Jump to content

User talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help

[edit]

Can you please tell me how you loaded the pages of Tag&Assess 2008 with article links for assessment? Can we also tempt you to return to editing full time with this version of Tag & Assess? AshLin (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see your message on my talk page in February until now, but I see you've sorted it out now so all is good! Keep up the good work! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

[edit]

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest

[edit]

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. The Helpful Bot 01:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 01:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

[edit]

Dispute resolution survey

[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Ncmvocalist. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

[edit]

Glad to see you back

[edit]

Hi, You have been an inspiration and motivation for me in Carnatic music area and glad to see you back... New juice is flowing in me already. Regards, VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I'm flattered! :) Will pop in every now and then to see how things are, and move them along. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Ncmvocalist. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 06:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hasteur (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Help and Warning: the IP address, 212.121.219.1 is engaging in serious hacking activities, not just simple acts of vandalism in the other Wikipedia encyclopedias.

[edit]

Urgent Help and Warning: the IP address, 212.121.219.1 is engaging in serious hacking activities, not just simple acts of vandalism in the other Wikipedia encyclopedias.

Warning: the IP address, 212.121.219.1 registered to Oldham MBC public libraries, and which is permanently blocked in English Wikipedia since 2009, is the source of serious hacking activities. Today on 14 May 2012 other vulnerable Wikipedia encyclopedias are under attack from this address where it is not blocked. This source is capable of hacking Wikipedia, as it is the case today in the other Wikipedia encyclopedias, because it has erased the history archives for instance in the Azerbaijan articles of the Wikipedia encyclopedias and is doing it in other country articles as well, which no simple vandal can do. This source is freely roaming and usurping right now.

Can anyone inform the administrators of the other Wikipedia encyclopedias and help them against the IP address, 212.121.219.1, because most of the small Wikipedia encyclopedias are vulnerable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.23.137 (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

[edit]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

[edit]

Resolved by motion that:

FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to:

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

Notifying you as you were a main participant in the amendment discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

[edit]

RFAR Perth opened

[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 24, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help Survey

[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

[edit]

Perth Move Review closure

[edit]

I am not sure how you find my closure of the move review disruptive (to what?). It was made in isolation of the Arbcom which I understand has little to do with the original close, but more about behaviors after that. I closed a Move Review (so far I am the only admin ever to do so) in a way I believed was consistent with the new Move Review process. As to my rationale, I believe that WP:RMCI does indeed weigh concensus versus policy interpretation very clearly, and that closing an RM in the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI does indeed demonstrate consideration of consensus. I believe the participants in the move review by and large supported that position. I have no problem with you bringing me into this contentious situation if that's what you desire. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied to your email. Orderinchaos 09:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

Hello, you left a note on my page, and I am not entirely sure why. I followed the link you included, but it goes to a page I have neither read nor contributed to, and I cannot see any reference to myself on that side either. Time is at a bit of a premium at the moment (you know, real-life things like earning a living and keeping the wolves from the door) and screeds of wikilawyering is just the type of thing guaranteed to make me long for a wikibreak. Can you please clarify exactly what it is you would like me to do, and why. (I understand I may have said something complimentary about a fellow Scot at some point. I would be happy to do so again if you feel it to be necessary.) --Mais oui! (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The particular discussion I linked to in this diff concerns the policy that specifies admins should not be involved when taking administrative action. The user who commented in that diff is suggesting that you may have been among the participants who "lauded" Deacon "as a key contributor to Scottish topics" on the Wikiproject Scotland talk page, and that therefore, when he took administrative action on the Perth article(s), he "left himself open to the perception of a conflict of interest" for his admin action. As a courtesy, I wished to make you aware that comment(s) you made are being commented on. By letting you know, you have an opportunity to comment regarding what you said, what you intended to convey, whether or not you think that Deacon would fit the definition of an involved admin due to his former/present membership with Wikiproject Scotland, or any other relevant comment you wish to make in relation to what you said there. Of course, it is up to you whether or not you wish to use that opportunity, but I figure that choice should be given to you first so that you can decide for yourself rather than others making that decision for you. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really do appreciate the time and the effort that you put in to your reply. Thank you. How on earth you (and others) can expend so much effort on something so mind-bogglingly trivial is genuinely a matter of utter wonder to myself (and no doubt the vast majority of normal people).
I am going to turn down your offer of becoming involved in any way in this infantile pseudo-legal case. It is palpably obvious that a User has been "caught in the act", has been justifiably countered, and is now using (and I mean "using") the Arbcom process to get his own way.
I am not only a member, but actually the founder of WikiProject Scotland. I fail to see how the original Move discussion was anything to do with my WikiProject, and we have not discussed it. No result of the (out of process) Move discussion would change the location of the Perth, Scotland article, and I personally voted for a Close As Out of Process, as it was obviously taking place in the wrong forum. It would be a grave error to think that all the members of our WikiProject are all flag-waving patriots and bravehearts. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, several past and current members actively employ themselves in trying to denigrate the country: something I have zero objection to, as long as their contributions satisfy WP:VERIFY and other official policy.
On a personal note, may I just say that Scots (if they are even aware of it, which many are not) take pride in our "daughter" cities around the world: the Australian Perth, the Texas Dallas, the New Zealand Dundedin. We wish them well.
Deacon by the way is a million miles from being a shallow flag-waver for Scotland. He is an intellectual and a scholar, not a populist. He gives every appearance in fact of disliking populism. I myself have had run-ins with him in the past, for example over the Scots language, which he appears to consider to be a big practical joke we just made up to wind-up our southern neighbours. And he has a point. He used to infuriate me with his anti-Scots edits, but over the years I have come to respect his point of view, and his work on the language issue(s) has certainly altered my own opinions of that topic.
I hope that you realise that you and your team are being taken advantage of. I feel sorry for everyone (and I mean every single one) involved, and I therefore reserve my right to not be one of them. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

