User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Punjabi dialects

Hi there, RP. You seem to have tangled with this issue more than me, so I'd appreciate a spot of advice on this. It has the appearance of a content dispute, which despite not being entirely symmetrical, would rule out semi-protection: but I'd like a second opinion. I'm also considering full-protecting the bunch and forcing a discussion, but I'd rather not call down a plague upon all their houses until I'm sure. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this is related to LanguageXpert, maybe check with Thomas.W who keeps track. Ponyo or Bbb23 may also know whether or not a range block may be better than SP. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the 39.... IPs are LanguageXpert. We have no option but to semi-protect because he hops IPs at will. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely Maria033/Lxp. I should have done something about that but RL is keeping me busy. Semi-protection is probably a good idea. Meanwhile, the language/dialect issue is extremely politicized and needs someone like @Kwamikagami: to figure out what's what. --regentspark (comment) 12:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IP has commented extensively everywhere. Is there a sock warning notice that we can paste on the various RfC/RM requests so that the closer can ignore those comments. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Applied a combination of short semi-protection and lengthy PC protection to the bunch, and blocked the IP also, for whatever good it will do. I'm not sure about the sock notice, I'll take a look: but striking !votes of obvious socks is an option. Vanamonde (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ponyo or Bbb23 Vanamonde93 SpacemanSpiff I have seen this [1]. I am not LanguageXpert. If you doubt I am ready to abuse badly to LanguageXpert. Whatever abuse you ask me to. Even If you say me to not edit. Next time I will not edit. OK ? But I just wanted to tell you all that Punjabi dialects articles were introduced to Wikipedia by a user Khalid Mehmood back in 2008-2011. He was an honourable wikipedian who was invited to Wikimania12 in Washgton DC and Wikimania14 in London. He just died [2] . LanguageXpert came in to picture in Nov 2012. He is not a owner of Punjabi dialects. Internet is full with people who mention Punjabi dialects [3][4][5][6]. Are all those socks of LanguageXpert ? Linguists from Grierson to Cardona mention Punjabi dialects. Are they all sock of LanguageXpert? Ironically Khalid Mehmood was also probed as Language Xpert. Even SheriffIsInTown and Yoyi ling were probed as LanguageXpert because they favour Punjabi dialects. I saw about 25 IPs starting from 39.32.... Or 39.47.... were also SPIed as LanguageXpert. My series was never 39.47/ 39.32. Those IPs are specific to Islamabad city. While IP series 39..... represents all north Pakistan. My point is that if some one speaks Pakistani English edits Punjabi dialects then is he sock of LanguageXpert ? No No No. It is wrong perception. Another question LanguageXpert was blocked for 3Rs volitions. Then why not User Uanfala for same violation on Saraiki dialect page? He deserve even more severe punishment when he Forumshops and after failed of talk page discussions / Move requests / Move reviews / Mediation requests / Dispute resolutions starts editing tendentiously and edit wars. He had difference of opinion with many users but he kept on edit wars. If LanguageXpert was blocked in 2012 then why not User Uanfala ? Next time I will not edit. OK ? I am ₯€₠€₯ not F...Xpert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.129.46 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

One more thing there can be an error in you Sock investigation because the 15 last blocked users never edited any language page then how can they be LanguageXpert ? Last LanguageXpert sock may be User:Raniishaa last edit July 2016 [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.129.46 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• I suspect the IPs are also related to a certain user, so I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoyi ling. – Uanfala (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Just popped in to note there are several masters running on the 1.39.0.0/16 range. It's enormous and chock-full of legit and sock editors.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• It's certainly one of my favorite ranges--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, many of the arguments that the 39 IP uses are similar to what Mario0333 used to bring up and the IP seems to know their way around wikipedia. Behaviorally, the connection seems quite obvious. Too bad really because the dialect claim is not without its merits and it would be better if we could sort this out without sock puppetry and disruptive editing. Let's see what Uanfala's SPI throws up - we'll then know where we are. --regentspark (comment) 20:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Re. @ above: Sorry, I have no time to work on this, and really I know nothing of Panjabi or of the literature on it, apart from what anyone can dig up in easily accessible sources. — kwami (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries Kwami. With the socks cleared out, I'm hopeful this will sort itself out. --regentspark (comment) 15:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't have the feeling that it will sort itself out. Every time an RM is started there are IPs rushing in to vote in the style of languageXpert. And by the time enough behavioural evidence is gathered for an SPI, the discussion will be closed as "no consensus" at best, with the closer telling me I'm exaggerating the results of the SPI [8]. Looking at the amount of bogus references and sheer nonsense introduced by languageXpert's socks that has survived in the Punjabi dialects articles for years, I think it's clear that we don't have the critical minimum of interested unbiased editors to have anything near decent content in this area. – Uanfala (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Things move slowly on Wikipedia so I'm not worried. The articles have been plagued by POV pushing sock activity and you've done an excellent job of cleaning them up which already leaves us in a better place. Now we're left with the lesser problem of reverting socks (as opposed to cleaning up their mess) so give it time and revisit your moves after a few months.--regentspark (comment) 23:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi RegentsPark.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Voter guide

Could you please not say that User:Bishonen "will put out". I know what you mean but my mind is in the gutter apparently. Debouch (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

lol. ok. --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Debouch (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(Gives the little Debouch the icy stare he seems to be fishing for.) I suppose the discussion concerns the voter guide that User:Bishzilla has published some years? (She puts out all right btw. Compare this infamous conversation.) However I'm afraid she doesn't seem very motivated to renew her guide this year. This year's election may not be exciting enough for her. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC).

