Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Months of Vandalism on Kannada people page

@RegentsPark:: Hello. On Kannada people page, past few months there has been various vandalism. Please keep an eye.

I have tried to clear this vandalism as best as i can today, restoring everything to it's original reliable govt sources and books.

These vandalism editor uses these sources : Blogspots, Vistawide & ethnologue websites, none of them are reliable sources. I have removed them today.

They also add personal opinions/ethoncentric views due to current politics (anti-hindi sentiment) in the state. An "Economic" section was entirely unrelated (mostly about bangalore city) which mentioned how Kannadigas were "forced (without referendum or voting) integration with Union of India" etc. with source linked to news (not found in news/source itself) but a personal opinion of editor. I have also removed it today.

Please lock this page and stop further vandalism, until elections/state politics are over. Thank you. 117.192.217.224 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Added to my watchlist. The sourcing in that article is terrible. --regentspark (comment) 15:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Mr Joshua Jonathan

Hi RegentsPark, Sorry to bother. As long as I'm still here, if possible, may I request that Mr. Jonathan be asked to stay away from my talk page. Their sharp-witted one liners do not really help matters, nor their seemingly strange attempts to open some Mahatma Gandhi related discussion on my talk page. I have nothing against them, but feel that their attitude towards me all this while since I was unblocked last year, has almost bordered on harassment. Js82 (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ever heard of notifications? Your talkpage is at my watchlist, ever since I posted some warnings at your talkpage. And try to ping me next time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
NB: don't suggest that we've had any interactions since your topic-ban was lifted, other than me noticing the breach of your topic-ban in december 2016 diff diff, which you removed, also calling them "harassment"; and my comments on your renewed rants against MSW, which you've removed (including the link to one of the talkpage-threads from which you've copied comments, out of context). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and of course this Arbitration Request Enforcement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RegentsPark. I was not aware of that. Js82 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Columbia University

Hello, I have noticed that the edits for the Columbia University page is constantly being reverted. I work for the admissions office of Columbia University I am a researcher at the columbia business school and I'm a graduate of columbia college and teachers college. My sources are from the faculty senate Handbook documents as described in the Columbia Unuversity official Web page, the Barnard University official Web page, and the teachers college official Web page. According to your comments these are not primary sources that verify accurate information. Not exactly clear on where you believe the faculty senate handbook And information on our schools' primary website is not accurate information or primary source. I can also put you directly in contact with the admissions officers and faculty members who can verify the information regarding the complex relationship between barnard, teachers college, and Columbia University.

There are many edits in a Columbia University Web page also come from these official websites and similar documents. Could you tell me exactly why these edits are being reverted. Additionally could you tell me why the entire paragraph has been deleted? If you had any issues with the information in the paragraph I would assume that will be a line by line detailed at it instead of deleting the entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B01F:2CC1:219C:6218:7FE3:A022 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Sources like this one are not adequate for supporting Ultimately, the degree is conferred by the Columbia University president at the University commencement, and that should be fairly obvious to someone who claims to work at a large research university. The text you've added is riddled with similarly poorly sourced statements. I suggest you do a couple of things. First, familiarize yourself with the way Wikipedia works (this post on my talk page is, for example, block evasion and you should wait for the block to expire before posting as an IP). Second, find good sources - official or otherwise - that clearly back up statements in your text. Third use the article talk page! Regardless, I suggest waiting till your block expires and then revisiting this otherwise you'll end up indefinitely blocked. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You stated that my edit is riddled with poorly sourced statements. I'm still not clear on where this is coming from? To break it by each statement, the first two statements cite the columbia handbook - an official document of columbia university - and university senate - the governing body of the university administration. The nexy two sentences cite official university websites from columbia's constituent colleges (which, in many parts of the Columbia wiki page, has cited the university website). I.e. Ultimately, the degree is conferred by the Columbia University president at the University commencement has another citation by tc.columbia.edu where it specifically states, "All degrees and certificates are awarded in October, February, and May. Degrees are conferred by the President of the University at the annual Commencement in May". The last few statements are cited by the Columbia Alumni Association webpage, which provides primary information on the alumni administration for the university.

