance, the results of a series of 23 edits to one of the pages in his userspace, which he is using as a scratch pad - a pattern which was true throughout our dispute.

I'm not asking you to do anything in advance, but I would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the article once it's unlocked and do what you can to keep things under control. I'm convinced that the majority of Djflem's preferred changes go against the prevailing talk page consensus about the focus of the article, but I'm also serious trying my best to collaborate with him, and agreeing to whatever changes he suggests that are harmonious with that consensus. I just don't want a return to what was happening before, and I think a neutral outside eye would be very helpful.

Thanks, BMK (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the article. I don't really understand the dispute but - clearly - the talk page is the place to work it out. --regentspark (comment) 22:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you watching the talk page too? How long do we have to keep putting up with his obstructive and obfuscating behavior? I've "collaborated" with him to the extent of accepting (for the sake of harmony and to help prevent a return to the previous behavior that got the article locked) about 95% of his suggested lede section, but every time I accept a little more, he comes up with more nonsensical objections based on blatant misreadings of policy -- even thought the words he is objecting to are his own suggested wording. I can't help think but that his purpose is to use the talk page discussion to batter other editors into submission until we go away and he can do exactly what he wants, which appears to be to ignore the consensus established by commenters on the page, and to rewrite the article to be about the Holland Tunnel exits and move it to a new title (which he already did last month, without discussion or consensus, and which I reverted and opened a discussion of the talk page. This is what started the dispute and his behavior.)

Is there any chance you could read the page from "Starting Over?" and give me your opinion about what the heck I can do to get this editor to acknowledge and follow the consensus of editors on the talk page that the article needs to be about the history of the land, and not the Holland Tunnel exits.?

I just want to point out that the last comment I left on the page asked Djflem if he acknowledged that "there is a talk page consensus that the focus of this article should be on the history of the land, and not on the Holland Tunnel exits, that the notability of the subject is tied to its history, and that the Holland tunnel exits were not, of themselves, notable?" That is indeed the consensus, the links for which I posted a day or so ago as a reminder.

Dollars to donuts he will not answer that question. BMK (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Which he did not. Despite starting out "yes I agree", all he did was comment on some aspects of one part of the consensus (without referring to it as a consensus) and then launch into some other topics. I do not see how it's possible to productively collaborate with someone who will not acknowledge that when 3 out of 4 people in a discussion come to an agreement, that is a consensus which must be followed until such time as the consensus changes. BMK (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

He still will not acknowledge that there is a consensus. I do not think it is possible to collaborate with an editor who will not affirm that he will follow a very basic policy such as WP:CONSENSUS. I've asked him one more time, and it will be the last. If he refuses to answer again, I will withdraw my offer to collaborate. If history is any guide, he will then post his own lede, which will not conform to the talk page consensus, and I will remove it for that reason, and we'll be right back where we started. I really don't want that, but I'm not willing to allow his to run roughshod over the agreement of 3 editors in good standing just so he can skew the article to way he wants to.

The only options I see here are to block Djflem for being obstructive on the talk page and tendentious in general, or to put the article on long-term lockdown. If you have something else you think can be done, please do it. If you think there's something I should do, please say what it is and I'll do it. I'm pretty much at my wit's end. BMK (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I just checked your contribs, and it seems that you haven't edited lately, so my complaints haven't fallen on deaf ears, they've fallen on no ears. Damn. BMK (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me add to what I said above, after thinking about it a little - I don't think a block of Djflem would be a good idea. He's done some very good work, and it would be a shame to lose that (although he really hasn't done anything substantive at all during the time of the dispute over this article, which is not a good sign). On the other hadn locking the article does seem like a good idea, because any changes to it would have to come by way of an edit request, and then it will be a neutral admin determining whether there is a consensus on the talk page in favor of the edit, not myself or Djflem. BMK (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I may not be editing, but I am watching the talk page. I'm not going to pre-emptively lock the article because that would assume bad faith on Djflem's part and I don't think we've got to that point as yet. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel a bit better knowing that an admin continues to watch. BMK (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: talk page messages. While I appreciate your interest I don't find you've fairly assessed the situation and don't understand your suggestion that I withdraw unilaterally from the St. John's Park article.