I'm rather put out by that criticism. Good that Newyorkbrad is running this year. 92.27.34.20 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sikhism articles

Peeta Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@RP: The recent spate of edits by the new user @Peeta Singh reminds of someone previously active in Sikhism articles. There is also that similar aggressive language against our admin @Utcursch. May be worth a watch. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch and others, feel free to watch my activity and guide me.

Also I'm feeling very intimidated by a few administrators who keep targeting me, maybe because I've been active in editing articles related to Punjab, Punjabi and Sikhism from a Neutral point of view or maybe some other reason. Administrators including respected Ms Sarah Welch have been active on Sikhism related articles for longer than myself and should edit information from a Neutral point of view. For example [9] when in Guru Nanak article (where Ms Sarah Welch is active), reliable sources in the Guru Tegh Bahadur and Mughal Empire article emphasis that the subcontinent was part of the Mughal Empire. Respected Ms Sarah Welch please don't take offense and bully me.

I've previously expressed my feelings in words that some regarded as a personal attacks. For those that were hurt by my words, I apologies.

If being a new user WP:BITE and not know all the guidelines and making mistakes (later reverted) and editing articles from a Neutral point of view is against Wikipedia policies, then go ahead and block my account.

Sincerely Peeta Singh (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Peeta Singh: I am concerned about your edits, not you. Calling admin @Utcursch as threatening for this fair note, or me as a bully for getting concerned about your repeated Copyvio and your recent pattern of edits is inappropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Peeta Singh, Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. Please note that, if you are reverted, you should discuss your edits on the talk page rather than engage in an edit war (please see WP:BRD. Also, please do not make personal attacks on any other editor. You could easily find yourself blocked for disruptive editing and/or making personal attacks. (I'll also post this on your talk page.) --regentspark (comment) 14:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Regents Park, I would like to record my objections on the conduct of the user Ms Sarah Welch. They have been cautioned in the past also by other editors of their uncivil/mocking/condescending/bullying attitude towards fellow editors, and this is just another example. Frivolous cryptic posts like these "... reminds me of someone..." are aimed at nothing but developing an air of mistrust and damaging the reputation of other editors, completely violating the good faith principles central to Wikipedia (WP:AGF). Does this user not warrant an official warning for such repeated devious behavior ? Js82 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• You are right Js82. @Ms Sarah Welch:, could you please not make vague charges of sockpuppetry against other editors. Best to present a case and state your evidence clearly or not say anything. --regentspark (comment) 18:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@RP: I have someone else in mind. I have seen the same website and similar content in some article, a while ago, for now I can't remember that account name. @Js82: your unblock conditions mean you can't get involved on Sikhism-related topics or disputes or comments on any talk page. If your name is not mentioned, consider that other editors have someone else in mind. Don't jump to conclusions. Don't cast aspersions with phrases like "repeated devious behavior". If a topic or talkpage discussion is about Sikhism article, please avoid it. @RP: Agreed with your last line. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You have just been warned, but it seems you are not learning anything. You still continue with your bullying/mocking/condescending tone " Don't do this", "Don't do that". How dare you instruct an editor what to do and what not to do ? Please remember, this is a collaborative avenue, not Sarah Welch-Pedia. I would let the admins deal with your continued hostility, and not respond further to you on this post now.

And I would be keeping an eye out to see who this other editor was. Please also remember to share evidence of this other editor's "aggressive" language against admin Utcursh (maybe there indeed does exist this other editor, since for me, Utcursh is really amongst the top blokes around here), in addition to sharing evidence of them citing the same content as Peeta Singh. Js82 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you're the one who's not learning. You've just been warned "No commenting on Sikhism related topics, no edits - anywhere - that relate to Sikhism"; and yet you jump in here. MSW explains that her suspicions are not about you, and in response you attack her. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on Joshua, I believe you are smarter and better than that. My comments here have nothing to do with any content on "Sikhism", but to do with the "air of mistrust and damaging the reputation of other editors" that Ms Sarah Welch's devious posts are intended for. I wanted to bring this out, and if you care to check, the admin here has agreed, warning the user to back off and not make vague accusations. But what does this user do -- comes back and repeats the same behavior with personal attacks. And sadly, you follow up to offer her your blind unconditional support, rather than presenting some rational views. In any case, I do not want to hijack Regents Parks' talk page, and would not be responding further to this mud-slinging any further. If Regents Park believes my posts here have in any way violated "No commenting on Sikhism related topics, no edits - anywhere - that relate to Sikhism", I am happy to strike them off. Would still keep and eye out to see who the other editor alluded to by Sarah Welch really is. Js82 (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think you should all give this a rest. Ms Sarah Welch has agreed to not cast vague aspersions. Js82, while I don't think you've violated the terms of your topic ban, you need to be extra careful. Fair or not, editors coming back from an indef ban receive extra scrutiny and some other admin seeing you commenting in a section titled 'Sikhism articles' might think otherwise. Also, given your history with Ms. Sarah Welch, I strongly suggest you back off and avoid commenting on anything related to her. Keep your head down, edit articles, and avoid all conflict. That's the key to your survival here. --regentspark (comment) 00:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, RegentsPark. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