Additionally, what does the page talk function do? If I put something up there and people discuss the edits, when is it clear to post/edit on the columbia wiki page? 2600:1010:B01F:2CC1:219C:6218:7FE3:A022 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've given you an example above (the president is not mentioned on the linked page). There are others in the text. It is true that some of the statements are properly sourced but do note that this is a volunteer effort. If you find your 'large' piece of text reverted, next time try adding smaller, sourced pieces and seeing what happens. Use the talk page when you are reverted more than once, people will discuss your changes and make meaningful suggestions. Repeatedly reverting other editors is only going to get you kicked out of here. You've also not taken to heart what I said about posting while blocked. Please read WP:Block evasion, particularly the consequences because that's what you are doing right now. If you intend to stay here, it might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with our policies before you get into trouble! --regentspark (comment) 17:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adam4math

I agree that the overlap of 94leuven and Truthreigns seems limited, but I found these diffs interesting: [1][2][3][4]. Also the tendency to use quotes in edit summaries: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. Thanks, GABgab 00:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I also noticed the tendency toward fluffy descriptions by both editors. My guess is that, if the accounts are related, then 94leuven will stay unused and adam4math will return return with some other name. But will watch. --regentspark (comment) 00:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi RP and GAB, can we block this IP on the grounds of WP:DUCK? It is continuing to be disruptive at WP:NPOVN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Since I've added a comment in that discussion, I'll leave this to @GeneralizationsAreBad:'s discretion. --regentspark (comment) 12:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Altnews

If you're around, a quick block/protection here would be very helpful. Poorly sourced content about living people, socking, clearly political intent. Vanamonde (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep an eye on an article?

Hello, RegentsPark! I wanted to ask if you would put an article on your watchlist. I was recently pinged to take a look at the article Rohingya people. Apparently the reason I was pinged is that I am possibly the only administrator to have laid eyes on that article in more than two years - and my only contribution was a talk page warning against edit warring, probably in response to a protection request at RFPP. It's not a subject on which I have any expertise or probably any ability to contribute helpfully. But that article could use some eyes on it at least. It is edited a lot, by many editors, and they often disagree over facts and sources. At this point the article doesn't seem to be in serious trouble; the people are sticking to issues and not insulting each other or edit warring. But the potential is there, and there have been problems in the past, since this is a subject where passions can run high. I thought of asking you to keep an eye on it because you have sometimes contributed at the Myanmar article. What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
ping me if you see anything that needs looking into. --regentspark (comment) 12:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Samaj

Wouldn't User:Bamniya Banjaran Samaj run afoul of our naming policy? Samaj = organisation. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I'll drop a note on their talk page pointing them to the policy page and to username change. --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks a lot for editing the article of Ravindra Ghooi --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi RegentsPark, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 21:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan Peoples

Regarding: Indo-Aryan peoples ...Could you provide support with a quote from the cited text?

RegentsPark, I'm not sure what you are asking. The cited text covers the number of people. The text I added can be seen on the map that is already on the page. Are you questioning the content of the map? -- MC
My only concern is that you're adding some information to a sentence that has a citation at the end. In that case, you want to make sure that the new information is in the cited text and provide a supporting statement in your edit summary, or you should move the citation. --regentspark (comment) 00:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Js82 topic ban