[edit]


Reply

[edit]

It's probably more a matter of how I've handled similar situations in the past. Usually it's just an editor unaware of the bird exemption, so I revert with an edit summary explaining why. Sometimes an editor comes back asking for clarification, which I give, that usually suffices, occasionally it's discussed as a policy on the project talk page or elsewhere (there really isn't any sensible rationale for changing the case in individual bird articles, all or none). When it became clear that the other editor in this case wasn't going to discuss or stop reverting, I should have involved someone else. I think the torrential rain and lightning has addled my brain. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure my input would be welcome, but I'll sleep on it anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Oversighting

[edit]

Unfortunately, not for this case because the oversightable info was left there for over 80 edits. This is why we usually ask that any oversightable information be edited out as soon as possible, especially for pages with high traffic such as AN/I. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

[edit]

WT:BLOCK

[edit]

Sorry I got impatient on the block page (I sometimes think I must have a cripplingly low boredom threshold) but no, I could not face researching the sections above for warnings. Actually, proving my lack of clue, I sort of assumed that a user referred to in such terms was most probably Jack. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

No worries, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

[edit]

WQA

[edit]

At the WQA, what would you have done differently? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "Do not make baseless accusations against me, or involve me in your dispute.", something like "Not sure what long term pattern you are talking about or how that is relevant to whether WLU has actually made personal attacks. Though you've made some claims, I don't think the evidence you have given supports those claims. But I can't comment as to whether other uninvolved editors agree with me or not." As to the closing, the allegation is about civility so NWQA is actually not right. I wouldn't put any tag on it; more reasoned discussion may have produced some better outcome. If not, or if that was all that could be done and I must put a tag on it, perhaps "stuck" to say no resolution between parties. ANI might be (in part) correct for wikihounding, and AN3 for edit-warring, but I would not have recommended either venue unless the request specifically asked for admin action. Would not have made the comments dated 23 July either; need to know when to let it go stale unless he is genuinely wanting some perspective - in which case direct answers to the questions would be more helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the response, I agree, in hindsight, that I should have let it go stale. I pointed to ANI because there was an active and ongoing discussion on the wikiproject medicine page about this topic that was getting very messy. Some of the editors also have a large history of previous interactions with each other [1][2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for commenting at ANI. It was good to see a new face there. I wasn't given a chance to act on your input before the RFC/U, but my talk page will auto-archive in two weeks anyway. Not sure if I'll be around then. Given the persistent and well-supported hounding, I'm not sure I want to be. BitterGrey (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Bittergrey has been indef'd for probable libel and not chosen to appeal it for almost two weeks now, it would probably be a good idea for someone to mothball Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey. There's no possibility of a voluntary resolution between the parties when one of them is blocked, and therefore no need to keep it open. It should probably be tagged with the usual note about being re-opened when/if he ever reappears. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

[edit]

Don't be dick. Because someone disagrees with you doesn't make his/her statement incompetent. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 30 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

[edit]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

[edit]

Information

[edit]

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

[edit]

Request for draft RFC/U review

[edit]

You're said to be an expert on these matters. While I am sure you're busy, would you be able to take a look here and grant some feedback? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back

[edit]