thinking some more
... you were recipient no. 315 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Peeta Singh

Hi RegentsPark, am I allowed to share my thoughts on the Peeta Singh topic ban discussion (I have been pinged as well) at the AE/Bishonen page ?

PS1: Sorry to bother you, but I don't know what other way there is to figure out what is allowed and what is not, other than pinging you and checking. Don't anticipate this (my coming here and asking you "is this allowed") to be a frequent occurrence (may only happen for rare important matters, as this one seemingly is -- if that's okay with you). I do still understand it is an annoyance, and apologize again.

PS2: Not looking for any debate/reasoning here as to whether my posting on Peeta Singh discussion violates my own topic ban. If you think it is not allowed, just a simple "No" would suffice and would be taken in the right spirit. Js82 (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82:. It will definitely violate your topic ban. Sorry!--regentspark (comment) 13:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

India

It is a bit too intimidating but I will try to be calm and logical here. So WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council) and Indian Government's official websites are non reliable sources. Interesting, would you mind elaborating? Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Both sources are primary and should be used with caution. What you need to do is to find reliable secondary sources that provide some context for tourism numbers and indicate the importance of tourism to the economy. Preferably in peer reviewed journals or publications that have good fact checking standards. --regentspark (comment) 23:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So, for every primary source on wikipedia, there is a complementing secondary source- in other words, either there are two citations for each sentence or one citation which should not be a primary source. And World Bank and Governments need other journals need newspapers to confirm the credibility. As in the newspapers conduct their own country-wide surveys and tell whether their results match with World Bank's data? Can I have the link to a Wiki Policy which says exactly this? Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec)WP:PRIMARY is worth a read. Looking at the text you've added, it reads like a PR document. Arrivals, growth, major cities, stuff like that. You need to find reliable secondary sources that put these numbers in perspective. Is 4.6% growth something worth mentioning? Does the tourism sector play an important role in the economy? You may think so reading the numbers but that's not enough. You need reliable secondary sources that put this in perspective. If the material is important enough for inclusion, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable secondary sources. And not newspapers but reports from economists. And, government sources are primary, not particularly reliable, and should be sparingly used. --regentspark (comment) 23:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I am reading it. Meanwhile please delete entire Tourism in India page because I had copied from there and seems it is useless then.

(to answer your other question) Secondary sources don't conduct their own surveys (that would make them primary as well). They validate the numbers by studying the methodology, the way data is collected, by validating the reliability of the reporting agency, and, finally, by interpreting the statistics. I can't delete articles willy nilly. You might also want to read WP:DELETE--regentspark (comment) 23:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So, I read it, World Bank and WTTC still don't seen directly involved primary sources. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You still need to find sources that interpret the numbers. We don't report everything that the world bank or wttc states. I suggest you take this to the article talk page rather than here because other editors will also have comments. This is better discussed there. --regentspark (comment) 23:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I will first wait for the Help Desk, anyway, I deleted a tourism section here, it did not contribute significantly to the economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan. Also, I would like to add a povertty section there because poverty density is higher than India. THanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Bear in mind that you need to find reliable secondary sources and you'll be fine. You may also want to read WP:POINT. --regentspark (comment) 23:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

YEs sure, thanks again. But you gotta back me up there because just based on what you said, I deleted the tourism section of Pakistan because they did not tell if it contributed significantly to the economy. In fact their science and technology section might seem laughable because it is not at the same standard's as India's, and India does not have that section. But they should have a poverty section whicih they don't because their poverty is higher. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So, by the way, this is secondary source? It says also that TOurism contributed 6.3% http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/initiative-to-boost-tourism-on-the-cards/article9043034.ece. I am not writing it in talk page because it is regarding your specific point. It is a reputed journal Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. But why is that important and why should we include it in the article. That's where you need to provide context through secondary sources. Once again, you should take this to the article talk page. There are many issues that need to be discussed. Do we include tourism data? How do we contextualize it? If it should be included, should it be a separate section, or a separate para in the economy section, or just a couple of lines somewhere? If these issues are not properly addressed, the article will become a hodge podge of pet sections and that's not a great idea. --regentspark (comment) 23:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

But why is that important and why should we include it in the article- because it contributes 6.3% to the world's 7th largest economy. Or is there a threshold percentage to decide significance. About the talk page, have tried before and did not help. Am waiting for Help Desk Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks again by @Js82, Ms Sarah Welch editing pattern problems and harassment

Since @Js82 has blanked out this User Talk page note, I am reposting it here...

