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 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
MBlaze saga continues
Hi RegentsPark, There is an effort to revert all of MBlaze Lighning's edits across Wikipedia, saying that they were sock edits. Nothing wrong with that of course. But I have said that I am taking responsibility for them as per policy but they don't accept this. Can you please comment here and lay down the law? If you would like, I can send you all my off-wiki conversations with MBlaze so that you can check there is no "meatpuppetry." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Canvassing I see. 5.71.178.216 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk page harassment?
Doesn't this behavior seem like harassment? SheriffIsInTown's continued edit warring on MBlaze Lightning's talk page seems a little too much like harassment, to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Abusing language
Hi can you please take care of this edit summary and warn the user. Thank you – GSS (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The user is already blocked. I've removed the edit summaries. Thanks for letting me know. --regentspark (comment) 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I have nominated the subject list for FL. Could you find some time out and give your comments here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Himalayas
Hi there,
I'd just like to thank you for leaving the Devanagari script as it is instead of leaving it out when you made your edit in Himalayas earlier. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Firebrace, who seems absolutely hell-bent on getting rid of everything related to the native origins of non-English places and Anglicising things as much as possible. You and I already established the last time that Indic scripts are fine so as long as they are left in the 'native name' parameter of infoboxes, or in the etymology sections - and left off the lead sentence. That is what I have done here, and yet that certain user seems to think that English Wikipedia should leave out any and every non-Latin script even though there is no policy that dictates that. Therefore, I'd appreciate some help from you in resolving this (frankly ridiculous and petty) dispute, wholly started by this user who reverts things as they deem fit because they simply don't like it - which is funny because Wikipedia doesn't operate based on people's feelings, and I have done absolutely nothing wrong here. Their latest revision contained a note that told me to 'get lost', which really shows the kind of thought process that goes on behind this user's edits and unnecessary reverting of perfectly acceptable additions. Thank you. Tiger7253 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tiger, sometimes it is better to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the "law". If you keep this up, you will find yourself in a heap of trouble. You're already causing experienced editors to raise eyebrows and, really, your campaign concerns a relatively trivial point. Given the problems that surround nationalist etc editors across many sectors of Wikipedia, it probably would be best if you concentrated on some aspect that wasn't quite so divisive. You risk being tarred as yet another of the many "warriors" and I can absolutely guarantee you that it will end badly for you if you persist. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sitush makes a good point about this being a relatively trivial thing and that you're tarring yourself with a 'warrior' brush. But, if you get reverted again, I suggest using the talk page. While I'm generally against adding Indic scripts, I think that a case can be made for including the devanagri in this article since the English word is directly derived from the Sanskrit one. --regentspark (comment) 00:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Sitush: *Sigh* I can't believe I'm stirring up so much controversy over something relatively trivial. It took me time to come to terms with leaving Indic script off the lead sentence and off many articles, and I can now see the rationale behind that, but I can't help but admit that it does grind my gears to see certain users trying to purge English Wiki of Indic scripts completely. That can only be justified if there is a unanimous and blanket decision to get rid of every foreign script on English Wiki, because it otherwise feels very agenda-driven, biased, and feels like someone is targeting one specific linguistic group - which is wrong. My rationale is perfectly simple - if it relates to the language, it should be there as it forms a part of its encyclopaedic content. I am far from a 'wiki warrior' and even though it may appear that way sometimes, I'm merely trying to uphold the standards that get accorded to other languages and other scripts - and I'm already operating within the limits of the pre-existing policy about Indic scripts, anyway. Cheers. Tiger7253 (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tiger, it is statements like the one above "targeting one specific linguistic group" or your edit summary here that place you in the wikiwarrior bucket. I'd go easy on making those sorts of assumptions if I were you. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Sitush: *Sigh* I can't believe I'm stirring up so much controversy over something relatively trivial. It took me time to come to terms with leaving Indic script off the lead sentence and off many articles, and I can now see the rationale behind that, but I can't help but admit that it does grind my gears to see certain users trying to purge English Wiki of Indic scripts completely. That can only be justified if there is a unanimous and blanket decision to get rid of every foreign script on English Wiki, because it otherwise feels very agenda-driven, biased, and feels like someone is targeting one specific linguistic group - which is wrong. My rationale is perfectly simple - if it relates to the language, it should be there as it forms a part of its encyclopaedic content. I am far from a 'wiki warrior' and even though it may appear that way sometimes, I'm merely trying to uphold the standards that get accorded to other languages and other scripts - and I'm already operating within the limits of the pre-existing policy about Indic scripts, anyway. Cheers. Tiger7253 (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Bhagat Singh
Perhaps we can try to take this article to GA or FA. Please add a talk back on my talk. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea Tito. I can't really help out though. RL issues. --regentspark (comment) 19:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Js82-like behavior
@RP: See Sati (practice) article. Similar Sikhism focus, editing style, new account, seems to know the rules. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Watching.--regentspark (comment) 14:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Same here, I also have problem in Rocket Launcher. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Inviting