Hello there, Nice to see you back... Hope you will be a bit active again... Regards. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :) Thanks; nice to see someone familiar even after all this time. I'm not expecting to be online very often at this point, but more than before. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just checked in today after a while off-wiki and was pleasantly surprised to see you at ANI. Good to see you back and hope you're here to stay! --regentspark (comment) 23:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya...your return has made my day...I have not seen you online in ages! Actually, I was pleasantly surprised by how quickly VasuVR noticed my return (barely made a few edits I think), but it was depressing when I found that so many went on wikibreak or were not longer active - yourself included. At the time I left, I could see the ultimate fate of the project and accepted it, but I'm here with the mindframe that it can be delayed at least. It's funny that with so many neat bells and whistles (improvements technically to the site) since I left, the deeper issues and fundamental problems thrive in a lot of ways and still chip away at the roots; that part is a pity and I don't miss it at all. Anyway, I am very pleased to see you back also, and hope you've had a well-rested break - and that you're staying for as long as I am here at the very least. :) Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But, this is merely a curiosity visit. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, a time sink of colossal proportions with no obvious real life return and I find that it detracts from the many other things I would like to do. Fowler has the right approach to editing here. Edit for a few months and then disappear for long periods of time. My goal is to emulate him as far as possible :) But it is good to see you providing your common sense perspective again - much needed on wiki. --regentspark (comment) 18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, and my findings are fairly indifferent. I expect I will be following a similar example too. :) As for common sense perspective, I find that attempts are too often made to drown or discourage it, as it usually does not bode well with the other agendas being pushed around at this place. Unfortunately, the product doesn't match what is said on the label/packaging. Overall, that's when it seems that the time, effort, stress, or hassle is simply not worth it. Well, I hope you do hang around for a bit longer at least, but I can't blame you and will probably follow suit soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pono (digital music service)

[edit]

There is a tendency (on the Internet), in the domain of Digital Audio, to misinform people and I have been a victim of this for too long. I have found that people on Internet want to harm the movement of PonoMusic and music itself as an art form and they refuse to understand anything else beside conservative studies that are around ~92 years old. These people are uneducated about the subject and/or have hidden agenda. I want this to change as I strongly believe in high definition music. Sorry for the numerous edits, I don't write often. Joey192 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles

[edit]

Thanks for the close and your summary. --NeilN talk to me 16:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ncmvocalist. I'm a bit new to this. I've noticed many discussions about me (of which i was not informed)- a bit difficult to grasp (or even find) at once. The most serious charge was WP:Libel charged leveled against me by Neil|N in connection with James Rosemond. May I or he address that on the BLP board where I believe it is most appropriate? Of course I would need clear archives on James Rosemond. As they stand they are illegible and appear to have been corrupted. Would it be possible to get clear chronological archives on the subject? It would be impossible to argue the data with this. Gotta work. I'll check back on your page in a few day on your talk board. BestScholarlyarticles (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Par for the course. Accusations without a diff. And competence issues as no archives have been "corrupted". --NeilN talk to me 00:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption? What disruption? What was disrupted by my action?

[edit]

There is nothing more disruptive than closing an ongoing discussion. True serious disruption involves article space. This is about a discussion on a talk page - a discussion which is the hallmark of how we achieve consensus on Wikipedia. If you want to accuse me of me being disruptive[3] by reopening that discussion, then please explain what or who exactly was "disrupted" by my action. It's like accusing someone of stealing without identifying what was stolen. Without a stolen object, there has been no stealing. Without a disrupted article, activity or person, there is no disruption. Please identify what you believe was disrupted by my action, or rescind your accusation. An apology would be appropriate as well. --B2C 16:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An apology for what? While it might be your personal view that true serious disruption involves or is limited to the article space, the fact that behavioral policies and guidelines have been effected by the Community for all pages on Wikipedia should indicate to you that true serious disruption is not limited to the article space and extends to talk pages too.
Yes, a talk page is a venue where discussions occur so that a consensus can be reached on Wikipedia, but as you would have read from my comment, the policy against edit-warring applies to any page on Wikipedia. If you felt that an action to close a discussion on the article talk page was disruptive, or you were not happy with the conflict evident from the edit-war, or you yourself had a dispute that there was or was not consensus, you are expected to comply with policies and guidelines by utilising Wikipedia dispute resolution. The fact is: you chose not to.
To make matters worse, you also chose to actively breach policies and guidelines by engaging in battleground behaviour. This is evident from your incivility or inflammatory bad faith accusations/assumptions about other contributors (even now), and when you prolonged or participated in the edit war - and to be even clearer than in my comment above, your reversion to reopen the discussion was not exempt from the policy against edit-warring. This type of conduct is disruptive to the editing atmosphere and to the project.
Of course, you may disagree with the behavioral requirements imposed on you through these policies and guidelines, or the extent of the disruption caused by breaching the same. If that's the case, you can seek a community consensus to change the policies and guidelines. However, if you fail to adhere to the requirements in the meantime, your account may end up blocked or you may be banned from the project. Although I personally hope you will voluntarily make changes to your approach very soon so that neither would be necessary, it's beyond my control whether you actually do or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I close discussions due to a good faith application of SNOW, I don't start slapping people with trouts when they are reopened. Neither should you. Re-opening a closed discussion is prima facie evidence that the discussion was closed prematurely. That's all. It's a good faith close; but mistaken. So it's reopened. If it's mistakenly closed again, it can be re-opened again. A repeated closing is obviously disruptive - disruptive to those who are trying to develop consensus through the discussion that is being closed. The re-opens are not disruptive - they're not disruptive to anyone.