@Js82: I request that you stop your snide remarks and WP:PA, such as this. You can do so by not questioning any editor's intentions regarding an article, but sticking to explaining your concerns with respect to WP:NPOV and relevant content guidelines as applicable to that article or any edit. You have already been blocked for similar PA and disruption before (not just SPA investigations), and I urge you to be constructive and not repeat your past behavior.

@RegentsPark, @Ponyo: I have moved this from TALK:Indian subcontinent as it is more relevant on the user talk page; please note the above, and please also note the repeated instances of wiki-harassment of me on my user talk page by accounts that were part of past @Js82-SPA investigations (if you take the time, the PA+harassing IPs implicitly admitted it being @Js82). My user talk page had to be protected by admins to end the harassment by hopping IPs that were linked in the SPA investigation. Please consider this in your review of @Js82 future requests on lifting or addition of any sanctions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see this "Your conduct" section as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Three points:

- On the Indian Subcontinent article, there is no personal attack. Ms Sarah Welch just wants to shift the focus of discussion from her "weasel wording" (stated by editor LouisAragon even before I entered the debate) and confusing edits, to me. She alleges that I "questioned her intentions regarding the article". Again, completely inaccurate. I did not question, she herself admitted (in response to earlier posts pointing out her weasel wording) what her real intentions were. When I came in, I echoed the views of earlier editor, and pointed out that the general reader is unaware of her motivations, and gets utterly confused, as is evident on the talk page of Indian Subcontinent. Ms Sarah Welch, instead of trying to collaborate and work on improving the article, tries to shift the focus on to me.

- It is not just this case (where @LouisAragon: found the edits perplexing and weasel wording), but this is a repeated occurrence with Ms Sarah Welch. This is what a very respected editor @Sitush: had to say on her editing pattern [10]:

This used to be a half-decent article, in the sense that it could be read by a layperson. It is now chock-a-block with obscure technical terms, references to people whose authority/expertise is not explained, elements that seem almost irrelevant, and vague phrasing such as "some scholars". Alas, this seems to be quite a common trait when Ms Sarah Welch gets involved - Sitush. It is not surprising that these are the exact same issues resulting from her edits to the Indian Subcontinent page. Please consider the remarks of such an experienced and respected editor to understand that I do not have any personal issues with Ms Sarah Welch (which is what she wants to make this to be), but this is a more wider problem.

- In her personal attacks on me, she goes on harping about posts from the past. This is completely destructive (not constructive--which she suggests me to be) attitude. I would urge the admins to kindly ask the editor to stop such behavior in future. Otherwise, Ms Sarah Welch just succeeds in always getting me caught up trying to answer her accusations, rather than focusing on article improvement. Just as in this case. Js82 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: You fail to note that @Sitush and I do not edit war, but suggest the other to improve the article. He and I may disagree, but we focus on the content and sources in a specific article. In the Bhakti movement article, after due consideration of my reply where I pointed out that the article was predominantly unsourced OR before my first edit to it, @Sitush left the article in the revised form after my request and invitation to him to improve it further. You accuse, "It is not surprising that these are the "exact same issues" resulting from her edits to the Indian Subcontinent page", but you do so without any explanation and support.

Your behavior now is similar to your past behavior, where you previously attacked @SpacemanSpiff:, @Utcursch:, @Drmies:, @Joshua Jonathan: and others: here, and other sections you have blanked out that are in your history but neither in your talk page archive nor your current user talk page. I also note that your style, of "respected editors" in framing above, is quite similar to this ANI complaint that was dismissed, and was made by a nearly identical IP during harassment on my talk page (which @Sitush tried to help you by editing and formatting your ANI complaint, but decided not to comment on).

@RP, @Bishonen: Should @Js82 be discussing Bhakti movement or matters related to it, here or anywhere, given it is related to Sikhism, and still active sanctions on @Js82 are related to Sikhism? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

One may read the Indian subcontinent talk page to see evidence of the "exact same issues" raised by LouisAragon and myself. Also, just so it is understand- the post from Sitush is not limited to one article. It is clearly stating systemic problems with Sarah Welch editing pattern. And please do not try to mislead the readers by bringing in "Bhakti movement/Sikhism" here too, or by calling in different editors with whom I have not had any contact for more than a year (I have no issues with any of them- but I am sure RP would see through all this cleverness, especially in light of my bullet 3 above and ask you to refrain from such destructive behavior). To reiterate - the issue here is your edits to Indian subcontinent, LouisAragaon showing your weasel wording, and Sitush showing long standing problems with your editing pattern. This is not about me accusing you. The problem is more widespread. Js82 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: Perhaps you do not know that @LouisAragon has already sent me message thanking me for my edit/reply after I responded yesterday on Talk:Indian subcontinent (I authorize any admin to check that there indeed has been a private/thank/etc communication through wikipedia). Perhaps you do not know that, similarly, @Sitush has posted messages about cleaning up @Buddhakahika-sock edits, in a number of articles, where then he and I collaborated (for example on this, edits by this, this etc accounts), in last 6-10 months. It would be better if you skipped cherrypicking and cut-and-pasting stuff, as it is tiresome way to personally attack someone. Every long standing seasoned editor, or admin in wikipedia, has seen personal attacks, disruption and such behavior, and it makes no difference if a new accusation such as yours parrots the old accusations/comments. If you have a case, present it by mentioning specific article and specific edit-diff. But you continue now repeating what you did in the past when you attacked @Drmies and others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I have already made my case, as have you. Let the admins judge it.