Your seem to be implying that I should overlook BMK's behaviour and that since s/he has made what he characterizes as comprises, I ought to do the same for him/her because it's my "turn" to do. It's not my impression that Wikipedia is built by editors wheeling and dealing then concede to add whatever another wants because "one back washes the other". As you've said you don't know who's right or wrong, but I would would suggest you familiarize yourself with the major issue at hand, which is quite simply that BMK is asking me to collaborate in, conform to, and concede to publishing original research. I do not believe Wikipedia should that, and don't imagine you do either.

I have made a straightforward clearly laid requests for discussion the page, [1] regarding lead follows body which has led to some substantive, if belated discourse, that have led to positive proposals for a better opener which would improve the article. At issue is matter of original research that is seen in a glaring contradiction in the piece for which I have asked for clarification [2]. As is normal Wikipeida verification procedure, when a claim is made the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. BMK has been asked provide a citation. The response to date has been (to use your word) "grudging"; somewhere between obfuscation and complete refusal. I have taken your suggestion and sought input in another forum, namely Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#St. John's Park. Hopefully a response there will lend some guidance as to how to proceed beyond the current reticence.

Lastly, I do not understand what point you are trying to make about my contributions to a discussion about clarifying consensus. I found it a very sane response to someone's demand that I agree to their screaming bold interpretations. [3][4]

Djflem (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Nvvchar.
Message added 18:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_India/Condensed_proposed_roadmap_for_Wikimedia_work_in_India#MMS_right.
Message added 09:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

2008 Blasts

Any IP that starts with the 81 extension is Nangparbat. Some people just don't know.[5] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Reversion

I do not deem it appropriate for you to delete the entire article Grewal. Much of the article was appropriately sourced. If there is a sentence or a paragraph that you deem to not comply with guidelines, then that can be altered. Please revert the changes, and allow the article to be amended appropriately.Aksevin7 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently a disambiguation page per the consensus at [6] so it will stay that way unless consensus changes. --regentspark (comment) 16:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi talk pages

Please see Talk:Aam Aadmi Party and Talk:Aam Aadmi Party (disambiguation). Alakzi (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Let me know if I've missed something. --regentspark (comment) 21:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It all looks good to me. Thanks! Alakzi (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 11:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#WikiProject_India_En_workshop. Sorry. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Got it. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Violence against Hindus"

Hey RP, could you take a look at this template? I'd try to clean it up myself, but I know for a fact that any edit I make there will be reverted by our mutual friends. Somebody appears to have tried to collect every incident in which hindus were affected in the past few centuries. No coherent sourcing, of course. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately RL intrudes Vanamonde. I'm just a dilettante editor for the time being :) --regentspark (comment) 16:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Damn. Real life is very real....Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

New user FreeatlastChitchat repeatedly involved in vandalism in Mughal Empire, Mughal–Maratha Wars , Third Battle of Panipat etc pages. Take action, please. I can not go on with reverting his edits any more. Also, check his IP. See edit summary and Talk Page there.Ghatus (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Illiteracy issue"

respected user , there is no point in time when disrupting the article or wearing someone down here on wiki was intended, i am referring to a word used in the article (SHIVAJI) which is malum in se, considering the time of Mughal rule when Formal education was not prevalent nor was the use of BOOK knowledge , what was existent was acquired from his mother ( Jijabai) it is quite nice an edit made ( but received little formal education and though he was most likely illiterate) which i must appreciate , but reading quite a books on this subject , saying - one didnt know to read or write is apt in this case rather than using ILLITERATE both have none the less same meaning but when as Shivaji was born in a time plagued by Mughal rule and the need of hour was to fight them, he acquired all knowledge required that helped him fight them and also to administer the kingdom so formed , including all such knowledge which his mother inculcated, hence i dont argue on fact of calling him a first hand literate or a scholar but am of the view of - saying he couldnt read or write and not terming him illiterate is needed. thanking you Rbs21 (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nadirali