If you think a discussion is unnecessary, stupid, or pointless, ignore it. Don't engage. Walk away. Do something else. But don't prevent those who wish to participate from participating. There would have been no edit-warring in this case if nobody had tried to suppress discussion. Reverting a close of an ongoing discussion is not edit warring - it's the R in BRD. If you think a discussion is over, then boldly close. Fine. But if a close is reverted, then join the discussion or walk away. Don't close again. It's called BRD; not BRBRBRBR. And opening up a discussion at AN/I about a discussion you want to close is ridiculous.

It's like people are talking in the town square, perhaps quarreling some, but everything is peaceful. Then some newly deputized thugs come in who decide the discussion is "disruptive" (or some other trumped up charge) and try to break up the discussions. Thankfully in the free world such behavior is unconstitutional. But on WP apparently there is no freedom of speech (and no, nobody was doing anything close to yelling "fire!" in a theater). That's wrong. Nobody should ever be penalized for trying to develop consensus through discussion. Ever. Attempting to reaching consensus through discussion should be encouraged in practice, just as it is in policy.

I, for one, am deeply disappointed with your behavior and the lack of respect you have demonstrated to editors who were doing nothing wrong — just trying to develop consensus about a title by discussing a move proposal — and understandably reverting those who attempted to stop them. --B2C 00:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say that there would have been no edit-warring in this case if nobody had tried to suppress discussion, but the fact is, that reason does not make the edit-warring acceptable. Editwarring policy expressly says when it is acceptable to editwar, and this is not one of them. If you use that reason again in future to participate in an edit war, and your action is made in good faith, you still are at strong risk of being sanctioned for it. I think my attempts to make you and the others understand why to avoid that behaviour (and warn about the risks associated with that approach) are not disrespectful. In fact, my attempts weren't intended to be disrespectful either.
However, if you disagree, then the next appropriate step for you (and for that matter, any/all of the other users who were involved in this incident or who were slapped with a trout) to seek further input about my conduct using the appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. I have faith that the community would agree that your disappointment was unjustified, and that as I've said, while you may have had the best of intentions (good faith), your behavior is still unacceptable for the reasons specified on your talk page.
As to why, policy does indeed say that if a bold action is reverted (BR), there should be discussion (D) - but it also says that is not appropriate to continue a series of reverts to reinstate or maintain some sort of status quo in the meantime. What I am suggesting is not BRBRBR as you indicate; what happened was simply BRRRRR. If the last reversion to re-open or close the discussion was unacceptable to you or any other user, consensus should be built by seeking dispute resolution. That is what is encouraged in policy, and is what is being encouraged in practice. The use of reverts is expressly discouraged in practice, in the same way that it is discouraged in policy. There was nothing to justify the rate at which reversions were made, and each of them was disruptive to the editing environment. If you don't agree with the policy in that you think it's wrong or you think "no one should be penalized", then you are achieving nothing by telling me about it; you need to (as I already indicated in my last reply) seek a community consensus to change the policy. In the meantime, by simply refusing to comply with it or ignoring it, you risk being sanctioned. It really is that simple. Good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two Qs for you

[edit]

I was on your user talk page typing a message just as you added your apology/comment at the ANI. I think that was a really big step to take, and I applaud you for your initiative as it so happens. [...] Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. Who do you perceive said apology is to?
  2. Who do you feel/think said apology should be to?