Hi RP, when I invited Ghatus to a discussion at Talk:Brahmagupta, FreeatlastChitchat accuses me of CANVASSING [2]. Can you provide a view on this? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 you should invite either neutral people to discussions or try to make sure you invite a couple of people, one neutral and one who is your friend. Inviting someone who shares your POV to a discussion is canvass. You can argue all day that Ghatus is neutral, but that will take you nowhere. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Freeatlast, Drmies described you as his "favourite BATTLEGROUND editor" just a few days ago [3]. I see you turning this into another BATTLEGROUND. May I ask how you showed up on Talk:Brahmagupta, which you never edited before? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have been watching the Ghatus' TP ever since you started to post msgs asking him to come to discussions. I just wanted to see if you invite other editors to any discussions or just Ghatus. I have not edited the article, therefore I did not participate in the discussion, just requested you not to canvass. Ofc I am Drmies fav Warrior and the Doc "wuvs" me. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Ever since I started ... asking him?" So how many times did I invite him, and when you decide that I was canvassing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 its been like 5/6 times till now, so I thought maybe its just inadvertent and I left you a friendly heads up. Isn't is clear from your contributions history? I mean you can check this up yourself, why are you asking me lol? Just filter your edits to show his TP you will see that you invited him like 6 or so times to a controversial discussion but did not invite anyone else. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, you should take it to WP:ANI. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 lol why? I already said that I consider to be an inadvertent pattern, like you did it once, forgot that you had done it, and then did it again and again. Why waste time at ANI when I can just give you a heads up and ask you kindly to stay away? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- As RegentsPark has stated below, it was not an instance of canvassing. So you should let it rest. For your information, neither Ghatus and I are nationalists of any kind. This is a question of history, and Ghatus being a student of history, can provide an informed opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 why are you telling me to "let it rest" when I have not even "started" anything? I just requested you to involve/ping more than one user next time there is a controversial discussion. What exactly seems your problem? And why did you open this thread style discussion here instead of my TP? I mean if you have to talk to me, use my TP why all the drama here? I really don't care if you are a nationalist or not. All I see is that you have pinged a user multiple times without pinging anyone else and he has taken your side, so I kindly requested you to stop. I am quite sure that from on you will never ping Ghatus without pinging another editor, so there is not even a problem to discuss. Why are you prolonging this? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- As RegentsPark has stated below, it was not an instance of canvassing. So you should let it rest. For your information, neither Ghatus and I are nationalists of any kind. This is a question of history, and Ghatus being a student of history, can provide an informed opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 lol why? I already said that I consider to be an inadvertent pattern, like you did it once, forgot that you had done it, and then did it again and again. Why waste time at ANI when I can just give you a heads up and ask you kindly to stay away? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, you should take it to WP:ANI. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have been watching the Ghatus' TP ever since you started to post msgs asking him to come to discussions. I just wanted to see if you invite other editors to any discussions or just Ghatus. I have not edited the article, therefore I did not participate in the discussion, just requested you not to canvass. Ofc I am Drmies fav Warrior and the Doc "wuvs" me. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Freeatlast, Drmies described you as his "favourite BATTLEGROUND editor" just a few days ago [3]. I see you turning this into another BATTLEGROUND. May I ask how you showed up on Talk:Brahmagupta, which you never edited before? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that in this case the message can be classified as canvassing. It is neutrally worded and the editor has shown expertise/interest in the area. If there is a pattern of Kautilya3 pinging Ghatus during content disputes, and if Ghatus and Kautilya3 almost always end up on the same side of an argument against the same group of editors, then that may be problematic. Regardless, Kautilya, you're better off posting neutrally worded message at WT:IN or WT:PAK rather than pinging one particular editor. Much cleaner. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 17:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) WP:CANVASS is clear on what is canvassing and what is not. According to my understanding, selectivly pinging uninvolved editors about whom you know will support your point of view is "canvassing" and it seems like a similar case here. Kautilya3 has a misunderstanding about that policy and has displayed at many times before as well. For example at User talk:MBlaze Lightning#Larkana (Sindh, Pakistan). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think my understanding of WP:CANVASS is just fine. If you think I am doing it wrong then you should take it to WP:ANI as the WP:CANVASS page advises you to do. What the page doesn't ask you to is to start a whisper campaign. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Editing pattern of Kautilya3 had been controversial. I had been highlighting this over years. Now see how many other users are also pointing his authoritarian approach. If Regent Park is so professional and neutral editor then why not Kautilya3 be so? Very sad to see such users abusing their skill for national political battles. Waste of time and Mis guiding innocent users. 39.32.195.3 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for writing the article. I will take it to DYK. But what hook do you suggest? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- No clue. I'm not a DYK kinda person :) --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay! No problem. Will figure out something. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Dharmadhyaksha:How about something like "Did you know Trupti Desai, a gender equality activist, was beaten up by priests when she tried to enter the Shani something temple". (I know you've already submitted a DYK but this might be a nice hook.--regentspark (comment) 20:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay! No problem. Will figure out something. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Trupti Desai has been nominated for Did You Know
Hello, RegentsPark. Trupti Desai, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 16:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
RE: Yadav
This entire article is a shambles. I have tried to help the consensus build, but the efforts of most editors are not constructive, in fact they are disruptive, and I think it doesn't really have much reason to remain on WP, especially in the manner it is currently written. I was maybe going to attempt a rewrite but.....