Since no admin seems to be wanting to action over the topic ban violation of this previously banned editor, would you? Check this AN thread. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Nadirali's topic ban but, assuming it is from India/Pak topics, on the face of it, Nyttend's conclusions seem valid. The articles are on general topics and the edits are not about India or Pakistan. Unless there is something I'm missing, I suggest letting it go. --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend said "Responding to your final point first, since it's the only one I've investigated", that means he looked into only 1 diff. Yes there are at least 2 diffs, where his edit is major and effects the section that are mostly related to India/Pakistan, such as [7], it was his last edit, he made 2 more, and he went off. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

New warrior

Dear RP, Can you help out dealing with this new warrior [8]? He is way too inflammatory for my taste. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Warrior"; nice term. I was looking for such a term yesterday. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Have nominated {{Country data Mughal Empire}} for deletion. Informing you given your input at article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

BMK

You seem to be arguing I'm doing the same thing as BMK. You should hear how bitter he got when angrily pushing the puzzling argument that if the article for camel toe referred to "females" instead of "women", readers would be misled into thinking that it was a general term for the labia of any animal that wore tight underpants. Get it? Yeah. It's that silly, but he argued about ad nauseam, and got pretty salty in the process. Yep, that's what I was talking about when I mentioned "shrill invective" over something "silly".

By contrast, the anger I'm expressing at that ANI page results from an unceasing litany of personal attacks — and not just the typical personal attack, where one editor attacks another editor's motivations. Nope, he's gone with full-blown insults, character attacks, talking about how I'm "crying to mommy" etc. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just clarifying what Short Brigade Harvester meant. That it is ironical to rail against shouting by shouting - nothing about BMK. You've got some good advice here from the closer and from Mongo (on your talk page). I'd take both those pieces of advice very seriously if I were you.--regentspark (comment) 02:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was railing against completely unrestrained personal insults. I used boldface to emphasize the complaint, and to draw attention to the fact that personal insults were being freely bandied about. I don't think that is ironic. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the clarification. --regentspark (comment) 10:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Eshwar.om

Yes he has been notified about about WP:ARBIPA.[9] More discussion can be found at User talk:Abecedare#Eshwar. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha

Loved the twist at the end o the analogy. :) Abecedare (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Donald Ramotar

Hello, one IP has changed entire matter of article Donald Ramotar, President of Guyana. Then another user deleted all that matter as it was wrong matter. User done good job by deleting all false info. But now restoring article became very difficult and we have to do it manually. Do you have any facility to restore article to original version quickly? I know you look for India related topics but that President is of Indian origin. That article is very important as he is a President of a sovereign nation. Kindly help to restore that article if you have some special gadgets. Thank you. --Human3015 talk • 08:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• No worry, I have restored it myself, I was not knowing how to restore original version, but now I know it. Have a good time!!. --Human3015 talk • 08:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist. --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

DS

Your comment to him seems not exactly in the best position ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand your comment? I thought you were saying that AE is being too strict with DS. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood ;) - who am I, a criminal taken to AE three times in a year, to comment on the holy institution. Someone told me what the abbreviation stands for which I will not repeat. In prose, what I observe translates to waste of time, and I haven't seen positive influence on the project yet, - but I observe only when I have to. - I routinely repeat Precious a year later, - and enjoyed the irony today. - On capitulation day I decided to capitulate, leave pride and dignity behind and request amendment. Possibly a mistake. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I get it now. Will try to drop a note at AE (but there is no hope!). --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My case is at ARCA, and if nothing happens, nothing happens. Every now and then I see miracles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I am mostly concerned with the exemption from WP:SPI, we know that DS was really good at WP:SPIs. It is unfortunate that we don't see any SPIs from him anymore. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Awadhiya (caste)

Any chance of you casting your admin eye over events at Awadhiya (caste)? - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Warned user and watching. --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks. I'll leave it for a while to see if they respond to the talk page points. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