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please move on in accordance with the advice that many users have already given you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's so-so easy for anyone to advise "forget about it" when they aren't the offended party. And WP:STICK as an artificial and shallow meme used mostly to service the needs of the issuing user (be they bored, irritated, lazy, whatever) not the victim. I've seen you write lengthy commentary at other admins' Talks suggesting their behaviors in their adminships haven't been ideal or perfect. But I had no interest in such fine-tuning in my Qs to you, only recognition of a glaring problem and omission of who got an apology and for what. It's nearly impossible to get straight answers from admin, no one apparently likes to take any stand that could potentially irritate an admin who has already exposed themselved intellectually and ethically with bald and absurd statements in black & white here (example: admin Bwilkins back-tracking when I questioned him on the unaddressed blatant personal attack sent my way by Bushranger when Bwilins replied to me: "So what if you're a narcissist?" then later claimed the "you" in that retort was somehow not referring to me!). After amazingly stupid and grossly offensive and blatantly counter-policy stuff like that pushed in my face for my enjoyment, tell me again how easy it is to "forget about it" (paraphrase of your "move on"). Just for your info and to answer another confused editor wondering why I let something like this consume some of my attention and so forth, I don't see how sticking one's head in the sand accomplishes anything except to embolden the offender. Also I never waste my energy, so all the words and thoughts generated from me over the issues is and has helped me on my own work out what I can or cannot do, or want or do not want to do. Because the system is so corrupt here, unless people like me complain, why ever would it have any cause to change. p.s. This site makes me laugh, because it is the most dumbed-down place I've ever experienced beyond watching many of the old black & white The Three Stooges. "Rant" = "Diatribe" = anything anyone writes that another editor is irritated by or doesn't like and wants to criticize and issue ad hominem or deliver chilling threat over; "TL;DR" = any text of any length that another editor [... the same]; "TENDENTIOUS" = "BATTLEGROUND" = "NOTHERE" = any text anyone writes that another editor [... the same]; and my favorites: "He/she is a net negative for the encyclopedia" = "He/she is incapable of working collegially with other editors" = "He/she is apparently not suited to working on a collaborative project" = I-don't-like-this-editor-they've-miffed-me-so-come-one-come-all-with-torches-lit-to-help-ban-him/her-it-will-be-fun-and-we-get-to-take-out-our-hostilities-and-frustrations-with-life-in-general-all-in-the-guise-of-being-community-minded-editors-simply-following-policy-out-of-dedication-to-what's-best-for-the-encyclopedia-what-a-deal-ha-ha. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction between moving on and forgetting about it; I haven't asked that you do the latter. While I think you have some fair points, I don't think some of your remarks are justified, and I am not so convinced that you are aware when you have wasted your energy. For example, do you think you have taken enough time to think about (or given enough thought to) your comment before posting it here? As you appear pretty aware that you have rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, surely you would realise that someone will end up finding this gem of a comment you made to use as evidence against you at one point or another? Can you point to any instance where your "complaining" has caused any real "change" to the system here for the better? Or is this all just a facade to kill time that you have too much of? I find my time is too limited to do much at all, so any spare time is a pure luxury which I don't have enough of. And even after having had an extensive break from here, I've found that with the exception of some new technical features, the underlying and fundamental problems at this place have remained (and grown) - and aren't being weeded out at a reasonable rate. But like most websites, this is not for everyone. Sometimes it's worth acknowledging when to find something more useful to do with one's time - be it at this website, or whether or not to even spend more time contributing in relation to this one. There's certainly more worthwhile things/interests outside of Wikipedia which can be worth the time and pursuit. But either way, even at this site, I find people always end up reaping what they have sown in some form or another - even if it's not apparent on-wiki or an immediate consequence. It gets them personally often enough too. If you genuinely want to change something here more generally for the better though, when it comes to these sorts of issues, I think you are probably going to have to change the way you go about it because what you have attempted so far doesn't appear to have worked. Anyway, I have no more time I can afford to spare on it, so good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect your lengthy reply, I appreciate that, I can see you mean well. (There are numerous assumptions and presumptions you've made, however, that don't really apply to me.) Anyway, just so you know, I don't expect anything of you, and wouldn't lean on your time. (I wanted to have some interface w/ you however, in light of your comments to other admins.) I might have some minor answers for your minor Qs, however, I'll be sure to keep it short to not tie up your time. (Everyone's time is valuable in the end; but have you seen how gobs & gobs of time are spent in lengthy ANI/AN threads that are closed with the flippant or even appropriate and certainly classic as to reach meme-status: "Closing. More heat than light."?! Whyforever [does the culture here] start and continue tremendously lengthy threads consuming multiple editors' time, with result in such closes that essentially brand the experience a total loss of time? I guess my point is, if you think I'm wasting my time lately [which I don't see it that way however], then what of the down-the-sewer-significant-time-sinks that are so popular and reoccuring here as to reach meme status!?) Nice chatting w/ you -- you're nicer than I imagined you'd be; thx. Will reply with brevity in a week or so to your points. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

‎Recent WP:AN post

[edit]