A statement as broad as the one made by Sitush is cherrypicking ? It's the complete opposite of cherrypicking. And regardless of the personal exchanges you had, the fact of the matter is that your recent hasty edits to Indian subcontinent article did perplex a seasoned editor as much as to call it "weasel wording". An ordinary reader would be left completely confused. This is in line with the general editing problems identified by Sitush.

To simplify the admins' tasks: I would like to summarize the three key points identified here:

- Was my post on Indian subcontinent talk page personal attack ? (As I stated: I just echoed what an earlier editor had stated, and also suggested that Ms Sarah Welch understand that the ordinary reader would be oblivious to her motivation for some edits, which while might achieving her goals, would leave the ordinary reader confused. In this case, it even left a seasoned editor confused.)

- As brought out in the recent edits on Indian subcontinent page, and as is evident from the quoted post of editor Sitush, I would like to submit that Ms Sarah Welch's editing pattern is problematic ("obscure technical terms", "irrelevant content", and "vague phrasing", ...), and they be asked to engage in more constructive talk page discussions without making any hasty edits unless consensus is achieved.

- I urge the admins to ask Ms Sarah Welch to refrain from their destructive behavior citing almost year old disputes, and pinging a wide variety of editors for seemingly unrelated issues. While I have no issues with any of the editors pinged, I fail to understand the logic. I have made my way back to WP through all the right channels, and it is only fair to ask for this request as a gesture of good faith, if nothing else.

Js82 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• MSW, I don't really see a personal attack in this edit of Js82 and suggest that everyone stop pulling out old diffs (both of you are doing that) and just get back to the business of editing without aspersions of motivation or whatnot. Js82, I'm not sure about edits to Bhakti Movement. I assume that there is an independent component to the movement as well as a Sikhism related content and, hopefully, you're being careful keeping them apart.--regentspark (comment) 21:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: Per WP:NPA, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." You commented and mis-alleged here my intent and not the content, "Ms Sarah Welch, your edits, as admitted by you, are aimed at ensuring that the reader goes away with...". That was not identifying or commenting on the content I or someone added, but me personally. Further you distorted and misrepresented what I actually wrote here, where I stated we are trying to achieving NPOV in reliable sources by presenting different verifiable views. That is more of your old behavior against many other editors. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@RP: This edit by @Js82 deleted content and sources that provide NPOV, restored old POV-y content by adding back Inden/Mittal which do not support the "parlance" language, all of this after alleging what I "aimed at ensuring". Compare the comment of @LouisAragon, which is constructive. Compare that to @Js82, which comments on me the contributor, and not on the content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

MSW, I don't see Js82's comments as being beyond the limits of civil discourse. Obviously, it would be more productive had they phrased the comments without recourse to phrases such as "weasel words" or the unfortunate first sentence ("admitted by you", "aimed at"). While aggressive, they aren't really egregious personal attacks. My suggestion is that you ignore them, stick to what you do best - provide sources and forcefully defend your view of the content. --regentspark (comment) 23:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

RegentsPark, thanks for sharing your views and clearing up the air. (PS: I did not edit or touch the Bhakti movement article. Just quoted Sitush's general comment on Ms Welch's editing pattern issues, which happened to have been made on the Bhakti movement page.) Js82 (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent, "collaborating" with Ms Sarah Welch

Hi RegentsPark,

This is becoming very tiring, but it is terribly hard to have any debate/conversation with Ms Welch. I am honestly looking for some feedback from you. I know it would be a significant ask on your limited time, but I would appreciate it very much if you could share some thoughts, given the following sequence of events:

1. In this recent edit [11], as stated in the edit summary, Ms Welch added the (confusing) statement in the lead asserting that "Afghanistan and Iran are part of South Asia sometimes, but typically not Indian SC".

2. This perplexing statement in the lead of Indian SC article, confused myself and LouisAragon. LouisAragon even called it "weasel wording". See [12]

3. In response, Ms Welch explained that her intent was to ensure some NPOV, that while Indian SC and South Asia are used interchangeably (stated by several WP:RS), sometimes they are not. To support the "not" argument, they were going the convoluted way, logic being "Some source states Afghanistan and Iran could be in South Asia. However, typically, Afgh and Iran are not part of Indian SC. Hence, South Asia and Indian SC may not be synonymous". This was all Ms Welch's way of ensuring some NPOV. See [13].