RP, @SpacemanSpiff: Given Js82's topic ban, this deserves some admin response. Please note that I have silently read and ignored some of the recent comments by Js82 against me, but my silence does not imply agreement. I urge that we must not forget Js82's past disruption, their sockpuppetry and their personal attacks against me and against numerous admins in the past. For evidence, please check Js82's edit history and his responses after the earliest blocks. The latest disruption of a high traffic main article on Sikhism by Js82 was highly inappropriate and shows continued behavioral issues. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Spiff has indefinitely blocked them. I should have read the diff because, on reading it, it doesn't look like Js82 actually wants to come back anyway. --regentspark (comment) 23:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I saw your warning note only after I blocked, this popped up on my watchlist and it looked to be straight out of a Looney Tunes feature "That's all folks" in Daffy's voice! —SpacemanSpiff 00:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
No worries. I would've blocked had I looked at the content of the diff. It reads like a goodbye note. --regentspark (comment) 00:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Username

Any idea what we should do regarding the user who made this edit? The source was written by someone bearing the same name as the account. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess there is an obvious COI. But, the source is not reliable and the piece is an piece reads more like a story than something that is based on research. Revert, as you have done, and watch. --regentspark (comment) 13:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like many of their edits are self referential. I've dropped a note on their talk page.--regentspark (comment) 13:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Q8 follow up

Given that my clarification to Q8 seems to have satisfied you, are you still in the oppose column? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I never moved to the oppose column. Am nowhere right now mainly because I don't have the time to take a deeper look. --regentspark (comment) 23:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Right you are! No biggie either way, I was just curious if it was an oversight, or a genuine opposition/indecision at the moment. It probably won't pass, but I do like the record to be an accurate reflection of what people thought at the time of closure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Daivadnya Brahmin

Any chance you could take a look at the latest thread on Talk:Daivadnya Brahmin? The article has been a mess for years and I do understand the concerns raised by the new contributor but I feel that I am limited in what I can do, even though my gut tells me there is a lot of rubbish in it. There are too many non-English, obscure sources etc for me to handle but the new contributor seems to be getting increasingly frustrated about it.. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That book does mention Daivadnya but most of it is not accessible online. More importantly, isn't this new user the same as the blocked one at the top of that thread? --regentspark (comment) 17:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, probably, yes. I'm dealing with that many sock-type accounts at the moment that I'm forgetting their patterns. Not that I have ever been particularly good at spotting in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I see that Spiff has blocked that account. I'll keep an eye open for when it resurfaces (which it, undoubtedly, will!). --regentspark (comment) 11:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Orientls

... has 57 mainspace edits, spaced over months and years, since registering in March 2014. Around a quarter of those pertain to Umayyad campaigns in India, which they first edited on 21 October. Would it be overboard if I suspect the WP:SPA card in play? Mar4d (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Not unreasonable. But you will have to show that they are not editing neutrally. Or, look for socks since SPAs and socks usually go together. If you can't do either, there's not much you can do about it. --regentspark (comment) 18:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Alam of the Mughal Empire

I changed the instances of Flag of the Mughal Empire (triangular) being used to represent the Mughals to Alam of the Mughal Empire because Flag of the Mughal Empire (triangular) has a fictional tag while Alam of the Mughal Empire didn't. I was simply changing the pages to use an actual Mughal flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearElevator (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I guess I misunderstood. Neither flag is a flag of the Mughal Empire so both should be removed. --regentspark (comment) 00:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Skenfrith

It wasn't a problem! I was just doing a reply, thus,

But I've tried it twice and it doesn't take me to a book page, which I appreciate it can. It takes me here [11] KJP1 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like there are no page numbers in that book. But the material is verifiable and that's what matters. Look, I'm really sorry about the snarky post on your talk page - it was totally uncalled for. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The comment was fine; I've been called rather worse than, the implied, "old fogey who can only work with books" - which is probably pretty accurate. But the problem I have remains. If the link took me to something like this, [12], it would be verifiable, despite Heath not using page numbers either. But to just take me to the front cover doesn't actually allow me to verify the statement. KJP1 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it better if it takes you straight to the content? The book title and author names are always included in the left pane of a google books page.--regentspark (comment) 15:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Impersonation account

ReagentsParks‎. —SpacemanSpiff 11:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hey. Long time no interaction. How have you been? South Asia is shaping up nicely, right? Need to keep an eye on Indian subcontinent too. Left to its own, it is in the habit to degenerate into an alternative version of South Asia. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

IndiaIsTheBest (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Why are you reverting pages even if sources are provided?

