User talk:Turnitinpro

A beer for you!

Chill and relax. Thanks for letting me read those policy pages. It certainly helps to do a refresher once in a while. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was ridiculously unwise, especially considering the post above. Blocks aren't punishment, they're preventative, and the editor appears to get that now. Saying an admin was "sloppy" because you didn't get the block you so desperately wanted is not cool. I recommend you remove it and remain vigilant should the other editor repeat the behaviour ES &L 10:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never wanted that User:EvanoIvan be blocked. (AndyTheGrump smartly kept away).Turnitinpro (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how your last statement on AN/3RR reads. Really, I highly recommend you retract it before someone responds to it and you're unable to remove it - it's offensive, unwise, and wholly unnecessary ES &L 11:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never asked for a block to be imposed. I've always ascribed good faith to the reported user. If Admins can't even count/compare, they should be replaced by bots. Its not offensive, its factual and the Admin was sloppy.Turnitinpro (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you didn't want a block, why did you report to AN/3RR...that's the PURPOSE of that board. The person you reported has now CONFIRMED to you DIRECTLY that they get it ... and by attacking the closing admin (who has rightly closed it, by the way), you're simply showing that you DO want further action, and are refusing to drop the WP:STICK. Is that really the message you're wanting to send? ES &L 11:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see if the other editor would say at 3RRNB "Sorry, I won't do it again/I'll be more careful next time" or if he would "defend" his reverts. The Admin may have rightly closed it(outcome wise), but in the wrong way (poor reasoning).Turnitinpro (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently misunderstand the purpose of an admin noticeboard. You don't turn someone in to the cops in order to get them to say "I promise not to do it again" - and you most certainly never turn them in 24 hours AFTER their last edit. They ALREADY apologized here on your talkpage - you are REQUIRED to try and resolve it that way with them before EVER reporting them to an admin noticeboard, because admin noticeboard reports are your attempt to get them BLOCKED, not to apologize. ES &L 13:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the purposes of admin noticeboards as well as anybody here - They are to report actual instances of breach of policy, which normally can result in a block or more severe penalty. I reported the matter 12 hours after my last message in the mandatory dialog between myself and the other editor after factoring that he (as per his talk page) uses public internet access facilities and that it was night here. He had NOT "already apologised". His Beer Stein was offered at 10.13:22.11.2013 AFTER the AN/3RR report was CLOSED at 09.56:22.11.2013. In any case the offering did not contain any apology, but insinuated that I was heated and tense.Turnitinpro (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

If that is all required to stop the drama. Can we get back to work? I did 2 reverts without 'talking' as admitted at the ANI. Looking back it may not really a wise thing. I could have initiated a new discussion on talk after my first revert, I didn't and just replied on edit summaries, probably because I took BLP too seriously(the previous reverts and BLPN adding to it). I learnt what Bright-line rule is and there are some who consider that 3RR is one such rule. As much as you like me to learn more on 3RR rule, I just have a small request for you. I know you have read through BLP, but please go through it again in letter and spirit and think why is its a bad idea to have a BLP with just an intro and sexual assault section and blanking other information present citing technicalities. Cheers Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for continued editing warring on Tarun Tejpal. In your report at 3RR you made it clear that the "stepping down" -> "stepping aside" issue was key to the edit war. I have blocked you because you reverted it back to "stepping down" in your latest edit (I also feel that the edit summary was misleading). TigerShark (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigershark, Although its quite immaterial to me if I'm blocked or not, let me list the procedural problems with your actions

You are an involved admin whose sloppiness I highlighted.
I never made it clear that the stepping down/aside issue was important for me in terms of this article's content. It was merely a device to show that in the first 10 words of the controversial section there was clear and repeated reverting going on which you failed to see without having to go very far.
In this case, I did not revert stepping aside to stepping down. I reverted a factually incorrect statement unsupported by the on-page citations that "Tejpal announced that he was recusing himself from ..." to "Tehelka magazine informed its staff that Tejpal was "stepping down" as ...". The usage of "stepping down" was within quotation marks to show that it was sourced from the on-page cite. Previously other editors had used "stepping down", including in the lede. So I fail to see how stepping aside/stepping down was at issue here except for you to COAT. And just for your information, its public knowledge now that the cited newspaper (The Hindu) which first used the term "stepping aside" is very much an interested party in this sexual harassment case, and is hence an unreliable source, but I still retained the reference as it was inserted by the other editor.
My edit summary is accurate. Factually incorrect content was "fixed" by aligning t to cited sources, controversial material sourced from a "blog" was deleted. If my edit was bad, why has it not been corrected as yet by anyone, including by yourself?Turnitinpro (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make him "WP:INVOLVED", as per that policy. ES &L 10:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When he misused his 3RR compare tool to ignore (3RR is a bright-line rule) the evident reverts I specified he became involved. Ideally he ought to have reported my last edit to another admin, as the allegation is that his block is a vindictive one for my describing his action as sloppy.Turnitinpro (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As much as 3RR is bright line, the purpose of a block is prevention, not punishment. He was right not to block. Oh, and YOU do not get to specify when someone is "involved", and it doesn't take too much of a reading of the situation to show that he does not meet that definition. If you're of the bizarre belief that he blocked you because he didn't like being called "sloppy" then you think a) too much of yourself, b) have too little WP:AGF, and c) think far too little of the thickness of the skins of admins. Calling him involved is just bizarre ES &L 13:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop looking for motives of The Hindu, get over righteousness and see the facts? The Hindu report is syndicated from Press Trust of India. What next? PTI is an interested party and is an unreliable source? Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly PTI is an unreliable source in this case. The original PTI report was at 21.53:21.11.2013 updated at 22.36:21.11.2013 and is 97% and then 93% plagiarised from another private news agency which broke the story at 20.03:21.11.2013 just after Shoma's email was circulated. The real significant change being (what else) "stepped down" --> "stepped aside" in the headline.Turnitinpro (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note to you

Hello Turnitinpro! I replied at Talk:Aadhaar. Reasons for the late reply has been explained there. Now a personal question apart from our discussion at Aadhaar. You say on your user page that you have 872 active accounts on Wikipedia. Come on man you got to be joking. 872 active accounts? How do you even remember the passwords of all of them? Moreover why was such a drastic step necessary when you can use a single account for that purpose? Where are you from by the way? Mind joining WP:India if you have great interest in India related articles? Note - These are just personal questions apart from our discussion at Aadhaar. Please do not bring the problems or grudge we face there (if any) here. Regards. - Jayadevp13 06:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term active means "capable of being used for editing Wikipedia space". I don't have to remember passwords. I have no particular interest in India related articles. I edit on/from a great many subjects and locales.Turnitinpro (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Jayadevp13 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Also have a very Happy New Year! - Jayadevp13 06:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you have left me a message at Talk:Aadhaar. I won't reply to you today since I don't want to destroy our festive mood in any way. Regards. - Jayadevp13 06:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]