4. Continuing this chain, in my post [14], I assert that what Ms Welch is doing is WP:OR and WP:Synthesis, clearing explaining my rationale that, " ... while several [WP:RS] clearly state that South Asia is a increasingly popular & neutral term for Indian subcontinent, I am unable to see a RS that explicitly states that "South Asia may not be used for Indian subcontinent". Going about proving this in a roundabout manner (by saying that some source includes Afghanistan/Iran in South Asia while they are typically not included in Indian Subcontinent, and so South Asia should not be used for Indian subcontinent) is original research and WP:SYNTHESIS ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). If there is indeed such an explicit quote from a RS, I have no issues....".

5. In response [15], Ms Sarah Welch again attacks me ("a long standing issue with you"), and also "ignores" my post since ostensibly there were no edit-diffs, irrespective of the fact that we are having a continuous discussion, and I am commenting on the big-picture logic and reasoning of establishing NPOV and its manner. Further, while they "ignore" my post, they do assert that "you misunderstand WP:Synthesis", without even a single word to support their assertion. And while their edits were reverted by me citing WP:BRD, there really is no discussion from them, except "I ignore what you said and move on to undoing your changes".

Personally, I feel this sequence again demonstrates the following behavior- Uncivil, condescending, mocking, bullying, personal attack, repeat of editing pattern problems identified earlier by Sitush ("vague phrasing, irrelevant content, obscure terms, ..."). I will actually request an official warning to the user for all these identified issues, but I guess it is up to you/other admins to ascertain/suggest the best course.

Js82 (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@RP: See this. @Js82 alleges, among other things, in WP:FORUM-y way, "especially to claim that NPOV requires to show that Indian subcontinent and South Asia are not synonymous appears WP:OR". No edit-diffs from article edit history were provided by @Js82. You can't find a single edit of @Kautilya3: or I, in Indian subcontinent article, which supports that allegation. This is like a Mr X presuming and accusingly lecturing a girl that "you are bad because you beat your grandma"; she stands confused and says "I will ignore you because you never provided proof that I ever did!!", thereafter comes the reply, "the little girl is uncivil, condescending, mocking, bullying, questioning, personal attacking Mr X". We wouldn't have this issue if @Js82 provided edit-diffs and focussed on the article content by identifying the content from the article. The "long standing issue with you" is important, because it is has been so as evidenced by this October 10 2015 archived note etc. How difficult is it to "always include an edit-diff when you allege/accuse someone"? Making allegations and casting aspersions without edit-diffs or equivalent verifiable evidence, is not conducive to collaboration. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think both of you need to calm down and figure out how to work with each other. Otherwise, you might end up with an WP:IBAN which will be very very painful. Since I have been on the talk page, so far, nothing has happened that needs any admin intervention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi RegentsPark, please see this:

-Statement 1, made by Ms Welch above: " You can't find a single edit (from myself) in Indian subcontinent article, which supports the allegation that "I claimed that NPOV requires to show that Indian subcontinent and South Asia are not synonymous "

-Statement 2, made earlier by Ms Welch on Indian Subcontinent article here [16] (noted in my point 3 above): " The NPOV we are trying to achieve in this article is to state, with reliable sources, that not everyone agrees what South Asia is, what Indian subcontinent is, or that they are synonymous "

What is this if not plain lying ? This lying is being used to justify their hostile attack on me. Should this editor not be warned/sanctioned for lying/harassment/mocking ? How long can this go on ? Js82 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you should continue this discussion at ANI, so others can participate too, if you seriously want "this editor [to] be warned/sanctioned for lying/harassment/mocking", but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. I've read the first paragraphs of this new thread, and I noted that Js82 mis-quotes MSW. She didn't write,

""Afghanistan and Iran are part of South Asia sometimes, but typically not Indian SC";

she wrote,

"clarify lead further than Afghanistan and Iran in some sources are part of South Asia, but not of Indian subcontinent; add source, embed quote; prep to add geological section"

Also, LouisAragon didn't refer to "this perplexing statement" as misquoted by Js82; he wrote

"Hi, thanks for having put some effort into expanding this article. Looks neat. However, there are few things that have raised my concerns. I believe this....;

• "Some sources such as the United Nations include Afghanistan and Iran as part of South Asia in its geographical classification system,[6][7] but neither Afghanistan nor Iran is typically considered as a part of the Indian subcontinent.[8]"
• "The United Nations includes Afghanistan and Iran in South Asia,[6] as do others (?!) and there is no globally accepted definition on which countries are a part of South Asia.[7] While Afghanistan or Iran or both are sometimes included in the region called South Asia, neither Afghanistan nor Iran is typically considered as a part of the Indian subcontinent.[8]"

If you quote others, please quote them correctly. When you copy-paste a sentence, but parts of it are missing, like "in some sources," or you leave ouit the positive comments of others, then you're simply redacting other's statements, which is WP:TENDENTIOUS.