You recently undid to the prior version of "Social groups of Gujarat". Please provide more information on talk page rather than reverting edits for those articles whivh are linked to source. Thanks.

(talk page watcher)Sources are not provided in templates and going by the caste-specific-agenda-driven edits, you are making, it's high time that you stop or face the prospects of a very-imminent topic-ban.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 11:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, RegentsPark. 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)

Kashmir Conflict

RegentsPark I am quite concerned with the edit wars you have noted on Kashmir Conflict. The page was stable for a week before Kautilya3 came marching back in, despite still being active on Wikipedia during their absence from the article, and started making disruptive cuts. Kautilya3 is clearly a minority on the talkpage where I, NadirAli, Ma4d and Xinjao are making strong policy based arguments. The only users backing Kautilya3 are Capitals00 and MBlaze Lightning who are not even making substantial or policy based comments. The latter left a one liner comment and the former claimed to have been active on the talkpage for weeks despite not being. It looks like a case of WP:stonewalling to me and abuse of the consensus policy. Shouldn't the minority dissidents be reverted per WP:NOCON to the last stable version? KA$HMIR (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi KA$HMIR. I'm not sure what I can do. I took a look at the article and, clearly, it is a confused mess. It is too long, the timelines are confused, and the text is not at all cohesive. What should happen is that the various editors should work together in figuring out how the various threads about the Kashmir conflict should be covered on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I don't see the two editors with the most experience (Mar4d and Kautilya3) working together on this. All I can suggest is that you get someone with both experience in article writing as well as an understanding of the conflict to mediate. Perhaps @Fowler&fowler:. I'm watching the page but can only step in if there is actual disruptive behavior and that's not yet the case. --regentspark (comment) 18:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well my question was that shouldn't the article be restored to the last stable version to maintain WP:STATUSQUO? NadirAli's last major edit was on 19 November. Kautilya3 next made a minor edit on the page on 25 November and had a discussion with Nadir and others after that about sourcing, which lasted until 02:15 on 27 November. When the discussion on sourcing was not going in Kautilya3's favour he turned around on 27 November at 02:29, made a new section on the talkpage and did a mass revert of the content, (thus starting the edit war that followed), claiming it as UNDUE although UNDUE was evidently not a concern for Kautilya3 before he found himself not succeeding on the ongoing discussion about sourcing on the talkpage. This looks like disruptive behaviour to me.
  • If you don't agree that will be fine. The solution to this POV imbroglio might be found in DRN or mediation. @Fowler&fowler: or another neutral editor's assistance would also be appreciated. ~~
    I can't restore the article to any version because that would mean taking a position on the content and that's not something for which I have the competence. But, looking at what's going on with the Nadir Ali edits and subsequent reverts, it seems to me that the way forward has to be in small steps. The discussion on the talk page has pretty much devolved into a this/that POV. Kautilya3 has taken the position that much of Nadir Ali's text is undue and/or not reliably sourced while you (and others) are arguing that the deleted text should be restored and then discussed. Neither approach is going to be helpful. Instead, you, Nadir Ali, etc. should propose small edits along with sources, see which ones you get consensus for, and add those. If you think that some of the current statements in the article are poorly sourced, explain why and get consensus for their removal. Do this one thing at a time otherwise the discussion becomes unwieldy (that's where we are now). --regentspark (comment) 22:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

Are articles "under other multiple projects (not predominantly India)" (quote) like Trans-Karakoram Tract exempt from WP:INDICSCRIPT? Some clarification on this would be nice, as per comments here. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

famine

Oops we are editing at the same time. I had put the article in GAN, but later reflection made me feel that GAN's purely surface reviews would not be greatly helpful. I removed it from GAN. It's in FAC.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Do see this.