British Pakistanis

On page British Pakistanis some editors writing Azad Kashmir as just Kashmir. Term Kashmir includes Indian parts Kashmir valley, Ladakh, Jammu also Pakistani parts Azad Kashmir and Gilgit. But some POV editors specifically mentioning Pakistan administered Kashmir as just Kashmir which gives impression that whole Kashmir is part of Pakistan. While on same page they write Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir as "Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir". No one is interested in replying on talk page. They are reverting my neutral edits. What should I do?--Human3015 talk • 07:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I think it best to leave it alone. In the first case (Azad Kashmir), the reference is to the origins of British Pakistanis and identifying them with a region rather than a political entity is not inappropriate. In the second case (Indian Administered Kashmir), the reference is political, so it does make sense to explicitly identify the political entity. Not worth fighting over this one. --regentspark (comment) 12:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of India may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks BB. --regentspark (comment) 22:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Protect Moinuddin Chishti

One IP is repeatedly removing word Sufism from infobox of Moinuddin Chishti. Chisti is best known for Sufism so it should be in infobox. Also he is removing maintenance tags. Please semi-protect the page and keep it on your watchlist. Thank you.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 16:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Looking into it. --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on this article, but as you edited this article so don't semi-protect this page in any case because someone can do complaint against you as admin acting as editor can't protect the page. So I requested temporary semi protection at RFPP, because I don't think that IP will stop, he/she will come back soon. Thank you. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 16:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it needs semi-protection. The IP is discussing on the talk page so it is a content dispute between you and the IP rather than vandalism. But, you may get lucky at RfPP. --regentspark (comment) 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Pings

FYI re this edit, you have to add a ping and your signature in the same edit, else no notification occurs. This is a known and apparently unfixable problem. In this particular situation, the ping isn't that important since your target is probably still watching the thread. If you wanted to ping them, however, you would have to add another ping with another signature. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 10:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pashtuns

Can you help us to resolve content dispute at Pashtuns?. Two users have view that "Pathan" is a derogatory term for "Pashtuns". Despite my repeated appeals none of them is ready to discuss that issue on talk. I have explained on talk, one other user is supporting me but those two users are just reverting me and calling it as "Vandalism". It is clear cut mis-information to readers that "Pathan" is derogatory term, they have written it in lead that too in first introductory line. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 05:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't help with this one Human3015. The other editor has provided a clear source that says "the Hindi rendering Pathans is today regarded as a derogatory term". The only ways forward for you are (1) show that the source is unreliable (2) provide other sources that say that Pathan is not a derogatory term (but proving a negative is often impossible) (3) accept the source but provide evidence that it is a minority view and change the sentence to "sometimes considered derogatory" (4) forget about it and move on. If you choose routes 1, 2 or 3, you're probably going to need an RfC. --regentspark (comment) 13:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

how

Hi, how could I upload a portrait of Mawlana moinuddin chisti? The tomb doesn't look so nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.124.52 (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, anonymous editors can't upload files here or in commons. You'll need to open an account to do that. --regentspark (comment) 18:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

ALSO, what does "SHA-1 commitment to this user's real-life identity" mean? Are you receiving any salary from wikipedia. Thanks. 78.149.124.52 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

SHA is just a way of confirming one's identity. Nothing to do with Wikipedia and no, I am not paid by Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 18:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Present day Nepal's many parts were under British rule from 1816 to 1857. Check this fact under the lands seized by British forces after the anglo-nepal war in 1814-1816. The segowlee treaty mentions it clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyfie (talk • contribs) 08:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Company rule in India

Present day Nepal's many parts were under British rule from 1816 to 1857. Check this fact under the lands seized by British forces after the anglo-nepal war in 1814-1816. The segowlee treaty mentions it clearly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyfie (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The Sugauli treaty ceded Darjeeling Kumaon and Garhwal to India and these are still a part of India. I don't think any part of current day Nepal was under Company Rule. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Babur's sexual proclivity and disruptive edits by User:Sitush

In the page on Babur, i have written the following on the talk page:

• i am very disappointed by the repeated disruptive edits by User:Sitush. The dispute here is about using Babur's autobiography as the primary reference for his sexual proclivities. Sitush instead prefers to use Abraham Eraly (who is depending in turn on Babur's autobiography) as the primary and only reference on this issue. What Sitush is suggesting is against all cannons of historical scholarship. Wherever a primary historical source like Babur's autobiography is available on a particular historical issue it should be used (particularly about something like his sexual proclivity)--this is what every student of history is taught. (Of course the primary source can be supplemented by secondary sources.) Sitush's insinuation that Babur's autobiography may have become "corrupted" is not supported by any mainstream historian.
• Being a student of history, i feel very strongly about using primary sources wherever possible (although these can of course be supplemented by secondary sources). I want some kind of adjudication to take place on this point of using primary sources wherever possible for historical figures. Could you please guide me to the appropriate forum? I am writing on your talk page because you were recently editing the Babur page, and because you are an Admin who would i am assuming be able to guide me appropriately. Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  Commented there. Apologies, but I think a secondary source is better. --regentspark (comment) 22:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Request you to see the talk page again.Soham321 (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Oriya_language#Requested_move_17_June_2015

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriya_language#Requested_move_17_June_2015. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Staszek Lem

I'm not quite sure how you can construe "Congratulations! You've made the list!" as a threat, but I have withdrawn it. BMK (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What list? The impression your statement gives is that you keep a list of some sort that includes editors you've had a problem with. It may not be that at all but that's the impression one gets (and clearly Swarm also got the same impression). You should know better than to make those sorts of statements. --regentspark (comment) 00:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aliwal, Taran Taran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taran Taran. 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) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks DPL bot. --regentspark (comment) 13:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

1857 india edits

hello. kindly note these records are 100% authentic - both parikshitgarh and saharanpur were involved in 1857 and portions of the forts of these states stand even today for their valiant efforts. please do not try to reduce the dignity and glory of these states by trying to deny the reality of the roles of these kingdoms in 1857.

I can email you photos of these forts which have remnents left even today.

would appreciate your undoing your removal of these names from 1857 independence struggle as these are in the process of being appended in indian history books as well.

regards.

vikram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.251.31 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources that back up the involvement of these regions in the rebellion. Photographs of forts won't do. --regentspark (comment) 13:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ashoka

Hi, I think your this edit was not according to WP:INDICSCRIPT. It says, we should not keep indic script in lead of the article, but we can keep native name in infobox. There are numerous articles where indic script is used in infobox. You should delete indic script from current lead of that article and should keep it in infobox. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  02:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right (sorry about that). Go ahead (but - perhaps - exclude the samrat part?). --regentspark (comment) 02:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Even if we decide to include an Indic script in the infobox, why devanagiri in particular? It doesn't have link with Ashoka (for whom the relevant language/script would be Magadhi Prakrit/Brahmi) and doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose. Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Samrat Ashok is equivalent to english Ashoka the Great. Devanagari script is important because he is from Indian subcontient, if we write his name in Pali or Sanskrit which were the languages of his era, still it uses "devanagari" script. Moreover, infobox already includes "Samrat" word in English, so no harm in adding in native language too. It is common name. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Samrat is not part of Ashoka's native name and neither is it a direct rendering of the name in English. Also, didn't we get rid of 'the great' by consensus a while ago? Abecedare, devanagri is never of encyclopedic value, not even for geographic names. But that's not a fight I'm willing to take on. :)

Who says "great" is not part of name? I'm planning to start move discussion for Ashoka and Akbar to Ashoka the Great and Akbar the Great. Because these two kings are most famous from South Asia and commonly referred with these name. If we see other emperors, we already have pages named Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great etc. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a knee-jerk association of anything in "ancient India" with Sanskrit, and anything in Indian subcontinent with Devanagiri. But as I said above neither of those associations are true for Ahoka, who is closely associated with the Brahmi script and Magadhi Prakrit. Indeed his edicts are the foundational texts attesting those two, and allowing their decipherment. So if you can find how "Ashoka" is spelled in Brahmi script, that may indeed be a trivial but delightful addition. Devanagiri is really irrelevant. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to article talk page. --regentspark (comment) 03:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert

Hi Regents, please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert if you get a chance. I know you blocked 45.55.3.174 as a sock of LanguageXpert, but this IP flagged Zmaghndstakun as a sock. Maybe the IP is from the other side of the dispute? That's sort of why I was hoping to get a translation of their comments since it seemed to me they might have been accusing PakhtunYar of being a LanguageXpert sock, which Ponyo found to be "extremely likely". Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible Cyphoidbomb. Though LanguageXpert is usually the only saraiki pov editor around. I'll take a look in a bit. Thanks for alerting me. --regentspark (comment) 01:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I took a look. Clearly the IP is a sock (tagging socks in early edits, the obsession with language and Saraiki). Perhaps @Kwamikagami: can contribute here but I think the IP is better off blocked. --regentspark (comment) 03:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

RP, looks like LX's ipsock is 39.47.86.140. If you dig around you'll know which one 45 is a sock of, but I'd guess it's the opposite sock (they might be doing the tango like NP/MrP). —SpacemanSpiff 03:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't figure this out so perhaps I am wrong. Not NP or MrP. Unlikely the Nijib guy with the complicated name. The pattern is familiar but I'll unblock on AGF.--regentspark (comment) 12:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The Syrupy Sweets in a nutshell.

• Khiramohana or, Kheer Mohan is a creamish sweet popular & invented in Odisha since the Jagannath Temple, Puri came into existence. The sweet, offered to the goddess Lakshmi during the Rath Yatra of the temple. Now, the sweet is though made of chhena and cooked in sugar syrup but there is no concrete evidence that chhena, which we know today, existed at the time of the sweet's invention. It is very unlikely of its existence then.
• NB: Kheer in Kheer Mohan, suggests a condensed milk pudding, is not chhena.

• Pahala Rasgulla, the descendant and an alternative name of Khiramohana , is a yellowish brown, crumbly, syrupy sweet popular & available only in Pahala region of Odisha.

• Rosogolla is a light spongy white ball of chhana stewed in sugar syrup (rasa). The form of Rosogolla that we know today is different from Khiramohana of Odisha in various aspects. Evidenly, Nobin Chandra Das of Kolkata, West Bengal, discovered the sweet. Its alternative names are Rossogolla, Rasagolla & Roshogolla, and its variations are Kamala Bhog, Raj Bhog, Roso Malai etc. The name of the sweet is anglicize to Rasgulla, after many non-Bengali speaking Indians started calling it by this name.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you're posting this on my talk page. Shouldn't all this be on Talk:Rasgulla along with citations (I don't see any here)? --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your Invalid Opposition to Renaming Rasgulla.

User:RegentsPark's opposition arbitrary, his reasons have no basis for the following reasons.

The Rasgulla is a mispronounced name, not a commonly recognizable name as per Wikipedia Policy. In addition, the voter ignored to consider those scholarly English language sources, referred in the main Rasgulla article page, predominantly failed to establish Rasgulla as a commonly recognizable name, rather there are clear indications that rasagolla and Rossogolla predominantly used as the names of the sweet. Both, these names alternatives to Rosogolla - the target article name.

(1) One reference source in the main Rasgulla article, "The Oxford Companion to Food by Alan Davidso" – scholarly native English foreign source - mentions, "rasgulla (Hindi) or rasagolla (Bengali) or rasbari (Nepali), a Bengali sweet popular throughout India. This English source does not use Rasgulla, it rather predominantly use rasagolla - alternative name of the target Rosogolla article. In addition to that, the source clearly says about the sweet, "a Bengali sweet popular throughout India."

(2) Another, native English foreign source in the main article, “The Sweetshops of Kolkata, Gastronomica Journal 10 by Michael Krondl, Page 58," mentions, "Rossogolla is made from similar dough but is boiled rather than fried. When soaked in milk-based syrup, it is called rossomalai." This source too does not use Rasgulla rather predominantly uses Rossogolla, - alternative name of the target Rosogolla article.

(3) Another native English foreign source in the main article, ‘Sweet Invention: A History of Dessert by Michael Krondl,’ mentions in the pages 55-59, “"Rossogolla, a syrup-poached dumpling of fresh curd, is arguably India's favorite desert." This source too does not use Rasgulla rather predominantly uses Rossogolla, - alternative name of the target Rosogolla article.

