User talk:RegentsPark

I'm busy in RL and may not be able to respond swiftly to queries

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Oct 26: Wikidata Day NYC

October 26: Wikidata Day in New York City

You are invited to Wikidata Day in New York City at Pratt Institute School of Information in Manhattan, in celebration of Wikidata's 12th birthday. This event, held by our chapter in collaboration with Pratt and Girls Who Code, will be our third annual celebration of Wikidata Day. It will feature spotlight sessions, lightning talks, and the customary Wiki-cake, while those unable to attend in person will be able to watch a livestream.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

Saturday, October 26, 2024 Wikidata Day in New York City (Eventbrite RSVP is required and also optionally on-wiki).
11:00 am – 5:00 pm

Pratt Manhattan (rooms 201 and 214), 144 W 14th Street

RSVP off-wiki is required for building entry!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non neutral language

RP, could you take a look at these edits-[1]. The user SoloKnowHow83 has added this to the Khalistan movement page 3 times despite not having consensus to do so. He claims that I'm the one who's violating Wikipedia's rules and guidelines even though it's glaringly obvious that these edits undermine the neutrality of the page-notably by removing "militant" to describe the Punjab insurgency, and by labelling the movement as a "struggle" which imo, is clearly intended to elicit sympathy for the movement to readers. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your revert on my talk page. Regards,

Maliner (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Political marriages in India

This is a historical article and it is heavily edited in last few days with unreliable sources like low quality newspaper articles and local publication books even sources are cited fraudulently to write something which is not present in the source itself. Specially, the Rajput and Mughal section is full of crap. Lack of attention by even established editors in reverting such poor addition has been degrading the quality of articles on English Wikipedia and it seems that like several websites floating on internet, Wikipedia is also backing pseudo-historic claims. Adamantine123 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamantine123: I'm not sure what I can do (not enough bandwidth for wikipedia right now). I've ECP-ed the article, that should help a bit and will make it easier for admins to take action if necessary. I see that Doug Weller has added a CT notice, that should also help. RegentsPark (comment) 17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can see that other editors have taken interest in that article. The section on Jats in that article was frivolous. Sources cited were not supporting what was written there. Anyways, LukeEmily was right in removing it altogether. Adamantine123 (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casteing aspersions

Regarding WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban on Adamantine123 from caste topics, I see your point. I don't think I weighed the caste part of it enough. Though I struggle to find policy that actually supports this in particular; and I'm not sure we'd have the same reaction if someone made a comment about other caste's such as British upper-class. Incidentally, User:Valereee's closure statement of failing to vote when involved seem's backwards to me of societal standard practice, of not voting when one has a conflict of interest! Maybe that's just me. Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not failing to !vote when involved that's the problem. !Vote or not, up to you. What I'm objecting to is failing to mention you're involved in the first place. Let the closer and other readers and other participants know you're involved at the topic or with the editor. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - got you, Valeree; sorry for the misread. Nfitz (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! Someone else pointed out it was poorly stated, so I tried to clarify! I appreciate having it pointed out. Valereee (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Thanks Valereee for clarifying the involvement part. Nfitz, it's a good idea to declare your involvement, if any (though, unlike some of the others commenting on that thread, you do have a broad range of interests on Wikipedia). Regarding the comment, if someone accused another editor of belonging to British nobility while editing articles on British nobility, that would definitely not be acceptable. WP:NPA is a core policy and is quite clear about this. In particular, WP:AVOIDYOU says "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people". Associating someone with a group (without evidence) is a form of personalization. Using that to accuse them of pushing a POV makes it a personal attack. RegentsPark (comment) 15:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just hadn't really thought of caste - particularly accusing someone of being of a higher caste - an attack. Though if involvment is all part of this, and caste is a factor, should people be declaring their caste? For the record, I'm generally from centuries of an English working-class background, though my parents and I were university-educated and have become middle-class. I'm now in Canada where caste is not the same kind of factor, except among some immigrant groups who are yet to leave the prejudices of their homeland behind. Nfitz (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not an involved editor so Valereee's comment was not directed at you. Unfortunately, Indian social groups are a battleground, and a big one at that (see WP:CASTE). RegentsPark (comment) 18:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters whether someone is a certain caste or not, and certainly no one should feel they need to declare it. What matters is if they've been involved in (and particularly if they've had disputes at) the CT topic in question and/or with the editor in question. If you've made hundreds of edits to articles about caste, or if you've had disagreements about caste with the editor in question, just post your !vote like this:
Oppose (involved). [Rationale for the oppose]
That allows the closer to know whether someone !voting is involved or not, and maybe take it into account. It doesn't mean a closer will discount involved !votes, but they have a better understanding of the overall picture. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Kingdom of Mysore and Gumbaz of Hyder Ali

sir u live somewhere far away in New York, i myself live her in Mysore Karnataka, so it's pretty sure that I know about Mysore and Tipu much better than you, I had made some minor corrections in that page and u re changed it without any knowledge about it, kindly don't change such things which u have no knowledge of Radiantsiraj (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Radiantsiraj: Hi. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and not on the common knowledge of individual editors. In other words, it is not a crowd sourced encyclopedia and, regardless of what you may or may not know, you should only add information that is properly cited. I'm dropping a welcome message on your talk page with links to our policies and procedures that will help you get an understanding of how to edit on Wikipedia. Best wishes. RegentsPark (comment) 14:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the information is a sighted one with best of our knowledge, local knowledge is also important in order to improve the information on wikipedia Radiantsiraj (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Radiantsiraj: Local knowledge is welcome IF cited to reliable sources. Otherwise, we don't know if it is factual or just made up. RegentsPark (comment) 13:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RegentsPark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Soni (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic impairment on Jat article * must be removed

Hey men so sorry to bother your but this time i got deliberative statement which i generally dont know how to figure this one out Short subject:(Removed revision of User talk:DelphiLore

Hi man, i eagerly want to approch some intelligible and visionary editor for some information circled around the article based on Jats regime can you please try to remove the dubious statement more likely to be a Joke

I don't know which troll is editing this, but NO, Jats are NOT an "Iranian tribe". Furthermore, there is practically nothing left of the Zutt people, those Indus pastoralists settled in 6th-11th century Iraq, so to imply that proper Jat clans live in modern Iraq is a lie! The most you can say is that there is still a district (Abu al-Khaseeb) named after them. But you should remember, as mentioned in the Zutt article itself, that Zutt was a generic exonym used by Arab chroniclers! Good luck trying to prove definitively that such-and-such Zutt is definitely a Jat. Heck, geneticists and historians argue that the Jats of Balochistan and Sindh aren't related to other Jats, so first focus on proving that!

Powerinhand (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Powerinhand:. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are asking above. RegentsPark (comment) 13:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible IP-range sock

Hi, it is regarding this IP range, some of whose edits you have reverted here. Apart from this and this (which were reverted), they have also added similar unsourced content over a period of time in this article which I've reverted. Likely a sock of User:Srimonbanik2007, which is obvious from these [2] [3] stat related unsourced edits in the infobox, a characteristic of the sockfarm, apart from the Bengal centric edits. I'd like to request page protection on this article, ECP if possible, since they are known for quickly making random edits to get auto-confirmed rights as discussed here. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I've semi-protected the articles for 3 months. Will watch to see if a named sock arrives but there isn't enough evidence for ECP. You could file an SPI and ask for blocking that IP range if that's warranted. Let me know if there is further disruption. RegentsPark (comment) 12:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep a close eye on them articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]