See these videos as my proof (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgZNWRjzzHU 2)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrgKD2ADSOU 3)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi4WM7-_3X0) If such is the nature of caste discrimination in India, then why not put it on wikipedia? Infact an entire page dedicated to caste discrimination in india must be on wikipedia along with all these videos. Sahilrajput12 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC) More specifically this is caste discrimination/oppression/tyranny among indian hindus Sahilrajput12 (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The wording in these messages here (to me) show a clear point of view by this editor. I believe that the article in relation here is under discretionary sanctions, and he was just given notice on his user talk page here. Sahilrajput12, assuming that I'm correct: you might want to avoid this particular topic area completely and focus on making contributions to articles in a different topic area. I predict that if you fail to do so, your edits will not be sufficient and acceptable per Wikipedia's policies and you will have problems due to the discretionary sanctions placed on this topic area... I highly recommend that you contribute to another topic area that you don't have strong conflicts of opinion and points of view with. It'll keep you out of trouble and keep this article worded in a neutral point of view if you do... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
All i know is that if i find reliable sources, then i am good to create an article named "caste discrimination in India". The sanction message on my wall has been placed by an indian editor, so i'd like some non-indian admin to see if is really warranted, or is the indian editor biased. In any case, i dont think there should be any issue if i find the sources Sahilrajput12 (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Sahilrajput12:. Youtube videos are not reliable sources so you can't use them. If you want to create an article on Caste discrimination in India, I suggest you look for academic sources that make the case that it exists and that it is enough of a problem to have a separate article on it then write your article around those sources. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 14:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Mirpur

Hi I merged the section after reviewing the Jammu page and saw that someone merged the demographics section on Muslim communities I wanted to make both equal we cannot have bias towards Mirpur and allow Indian users to merge and collapse sections while not allowing the same on the Mirpur page. 82.132.185.241 (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I wont leave this until an admin like you either readds the Muslim communities subheading on the Jammu article or you remove the Sikh and Hindu communities heading from Mirpur we cannot cater for Indian propaganda. 82.132.236.44 (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi I was wondering what your take is on this edit [13] I dont understand the reasoning behind it it muddies the water I guess and takes away emphasis from the important section conversely Mirpur contains a sub heading about Sikhs and Hindus should we not have equal balance on both articles? Cheers. Syed.Hussain (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess you're objecting to the removal of the "main article" tag at the top of the para? My suggestion would be to move the para to the history section, place it in a "Partition of India" sub-section, and include the main article tag there. But, whatever you do, get consensus on the talk page first. --regentspark (comment) 18:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on article Company Rule in India

Please see the talk page of the article Company Rule in India -- Amit20081980 (comment) 12:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Commented there. --regentspark (comment) 15:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Kashmir in Urdu

Thank you for the pointer to INDICSCRIPT; I've seen it before, but I didn't think of it, and I definitely wouldn't have known where to look. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries. --regentspark (comment) 17:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Myanmar Railways

An article that you have been involved in editing—Myanmar Railways—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello RegentsPark, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
—MBL Talk 05:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

HumanSpiff

HumanSpiff (talk · contribs) - didn't an account with "Spiff" in the name recently get blocked? If nothing else, it appears to be a trolling of SpacemanSpiff. I've reverted them at List of Brahmins after spot-checking their supposed sources. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Aside from deleting the above with an edit summary calling it a small correction, they've now just moved Draft:Sir C V Raman Institute of Technology and Sciences into mainspace despite it not being accepted as a draft by Robert McClenon and, earlier, by someone else. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Motospiff (talk · contribs) was the old account and was blocked as a sock of Pv.abhinav (talk · contribs). - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries now. Bishonen has duck blocked and both the draft and moved article have been deleted. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 breaking ARBIPA sanctions?