This whole situation has arisen because people will not read what I have written. Let me be blunt: you failed to observe that I already told CIreland to make a request, so you gave me a long and irrelevant statement. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote CIreland's comment from higher up on the same talk page where you just left messages. I might ask again when arbitration is concluded. Since I couldn't give him a good answer, and since he didn't feel like doing it now, I decided to be courteous and ask any other administrator for a good answer. You say it is irresponible to simply accede to a request made by an involved party in circumstances where you are not satisfied that you are informed enough to make a call. You're correct: that's why I went looking for an uninvolved administrator, and that's why uninformed and inaccurate comments like yours are thoroughly unwelcome. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Clerk Maxwell

[edit]

Based on your comment at WP:ANI, it seems you have an idea of what this dispute has spawned, so would you like to add an entry for it at WP:LAME? Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: OK, I've tried my hand at an entry there. I don't remember adding any entry there before (or in recent years anyway) so it felt a little bit new for me. Not sure if it can be edited to be more effective, so if you or anyone else feels that way, would be happy for it to be dealt with accordingly. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks! Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we sockpuppet check Martin?

[edit]

Started filling this out, but it's a big project...


11 January 2015
[edit]

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

Martin Hogbin has been engaging in a largely one-man crusade against calling James Clerk Maxwell Scottish for some time now. Talk:James Clerk Maxwell has literally pages and pages of debates he's started, there's also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policy_on_nationality_statements, which he started, an RFC there, that he started. Attempts to change Nationality of people from the United Kingdom I don't think it's necessary to go into the whole history here, but you get the idea.

A number of IPs have poked up to support his views, most of them single purpose accounts. I'm using the list pointed out by Ncmvocalist here.

So:

86.145.98.85
[edit]

86.145.98.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a check of their contributions shows them to be an SPA, outside of a previous edit back in 2008 (to be expected from a dynamic IP) His responses primarily consists of replies to Martin or others, backing up Martin's statements: e.g. [4], [5] ("That I believe is the way Martin Hogbin put it.") - It's hard to know how much to describe, so I'm just going to give a few examples of him doing the same thing as Martin. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'm reluctant to get involved in this I'm afraid (don't really have the time even if I wasn't).
I can say I haven't myself looked for possible sock/meat puppets in detail, and whatever little time and useful assistance I could provide is pretty much in my statement already. But if you can see a link from that material and after analysing other behavioural patterns, then I guess a sock check is a reasonable course of action.
The one other thing I have observed (which isn't in my statement) is that I do recall that Martin seemed to be involved in some arbcom cases previously (the ones I remember him participating in were Speed of light, Monty Hall problem, and Tree shaping). I really don't know or remember the extent of his involvement or whether there were issues with his conduct or whether he was helpful. But the only reason I mention it is because I did think it was weird I remembered that he was around in all of those matters when I was looking at this one.
Still, hope that helps and that the project succeeds in resolving the issues which are currently unresolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather hoping it shows he isn't one. It would be far preferable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his last couple of comments ended with something to the effect of Wikipedia was an "interesting social experiment" to him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

troll turning

[edit]

re [6]. Please explain how & why you turn the trolling into an error of me. -DePiep (talk)

DePiep, every user who commented there has said that it is not trolling, so it seems to me you are deliberately treading on thin ice. A proper characterisation may have been that his etiquette was not perfect (as he could have approached you personally), but it's so petty that it did not warrant the ANI request you posted. As to your other errors, if you properly indented your comment in the first place, or sensibly fixed your indenting after seeing the OD tag, there would likely be no issue. And in case you don't understand the issue with your indenting, see the way replies are indented between Dirtlawyer1 and Pigsonthewing in the comments immediately above Montanabw's comment, and compare that to the way you indented your reply to Montanabw. You just needed to take a bit more care. But editing his comment (particularly without fixing your indenting issue), and then sustaining an edit-war to change his comment in a way which he clearly did not agree to was terribly inappropriate. The incident, and the way you tried to handle it, has made it clear that you lack the judgment required when (1) editing other people's comments and (2) characterising edits as trolling or users as trolls, so again, I suggest you voluntarily refrain from doing either. Knock it off. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... that it is not trolling" - not true. Only one commenter said so. Lankiveil (you agreed with) even invented a whole new non-existing case. An other injected content discussion (unnoticed by you then).
"if you properly indented your comment in the first place" - Wrong. It was indented properly [7]. You have based you conclusion on a wrong finding. It is brutal to then tell me to shut up and threat with restrictions. Next time you better be more careful.
"petty" -- does not change the facts. I am surprised that most commenters there stated it is a petty case (could be), and so conclude I am wrong. You too are mixing up this.
Andy's comment does not belong in the TfD. But since you sanctioned it, it now is promoted into an argument for the closer. Great. -DePiep (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ncmvocalist. I have previously, more than once, asked DePiep not to break indenting in that manner. As here, he denies that there is a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Ncmvocalist, there is the risk of feeding the troll. They might show up gravedancing. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, this last one was not helpful so I <s>truck. Ncmvocalist, I'm asking for a few days time to prepare a good post about this. I want to make an elaborated base, and make my points & questions & diffs. From a distance, the line "you are wrong and stop talking" is not appreciated. And I think I deserve a second consideration, with time. -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • DePiep, the proper indent is the indent used in the previous comment. So if it's a bullet point, you would indent like how I've done it in this reply (and how Dirtlawyer1 did in the diff [8]). If it's a threaded discussion without bullet points, you would do it in the same way you've done above. But when it's started as a bullet point, the indenting becomes broken if your reply is indented like this [9] because anyone who wants to reply cannot follow the original indent style without the indenting becoming broken. I'm sorry to say that's all the time, and willingness I have to discuss this with you. So if you don't understand want to discuss it further, rather than come back here, you would better spend your time finding someone else to ask about this, or better still, moving on. Thanks and good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Airtel Super Singer Junior, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bharathi. 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) 09:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request archived