(4) Most references in the Rasgulla article do not indicate name of the sweet as Rasgulla, rather other name relevant to Rosogolla. I have ignored them for the following reasons.

I have taken scholarly English sources mainly published in native English speaking foreign countries, but I ignored Indian and Bangladeshi news articles, most of which are unscholarly, some even biased, even mispronounced, and ignored unscholarly books published in India or Bangladesh for four important reasons. (i). Mispronounced. (ii). Relevance - native English speaking countries. (iii). Deciding inability and, (iv). The sweet has too many Indian English names. These reasons described below.

Mispronounced: India is a country with several languages, so name in a language widely mispronounced in another language. A name in Bengali, or any other Indian languages, frequently mispronounced by other language-speaking persons, it is a common mistake in India. Hindi is India’s national language.

Native English speaking countries, relevance: Taking scholarly sources from native English speaking foreign countries would be appropriate as long as usage of English term is concerned.

Deciding inability: It is simply not easy to decide between Rosogolla and Rasgulla, which name mostly used in India. It is certain Bangladesh use Rosogolla or its alternative names but never use Rasgulla, Bangladesh prefers to avoid a Hindi pronunciation.

The sweet has too many Indian English names: English sources in India not only use Rosogolla, also uses its other alternatives names including Rasgulla, almost 254 million Bengalis in India and Bangladesh use Rosogolla. Where in West Bengal only, some 8 percent of nation's population consumes half of the country's sixteen billion rupees worth of sweets in 2003, adding Bangladesh and other Bengali speaking Indian states would be even more.

User:RegentsPark has no valid reason in support of his opposition, nor the main Rasgulla is a commonly recognizable names as per its own sources, unfortunately, he seems biased too.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please post this on Talk:Rasgulla. Also, you might want more brevity in your posts. --regentspark (comment) 23:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark, Both has been taken care of before I see your above suggestion. Thanks. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Rasgulla

An editor has asked for a Move review of Rasgulla. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edit without using the talk-page

Please do not revert the edit without using the talk-page [10] Cited source "The Gujarat pogrom: compilation of various reports" has no known publisher or author.The content of book cannot be viewed or verified. This Citation violates Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. A primary source compiling other report do need to be verifiable. Please undo your revert. Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I explained my revert in the edit summary. Note that the source is being used solely to support the statement that the gujarat riots have sometimes been described as a pogrom and that's perfectly acceptable from a primary source. Perhaps there are better sources but that's not the point here. --regentspark (comment) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sheena Bora murder case

I have reverted one of your edit here after adding reliable source. Thank you! — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries. But note that the reference doesn't say Rai confessed. --regentspark (comment) 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Scripts

You may want to copy some of the scripts from User:SpacemanSpiff/common.js to your skin. Especially easyblock as it's the easiest way to block socks. I've left a few for you at the ML SPI to try it out :) —SpacemanSpiff 16:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Everything above this is Greek to me. Skin? I probably shouldn't do any of this because I'll mess it up and end up blocking Jimbo or something. --regentspark (comment) 17:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If you wish I can do it for you (one of the perks of adminship is to edit other people's js files). User:RegentsPark/common.js is yours, I think you just have the orange bar set for now. —SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead. Just don't block me by mistake! --regentspark (comment) 17:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, I think you'd have to do a refresh Ctrl+shift+R for it to work, easyblock and the mark blocked scripts have been added (latter highlights users who are blocked). —SpacemanSpiff 17:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Roman Script Konkani