Does this comment ″You are only displaying bombast ″ by Kautilya3 break the good faith sanction on all Kashmiri conflict related pages? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that as a violation. Kautilya3 is referring to your comment on the talk page as bombast and one can display bombast in good faith. So, they are not questioning your good faith. A good general rule is that there can always be tension in a discussion and some of that is good because it forces editors to do a better job finding sources and explaining themselves. --regentspark (comment) 13:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @MONGO:. I hope you're not going to stay away! --regentspark (comment) 13:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India)

Greetings,

It is being planned to organize Wikigraphists Bootcamp in India, please fill out the survey form to help the organizers. Your responses will help organizers understand what level of demand there is for the event (how many people in your community think it is important that the event happens). At the end of the day, the participants will turn out to have knowledge to create drawings, illustrations, diagrams, maps, graphs, bar charts etc. and get to know to how to tune the images to meet the QI and FP criteria. For more information and link to survey form, please visit Talk:Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Death date of Maharana Pratap

I have opened a discussion in the talk page as you said. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Supporting Indian Wikipedia Program resource distribution

In 2017 - 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India chapter (WMIN) and user groups will pilot a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program (Code name: Project Tiger) will:

(a) Support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and
(b) Sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

The objective of the program is to provide laptops and internet stipends for existing editors who need support to contribute more actively. 50 basic model Acer Chromebooks and Internet stipends for 100 contributors are available for distribution. Provided resources are the sole property of the beneficiaries and should be used for the betterment of the movement.

If you're an active Wikimedian, and interested to receive support from this project, please apply. It will take around 10 minutes of your time, and will ask descriptive questions about your contribution to Indic Wikimedia projects.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Eyes sought...

In light of this and this edit, it may be a quite good idea to convert the block into an indef per NOTHERE.~ Winged BladesGodric 16:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Will take a look later today (if no one gets to them before then). --regentspark (comment) 16:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
blocked. it is hard to find an edit of this user that hasn't been reverted. --regentspark (comment) 22:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks:)~ Winged BladesGodric 14:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Wondering if [14] is similar?--regentspark (comment) 14:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Likely no.Relatively more competent, in my experience.~ Winged BladesGodric 14:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
ok. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 14:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

mail

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.

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

See also this comment, and this deletion. Not very promising signs, to say the least... See also WP:OWNTALK:

the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I think you are trying to provoke him. Whether or not the TBAN remains will require input from RP. Thanks, we got this. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: let me add, though, that MSW's block is not a green card to undo any and all of her edits. Edits made by socks of users who are indef site-banned may be 'routineously undone', but that's not the case with AVC/MSW: AVC was not blocked when MSW started editing, nor is AVC blocked indef now. Also, MSW was not the only editor with whom Js82 run into trouble, as can be seen from the link which I provided, and which he deleted right away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Indus Valley civilisation

Hi, RegentsPark, and apologies for undoing your recent edit to the above mentioned article. I am going after the IP editor with a warning and encouragement to cite sources and leave edit summaries.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the note. --regentspark (comment) 21:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI on new ArbCom procedure

Just wanted you make sure you're aware that ArbCom recently enacted a change to DS procedures requiring admins to post an editnotice when imposing page-level restrictions. (The procedure forbids enforcement of page-level sanctions that don't have an editnotice.) This doesn't seem to affect the recent block of TripWire, because WP:ARBPIA has its own directly-authorized 1RR that isn't subject to those new procedures, but I thought I should let you know so that any future sanctions aren't invalidated. Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Question...