[edit]

Hi. This is to let you know that I have archived an Arbitration Clarification request involving you to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 20:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HelP

[edit]

Please help improve This article Mahabharatham, Aathira (TV series). -- Arnav19 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) 178.194.86.7 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnav19: Time is never something I have enough of but the sources in the Mahabharatham article are not very good; you should consider incorporating this and this into the article, and focus more on what is said in those two articles and incorporating that content. As for the Aathira article, I don't think it can be saved at this stage I'm afraid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bogus sourcing"

[edit]

You tagged File:Spoorthi with the Title Trophy after winning the Super Singer Junior 4.jpg as having no source information, labeling the uploader's claim of having personally taken the photo himself as "bogus". Why? It's rather obvious from their contributions that Merinsan is strongly associated with Spoorthi, and while such a conflict of interest may prove problematic in other regards, it also means they may well be able to personally take photos of the subject they're writing about. For all I can tell, the image hasn't been published elsewhere, either, supporting the idea that it was specially created for Wikipedia. Thus I'd ask you to please explain what issues with the sourcing you see. Huon (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: I think merely asserting "own work" does not properly clarify whether the user has personally taken the photos, owns it, and was authorised to upload it here. Leaving aside my other concerns with the veracity of the assertions made by this user, the user has gone some way in clarifying it after my "label", and if that is all that is needed, I leave it there and withdraw the "label". By the way Huon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), given that you think his editing only "may" prove problematic in some regards and given that you (like the other sysops) appear to have taken no action whatsoever in relation to the obvious problems (identified here) for almost 24 hours after it was reported, you would be right if you assumed I am declining to waste more time on this subject until further notice. Your request has given me a lot to think about, so thanks for that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't keep a close eye on that particular noticeboard and wasn't aware of your report; neither had I looked into Merinsan's contributions in detail. They came to the IRC help channel and asked about the image, so that's what I looked into. The article has by now been protected, and a talk page discussion seems to be underway; no further action seems to be required right now. If you want me, specifically, to help with anything, you're welcome to leave me a message, but I can't guarantee I'm faster than the noticeboard. Huon (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hors de combat

[edit]

Per ArbCom case I am hors de combat on the blatant BLP issues involved, blatant SPA issues etc. on the "Spoorthi" BLP. You are, of course, correct - and no one is guarding the henhouse at all to speak of. I properly ought not even opine on the AfD per the "evidence" against me at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes on Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U

[edit]

Hello, I'm Ncmvocalist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a link to tri-Crescendo in the developers' reference because as they comment in their web page, they collaborate in the development of the videogames. You can see it in the following address (in japanese): http://www.tri-crescendo.co.jp/product_info.html

Please, revert the change when you can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.43.30 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've self-reverted the change for now so that others can review and keep/improve/remove your insertion if necessary, but please bear in mind that it is always best to cite the source that you are relying on for content you insert on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teekyuu

[edit]

I edited the Teekyu article because it's actually called Teekyuu

Tēkyū

ē = ee

ū = uu

Therefore it's Teekyuu not Teekyu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.237.117 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources provided in the references section of the article suggest that it's actually Teekyū, and one can only work according to the sources. If you have sources which show that it's actually Tēkyū, you'd best raise and discuss it on the the article talk page. If there's a consensus which supports what you are saying, the changes can be made and it may also possibly go some way towards changing the spelling of the article title too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI report

[edit]

Hello! Just a reminder: when you closed the ANI report, you forgot to sign as closer. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm a bit late for that now, but thanks for that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Livsey Jones