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 22:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Make a rewrite proposal on the talk page. If it gets traction, I'll unprotect the article. --regentspark (comment) 23:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Already have, and its well beyond that now.
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- You do make some good points in your summary at the bottom of the talk page. Unfortunately, I doubt if you're going to get carte blanche for a rewrite. You could try proposing rewrites for specific sections and see if that helps - assuming you're still interested! --regentspark (comment) 23:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi RP, please see Talk:Kulbhushan_Yadav#Comments_on_rewrite. It is the usual suspects. I would recommend edit restrictions of the kind you have imposed on Kashmir conflict. I think they have been working well so far. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Make a rewrite proposal on the talk page. If it gets traction, I'll unprotect the article. --regentspark (comment) 23:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose I the only option is for an authority to declare that specific editors can contribute to a rewrite, not just me. I am truly 50/50, mainly because I don't like to quite, but I also feel I'm becoming bait for others agendas and secretive goals, to be very honest. Clearly their is a massive problem with Sub Continental issues in general on WP, which I'm slowly discovering.
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 23:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi RP, please see Talk:Kulbhushan Yadav#Comments on rewrite. It is the usual suspects. I would recommend edit restrictions of the kind you have imposed on Kashmir conflict. I think they have been working well so far. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: What do you mean by usual suspects? Do you want certain editors to stop editing because they do not agree with your point of view. You have been almost always part and parcel of every dispute, once you cannot have your point of view prevail, you almost always run to RegentsPark for intervention. This is Wikipedia not a dictatorship. RegentsPark I request you not to intervene in this matter like you did at Kashmir conflict rather Kautilya3 can avail other venues for dispute resolution and there are many available on Wikipedia. He should not always run to a specific admin. I request you to discourage him from doing that in future. He can resolve content disputes by availing DRN, RFC or formal mediation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is truly ridiculous! You are harassing me as well as an admin at the same time. RegentsPark has full-protected the page due to edit-warring. I didn't "run" to him. Even if I do, I doubt if I need anybody's permission to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, I am not harassing anyone, I am expressing my opinion in this matter like you yourself did. You asked for intervention like you did many times in the past and I am requesting the admin not to intervene at your request rather usual procedure of dispute resolution should be adopted. When did expressing an opinion became harassment? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is truly ridiculous! You are harassing me as well as an admin at the same time. RegentsPark has full-protected the page due to edit-warring. I didn't "run" to him. Even if I do, I doubt if I need anybody's permission to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@SheriffIsInTown: You have no credibility on this matter, nor do you cite WP policy as a genuine concern about content, instead you use it to further your agenda. This is extremely evident, and I'm calling you on it quite bluntly. You do not edit in good faith, you do so to push Nationalistic POV that you support, which is not what is needed on WP. The views that differ from yours are done so correctly, and you continuously try to redirect this away from you and other Pakistani editors, in a most obvious way. This is called a Block in political terms. The way you have joined this conversation also speaks volumes as to the manner in which you think is an acceptable way to force your views as the correct and only one. You are not trying to present a secondary Point of View, your are trying to control the narrative and protect you fellow Pakistani editors actions, very disingenuously and with contempt of WPs overall goals to build an encyclopaedia. I have formed this view over the course of interacting with the contributors to this article and the subsequent involvement of yourself on the AN/I, of which I state honestly and without reservation or regret.
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)