...On something that doesn't need to be put up with. Can comments like these warrant a block or other similar sanction, especially in light of WP:ARBIPA? Reason I'd like to inquire is the user is out on a barrage of personal attacks, mud-slinging and unprovoked uncivil comments all over that ANI, and it's not the first one. So far the admins haven't jumped in to sort out the WP:SOUP. I've left a note on their talk, but I'd like to take your two cents so I can appropriately escalate should there be a future reference. Thanks and regards, Mar4d (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And this I'd say is the nail in the coffin. Mar4d (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi RP, can you close that bloody thread please? It will go on and on otherwise. You can read the first five lines and you will know what it is all about. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    Someone will doubtless close it sooner or later. It does seem that we're better off without that editor. Mar4d, I'll drop a warning on Lorstakings talk page. They shouldn't be dredging up old sock reports. But, honestly, you should just let it go because the editor you're defending doesn't seem defensible. (Adding) I don't think ARBIPA is applicable here since this is a behavioral issue being discussed on ANI rather than something directly related. --regentspark (comment) 23:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you please sort out this madness [15]. A user with 80-something edits in 4 years turns up on this longstanding article, adding "victory" to the infobox of an article on an ongoing military conflict. There is also evidence that he's causing disruption on other similar articles, and he's not a new user. As always, there's the edit warring and same crowd of users reinstating the POV. Mar4d (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

AE

Two reports within 24 hours, one against Willard84 and the second one on me now. The former appears to have been initiated by a user who was otherwise inactive for weeks. Can I ask, if this is not a WP:WITCHHUNT, what exactly this comes under? Regrettably, I may not even have the time to respond fully owing to real life commitments. However, the barge of mudslinging (from predictably, the same group of users) is going to be imminent. I have no hopes of positive let alone constructive outcome coming from these vain exercises. Laughably, half of the complaint appears to be focused on how I apparently hurt the feelings of MapSGV, who's just been topic banned for 6 months. Mar4d (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • AE against Willard84 is filed because he was causing disruption on multiple namespaces on same days and the reporting user seems to be actively editing and that is contrary to Mar4d's miscalculation above. In short words, Willard84 is himself responsible for it.
It is better if we only focus on the report against Mar4d. Major point is that this report wouldn't have been filed[16] if the report against MapSGV had been procedurally closed since it is filed by a user who was and still going through a highly convincing SPI,[17](noted master is topic banned) per WP:G5 or if there was no socking then MapSGV as well as Mar4d, filer, and others (if possible) had to be reminded about commenting only on content and not contributors, either way the report was not sanctionable at all. Also read statement from GoldenRing.[18] Issue is with unilateral actions of Sandstein that are not only out of scope and standards of AE but also contrary to WP:BEFOREBLOCK, and they clearly seems to be the creating more problems now. I am more worried about tomorrow if we are going to see potential long term editors blocked/banned over trivial issues.
And whether Mar4d would be T-banned/blocked or not, still there is no reason to justify Sandstein's actions against MapSGV. Furthermore, I am sure that RegentsPark is also aware of the history of Sandstein's actions related to AE reports as described by many other editors here(a controversy that occurred this year), and it won't be mind-boggling to say that Sandstein can make wrong decisions. Lorstaking (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Lorstaking and Mar4d. Unfortunately I don't have the time to look at this today (long drive ahead). But do note that the AE process, because it attracts many admins, works quite well most of the time stoio my suggestion is to let it play out. --regentspark (comment) 12:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems like you had a look at AE thread. Have you checked out the issues I pointed in my above comment? Lorstaking (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Lorstaking, you need to drop the MapSGV thing before you end up in trouble. Plenty of people have reviewed it. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I am sure that Lorstaking is not alone with his good faith and policy based concerns. There has been no formal review yet. For some particular reason, this incident is currently being kept low-profile. I would like to know what RegentsPark has to say since he was monitoring the whole situation of Talk:Siachen conflict and what he would've done if the report had been reviewed by him. Capitals00 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough but be warned that what I seem to be seeing is a bunch of Hindutva/Modi-type people clamouring, and if I can spot the POV then I am pretty sure others can, too. This is not to suggest that there is no POV coming from another direction also but that is a separate issue. It is not going to end well. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
There is some POV from every side, and despite that we should not be losing the editors who are actually willing to participate productively unlike those who don't even want to touch those subjects with a 100 feet pole. Capitals00 (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I think Sandstein made the right call. Even before the AE action, I was concerned with the invective to posts ratio of that particular editor. --regentspark (comment) 19:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Project Tiger Writing Contest