I couldn't follow the rest of the post, but I do understand this sequence:

"Ms Sarah Welch again attacks me ("a long standing issue with you"), and also "ignores" my post [...] Personally, I feel this sequence again demonstrates the following behavior- Uncivil, condescending, mocking, bullying, personal attack, repeat of editing pattern problems identified earlier by Sitush ("vague phrasing, irrelevant content, obscure terms, ...") [...] This lying is being used to justify their hostile attack on me"

To me it sounds more like a disheartening rant of Js82; I also think it's childish to refer to Sitush again to further reinforce those grievances. Please take it to ANI, and let others comment on this. Or just do some self-reflection. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3/@JJ: Indeed. @Js82: I wrote, "edit-diffs from article edit history". The link you give is from the Talk page, which you are unfortunately misinterpreting. I meant "we are trying to achieve NPOV in this article...", which is a required content guideline. You allege I did OR and SYNTHESIS and etc above, but provided no edit-diffs from the "actual article edit history" and the necessary evidence. The wording or proposal or discussion on a talk page to improve an article is not evidence of anything done to an article. I was and am asking for an edit-diff from actual article edit history. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Joshua Jonathan and Kautilya3. This is not the place for this discussion. Discussion on what is in South Asia or the Indian Subcontinent is best done on the talk pages of those articles. If there are conduct issues, those are best discussed on ANI, bearing in mind that aggressively pushing a viewpoint raises the probability of getting hit by a boomerang. Js82, if you bring up comments made by Sitush or present more 'quotes with exclusions', I'll support a one way interaction ban with MSW so please stick to any direct conduct or content issues you have. I'm also pinging @Ponyo: since they unblocked you and probably need to be informed of what's going on. --regentspark (comment) 20:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi RegentsPark, thank you for your inputs. If you have time, would it be possible for you to please read (if not read in detail, already) my two posts above, and Ms Welch's responses, and see if you have any comment on their conduct issues that I have tried to bring out above ? Just like you have given me your honest opinion about my citing Sitush (which I really appreciate as feedback--I mean it), I sincerely urge you to please look into this as well. If not here, maybe you can comment on the article talk page regarding this matter. Your honest feedback in this regard would be very much appreciated.

To Joshua Jonathan, thanks for your advice too. It is indeed valuable. Please note that while I may not have quoted precisely, the crux of the matter from my side is still the same. Please do read the entire chain again (since you stated "you could not follow the rest") to understand it. And while it is hard to ignore history, for once, I appeal you sincerely to read my posts above (and Ms Welch's replies) with all honesty and with an open-mind, without any historical bias. If you have any comments, you can message me on my talk page, so we do not hijack this space. Js82 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

DRN

Please visit dispute resolution notice board and participate a debate on saraiki dialect of Punjabi language which is poorly written by Uanfala as a separate language.AksheKumar (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki requested move

Hi, you're welcome to comment in the move discussion at Talk:Saraiki dialect. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Way too confusing for me :) --regentspark (comment) 04:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your recent help. The discussion in the move request seems to have grown quite a bit (my fault to no small extent), with probably a substantial amount of talk that is probably not directly relevant. I think its size might be putting off potential participants, so I'm wondering if it could do with some refactoring. What do you reckon? – Uanfala (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I moved the discussion on the validity of the RM out and down. Beyond that, I'm not sure what we can do. I'm away on vacation but Is the new IP another sock? @Bbb23:. I see the same misstating of sources, the bullet point approach, the ... --regentspark (comment) 14:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As a CheckUser, it's hard for me to get involved with IPs. I suggest two possibilities. There's nothing wrong with your blocking the IP for block evasion based on behavior and at the same time removing their comments. The other is to semi-protect the Talk page, although from a strict policy standpoint, there's been insufficient recent IP editing to justify it. I haven't looked into it, but obviously you're hampered if you consider yourself INVOLVED.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It does look like LanguageXpert – the same determination and haphazardness, the writing in quotes and the avoidance of using language of his own (in order to make it more difficult to detect?). – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The IP is quacking loudly. Unfortunately, I'm uncomfortable with protecting the page or calling a sock a sock. Perhaps @SpacemanSpiff: can monitor the talk page?--regentspark (comment) 16:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

And now another IP has showed up, quacking even more loudly. As an involved party I can't do anything, so the talk page could definitely do with a pair of watchful eyes. – Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

WELL DONE BROTHER

HII, I M BIGGEST FAN OF SHEED BHAGHAT SINGH AND U PUT WRITE INFO IN IT VERY GOOD WELL DONE RAVINDER SINGH HARAH SAAB (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 14:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Jalpaiguri page problem

please, help!!_the page is just getting reverted again & again!! :'( :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higeru (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hindoo