[edit]

What was the problem with this? The source seems to support Jones' prior "Washington representative at large". Also U.S. REPRESENTATIVES FROM WASHINGTON The Wikipedia links on that addition appear consistent. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put that down to being a mistake on my part; I can't remember reviewing that content, making the revert or issuing the warning at all, and even on reviewing it now, it's not something I'd be comfortable making a call on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

[edit]

vocal spiral
Thank you, veteran editor defined by appreciation, recognition and nice things, for contributions to articles about India, such as "lots of bits and pieces" on Carnatic music, for quality articles from Nithyasree Mahadevan to Zee Tamil Sa Re Ga Ma Pa 2009 Challenge, for encouraging comments and warning of unconstructive editing, for Signpost arbitration reports, "There is a distinction between moving on and forgetting about it", and for voicing the spiral of justice (pictured) - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looking back through some of those things made me cringe but some of those things I'm rather pleasantly surprised with too. I suppose that's the reaction to be expected of a "veteran" editor though huh? ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleasantly surprised by you seeing a person where others saw only saw admin abuse, and I looked a bit deeper, but naturally only a bit. "Veteran editor" is for me anybody who is here longer than I am, so I will never be one ;) - You deserve the image, part of my memories.
Thank you for reflecting the Gerechtigkeitsspirale!

Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?

The poem ends with "Praise the right thing".
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A year ago, you were recipient no. 1191 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - My friend, mentioned above, died in January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mistake in 2015 nepal earthquake

[edit]

Oh that was my mistake thai I didnt provide ref..sorry Oikuchu (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case

[edit]

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to 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/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again

[edit]

This place needs you. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

[edit]

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reassess quality scale

[edit]

Hi,

Seasons Greetings. This is a request to article Legal awareness, This article has complted three years since I started it on 24th May 2012 since then it has 257 edits and 42 distinct authors. If further supported the article may reach to GA level in future. As of now I want to include article on Law portal page. Undersigned requests to reassess the same on quality scale as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Assessment, If you approve it for B class we can include it in Law portal.

Thanks and regards.

Mahitgar (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

[edit]

...For the link to the old clarification request. Yesterday I commented on AN that I remembered saying that closing an AE thread is an admin action, but could not find where I had said that and today you point to it. You've spared me from having to go through my old edits... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Very welcome; I'm happy to have helped. I have to confess though that I dreaded that I'd have to go through old edits too. It was only as I typed the words "is open to resolving the concerns moving forward, or whether the admin wishes to behave as rigidly as other admins at AE have done previously", I remembered the case name and found the request there - much to my relief. =) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

[edit]

Hi, Ncmvocalist. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AE closes, timelines, and independent admin actions. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz (and Roger). I'm late to the party again so it may be moot, but if needed, please extend my collapse box to cover my bullets points concerning all four users rather than just two. That should address the word limit issue. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

[edit]

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

[edit]

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nithyasree Mahadevan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sun TV. 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) 09:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best of the Season to you

[edit]
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas to you Ncmvocalist and a Happy and Prosperous New Year! Thank you for everything you do in this place. Cheers. :) Dr. K. 07:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sun Singer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Krish. 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) 10:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

[edit]
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

[edit]
Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RM: St Mirren

[edit]

Hi

Thanks for taking the time to carefully review and close Talk:St. Mirren F.C.#Requested_move_20_January_2016. I understand why you felt it appropriate to revert due to lack of tools.

However, I do have the tools, and as nominator I am very happy to take responsibility for implementing the close. So if you felt able to reinstate the close, I can do the rest.

If feel that's inappropriate, the no prob ... but the offer is there. Either way, thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm happy to reinstate the close if you can do the rest; have reinstated on that basis. Glad to have assisted. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I'll do it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, in these edits. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I must say it was very kind of you to pro-actively volunteer to take that responsibility, and spend the time doing that, especially as it saves requiring yet another person to do it when it is not critically necessary here. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment request

[edit]

Hi Ncmvocalist. I'd appreciate you taking a glance at the article I've just published. Macleod v Macleod. Many thanks! Shayday~enwiki (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Ncmvocalist. 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)[reply]

Request for reassessment

[edit]

Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry Hard to believe it's Stub Class!? Thanks. Boscaswell talk 12:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Ncmvocalist. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Papanasam Sivan

[edit]
Notice

The article Papanasam Sivan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Spammy article with spammy external links and WP:PEACOCK writings.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. » Shadowowl | talk 21:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Ncmvocalist. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

[edit]

Hello Ncmvocalist! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI NOTICE

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Here Regice2020 (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive_10&oldid=1168305431"