In 2017 – 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India Chapter (WMIN) and user groups from India, are piloting a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program will (a) support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and (b) sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

Phase (a) has been completed, during which active contributors were awarded laptops and internet stipends. Phase (b) will be a contest in which editors will come together and develop a writing contest focused on content gaps. Each month three individual prizes will be awarded to each community based on their contribution for the month. The prizes worth 3,000 INR, 2000 INR, and 1,000 INR, will be awarded to the top contributors for each month. The contest started at March 1, 2018, 0:00, and will end at May 31, 2018, 23:59 (IST). Useful links are as follows:

Looking forward your participation, all the best. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) at 22:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

Notifying

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice for what

Hi RegentsPark, you jusy posted a notice on my talk page, may i know why you did that. Can you explain when I have the rights to edit and when I added sources and references to the Yadav page for the first time, why I am being sent a notice?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantanusingh10 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Shantanusingh10:, the notice is to make you aware that there are discretionary sanctions in place in the area of Indian castes and that any admin can place a block or topic ban on you if they think you are editing in a disruptive way. It does not necessarily mean that your edits are not acceptable. --regentspark (comment) 12:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Need clarification

What did you find wrong about my edits? Adding The Truth (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Adding The Truth: Not a comment on your edits. The notification just alerts you to the sanctions since you're editing in the area. --regentspark (comment) 20:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Am I getting blocked or something? Adding The Truth (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's just a notification. As long as you edit responsibly, you've got nothing to worry about. Everyone who edits in this area gets this notification. --regentspark (comment) 20:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't been barred from editing, right? I'm providing citations as well. Adding The Truth (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No. You are not barred from editing. --regentspark (comment) 20:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, man/girl. Not sure so pick one. Cheers! Adding The Truth (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I close this discussion, though? Adding The Truth (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You can stop posting here. The discussion is closed. --regentspark (comment) 21:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Need help creating a page.

Hey! I added content to a page on Balochistan, Pakistan. A page needed to be created named 'Voices for Baloch missing persons'. Information about it is already on Wikipedia but under "International Voice for Baloch Missing Persons", which is the same thing. Need you to merge those two pages or something. Adding The Truth (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

There's more info about it under Missing persons (Pakistan) wikipedia page. Adding The Truth (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am not sure what you mean by "a page needed to be created". Why was it needed?
"International Voice for Baloch Missing Persons" is the name of an organisation, and it redirects to its founder. It cannot be merged with anything. If anybody has content for the organisation, they are free to make it into a full page
Baloch missing persons redirects to a section of Pakistan's Missing Persons. That too can be made into a full page if there is enough content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Adding The Truth:, the easiest will be if you add content to existing pages. If the material gets large enough, then it can be spun off into a new page. Because the topic appears to be contentious, make sure your sources are good and that you write in a neutral voice. --regentspark (comment) 12:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

AE close

You just closed an appeal request by Netoholic at AE. There was still an ongoing discussion by other admins there about possibly doing something more than declining the appeal. You may want to check whether those admins would like that discussion to continue. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to head out and can't look in detail so I'll reopen it for the time being. Thanks for the note. --regentspark (comment) 20:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

My AE

I am not sure you saw my comment, the ping didn't work. I think you are confused, and it's no wonder, there are so many comments on that AE thread. I never said anything about Trump. I just brought SPECIFICO's comment to AE and whether he said it or she said it, it most certainly is antisemitic. Calling Jews unwashed, dumb and into money kind of defines antisemitism. Regardless of who said it, I can't believe you would say the comments themselves are not antisemitic. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_30&oldid=1139198949"