Hello. I noticed your revert so I thought I'd point out that "Roman Script Konkani" refers to Konkani in the Roman script, also known as Romi Konkani, distinct Konkani dialects mixed with Portuguese and other European loan words spoken by around 3.6 million people, predominantly Christians, along the coast in Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala. So yes, "Roman Script Konkani" differs from Standard Konkani also when spoken. It's already mentioned in the article (Goa), though, so the edit wasn't needed. Thomas.W ^talk 18:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I had a feeling that there was more to the Roman Script Konkani than met the eye! --regentspark (comment) 19:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Due to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Undiscussed moves of articles' growth into a know-nothing mob, I feel little choice but to retire as it's clear I am not wanted. Ogress 18:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't do that. Diacritics are a major source of friction on Wikipedia and you shouldn't let a kerfuffle on that issue get to you. A better way is to work on the naming convention so that is clearer when we should use IAST and when we should go by a common name. The current version is not at all clear which is why you and DD are at odds with each other. There are many good reasons to stop editing, but a tussle over article titles is not amongst them. --regentspark (comment) 20:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Aztec editor

i see I'm not the only one who has reverted him. He's also added the book at Tenochtitlan but in a list, although neither book nor authorhasan article. Doug Weller (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcomed the editor and added a cautionary note. The process starts :) No idea about the validity of including the book but we should remove the link to Amazon. --regentspark (comment) 19:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice he lost it and was blocked? Doug Weller (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Lucky to get away with a short block. --regentspark (comment) 01:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Parts of present day Nepal were under British/East India Company rule

Terai as mentioned in the Sugauli Treaty was under British/East India Company rule for quite some time. Please have a look at it before reverting an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyfie (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello RP. Thanks for protecting Floq's user and talk page. In your edit summary you mention "Floq can unprotect when he returns." When he left he asked to be desysopped so he wont be able to remove the protections. You may already be aware of this but I wanted to let you know just in case. FWIW I too hope that he returns. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD|Talk 18:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know he had asked to be desysopped. Hopefully he will return (and will recollect the bits). Given what's going on with the reason for floq's departure, this is so unnecessary. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Move Protetion-Level

hi Regents, The Khowar language is currently Semi-protected please set protection level of page to Pending changes protected (level 1).

Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Þørnø $ (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to leave that in place because of sock activity on that page. Also, unlike the Honey Singh page, I don't see useful edit semiprotected requests. --regentspark (comment) 10:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Khowar language protection expiry

Hi Regents, Khowar language expiry is currently set; Allow only autoconfirmed users (expires 16:22, 5 September 2016) Please set the expiry to (11 November 2015) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Þørnø $ (talk • contribs) 13:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? What's special about 11 November? --regentspark (comment) 15:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's so he can disrupt it earlier. [11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That particular user account isn't going to disrupt anything any more. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo... Thomas.W ^talk 17:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I figured that something like that was going on. Never a dull moment. --regentspark (comment) 20:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Suspected new sock of user Kirtidagautam

I just happened across this account [12], whose intention appears to be a continued promotion of Kirtida Gautam, by inserting mention of her book and blog in other articles. I hear the quacking of block evasion [13], and wanted to check it with you. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. I liked the "New York Times bestselling author part" :) --regentspark (comment) 22:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

user:Wollone

I see that you reverted Wollone on 1984 anti-Sikh riots as a sock of js8. I assume that's actually user:js82. I'm not familiar with that editor's patterns, but Wollone is also active on Sikhism. Meters (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked now. We'll probably see more of js82's socks for a bit. --regentspark (comment) 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Diwali greetings

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Please clarify

I have not edited the India, Pakistan or Afghanistan pages. Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That refers to any pages that have anything to do with India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. --regentspark (comment) 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

GW

"Kind of icky being an arbcom member with an agenda and then pushing that agenda off-wiki. And icky not good. " What was this? Peter Damian (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic article on Gender issues on Wikipedia. While I think there is considerable merit in the premises that Wikipedia is male dominated, I just don't like the idea of an arbcom member who has declared a gender agenda opining on gender and Wikipedia (frankly, a poorly understood issue) in the media. --regentspark (comment) 22:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your voter guide

Hello. When I transclude your voter guide (and the others) into a single page (to facilitate reading and comparisons), the resulting page becomes a member of the [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 voter guides]]. To correct that, the Category in your page should be protected by a pair of <noinclude>...</noinclude>. In the Main space, I would have done that by myself. In your Userspace, I think it is polite to ask your permission. Pldx1 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You have it (my permission!). --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)