Thanks for the info. The Hindoo page, in my view, had little to do with being an adherent of Hinduism, but spoke more to the ethnic/racial insult which was the part of the world of some/many Indian-Americans in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Only one (or perhaps two) commenters in the AfD discussion seemed to get this. Should I create a new page Hindoo (slur)? Any other ideas for preserving the content? Redirecting to Hindu, in a sense, become a form of denial (in my view). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's ask @SpacemanSpiff: what he thinks. --regentspark (comment) 15:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No opinion :) —SpacemanSpiff 06:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Redirecting was followed by a merger of the content of Hindoo into the lede of Hindu. My impression (correct me if I'm wrong) is that "Hindoo", an old spelling variant of "Hindu", had acquired derogatory connotations in a certain place and at a certain time, and I'm not sure this is a primary aspect of its meaning. I supported the merger during the AfD, but I wouldn't oppose moving to Hindoo (slur) if the article has the potential to grow beyond a dictionary definition. – Uanfala (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It turns out it was on ANI, where too I whined. It further turns out that the decision of the AfD was to merge and the content does appear in the Hindu page in this edit. It is kind of hidden somewhere in there. So, I'm not sure if creating another page is worth it .... I'll think about it. It will need more meat on its bones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Krishna image on coin

Here is the CNG link [17]. For an academic publication: Osmund Bopearachchi, Emergence of Viṣṇu and Śiva Images in India: Numismatic and Sculptural Evidence, 2016. For background, please see Agathocles of Bactria. Thank you पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted my edit. --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Distinction

• I am an layman.
• I speak Y
• But I call it Z.
• Y is mutually intelligible with A , B , C and D.
• A is standard form.
• For centuries A is called language and B , C , D and Y are called its dialects.
• However since last 30 odd years few (NOT ALL) layman speakers of Y (Just like me) want a separate province.
• We start claiming Y as totally separate language from A.
• We start getting support of some Wikipedia users who want every dialect to be labelled as Language.

Question : Is not it fooling and trashing linguistics science on Wikipedia ? My friend Regent Park please be honest when you reply.

Question 2 : What if I start saying that I have not typed English. I have typed Mogo language. Will you create a new article on mogo language spoken by me bcoz If you will write it English I may get offended ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.123.156 (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hearts on Noses (animal sanctuary)

Hello RegentsPark, last night I started an article on the Hearts on Noses animal sanctuary and within minutes (well, I suppose that's speedy) it was tagged as candidate for speedy deletion. I hastily put an interim defence of it onto its talk page but ran out of time before I could do more. This morning, hey, presto! It's gone. Any chance I could at least have its text back, or preferably could we undelete the article and consider its delete-worthiness in slower time? Regards, Yadsalohcin (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. User:Yadsalohcin/Hearts On Noses. --regentspark (comment) 13:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks... Sorry to bother you further, but... I don't suppose my hasty interim defence of it on its talk page was/is still available? It might have been hasty but I was quite attached to that too! Yadsalohcin (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Text copied onto your talk page! --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Saraiki comment

Hi RP, I couldn't understand your comment here. Uanfala's presentation of the Saraiki option said that it was a likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and I assumed that all of us that supported that option implicitly supported the PRIMARYTOPIC issue. But you seem to be saying otherwise, are you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you're welcome to comment in the Move review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January#Saraiki dialect. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reason for Reverting Sahara India Pariwar Article

Respected Individual, I am thankful that your eye fell on the article, Sahara India Pariwarwhich I had edited. Since I happen to be a new contributor and it seems that you reverted my edit and said "messed up", I would request that you could tell me where I went wrong so that the mistake shall not be repeated!

I shall mention a few changes I performed right here which I believe should not have been deleted.

• I posted a picture of a newer Formula 1 car. The picture was from way back in 2012 which I changed to one from 2015
• I removed a few typos... Such as Sahara India to just Sahara
• I also added a few links!
• Example: To the Formula 1 Car where I gave a Hyperlink to the driver driving the car
• And also the fact that I added a link to Subroto Roy's name...

Please could you assist me? Thanking You, A fellow Wikipedia Contributor, NUMWARZ

Hi @NUMWARZ:. It looks like your edit inadvertently removed a large chunk of text - mainly the infobox and a part of the lead. Go ahead and try again. This time, before saving, hit the show preview button first to make sure that you're not messing up.

Hi @RegentsPark: I had not edited the Infobox as u claim...

In fact the record itself shows that I had done no such things...

Your actions are baseless sir...

With power, comes responsibility and if I have to guess, you are not being responsible sir

Thanking You, 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)NUMWARZ

Here is the diff. You have deleted 1,237 bytes in total. Please learn to use the WP:Diffs so that you can see the changes you have made. (You were complaining similarly at my talk page, and I have given you a link to the diff.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Indian White Paper on Jammu and Kashmir

Admin are these edits unsourced here, the source is at the top of it, or should I use some other sources explaining the same topic. Thanks Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 09:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The source is a primary source and should be used very carefully. You should use only reliable secondary sources that talk about the paper and then, and only then, and only if absolutely necessary, selectively quote from the primary source. The way you're using it (in the reverted edits) is not ok. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 13:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)