User talk:RegentsPark: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 121: Line 121:

::::::@[[User:Kautilya3|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? [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk: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 {{U|Ghatus}} being a student of history, can provide an informed opinion. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 08:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

::::::::@[[User:Kautilya3|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? [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 10:25, 25 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. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 17:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Kanyakubja Brahmin is one of several articles that are repeatedly disrupted by people who appear to be pushing the alleged Brahmin status of the Bhumihar. That status has been rejected time and again on Wikipedia. This anon is among those who return to reinstate the stuff. It becomes very tedious having to go round umpteen articles reverting them. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: they can't actually fiddle with their primary target: the Bhumihar article itself is now under 30/500 restrictions, and numerous attempted pov forks have been salted. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watch list. I don't really understand all this stuff but will protect the article if the IP returns. This obsession with caste ... ! --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to do with Bhumihars is a constant problem, although I suspect it is mostly one person who keep switching accounts. The IP did return to Kanyakubja and related articles today, and another named account has also been pushing the Bhumihar thing there. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sem-protected it. That should help. --regentspark (comment) 18:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should indeed. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you and other page watchers keep track of the criticism section being added to Rahul Gandhi? [1] Surely the BLP policy exists to prevent statements like "he speaks lies and try to divert the attention" and such. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added to watch list. --regentspark (comment) 00:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of your closure is apt. At some point the use of ARBIPA sanctions might be considered. I'm wondering if the next step could be topic bans from specific India-Pakistan conflicts for three months. That is less severe than a complete ban from all of ARBIPA. From a review of WP:DSLOG/2016, It looks like some 1RRs have been handed out, but people are not following them. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@EdJohnston: The disruption and edit-warring on those articles was due to that sock-puppet of KnightWarrior25 who returned just to cause this disruption so you should consider that when making these determinations, when socks such as these will start disrupting the encyclopedia, someone will need to step in to maintain the integrity. We cannot stop people from improving encyclopedia just because some sock-puppets of blocked users do not like it. Also, that report which you are referring to was a fallacious report filed by that same sock-puppet. He was just fooling around everyone. They just come and cause disruption and everyone else wastes their time to defend the values of Wikipedia. This report should have no value, it should be stricken in the archives as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what's going on with the various Bangladesh war related articles, I think some action is definitely necessary. I'm too busy in RL to figure out who is the more disruptive and was just hoping that @Bishonen: steps in and blocks everyone who is disruptive :) but yes, topic bans and/or some sort of page level restriction (1 RR on any material on any page connected to the Bangladesh war would force a BRD type discussion) is probably necessary.--regentspark (comment) 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, 1RR isn't helping enough because there is a meatfarm over there [2]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Kautilya3: That is an accusation i take an exception to, there is no meatfarm there, the page is in my watchlist and i have edited that before. I did not step in anywhere. I just did not have enough time to contribute. I contribute whenever i have time. So i basically stepped in when i had time. Stop exaggerating! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did I get it wrong? It's kind of hard following the reverts and rereverts but the article should be where it was before the current edit wars started. Actually, if you or someone else could make a list of all the affected articles for me, that would be great. I'll protect some - or all - of them. This edit warring is getting out of hand. --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@RegentsPark: When we take out that sock which got blocked today, there is no edit-warring but if we protect the pages now after the block of that disruptive user that would not favor Wikipedia because by the time the pages will get unprotected, he will be back with another sock to start edit-warring and disruption. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on Bangladesh Liberation War, it was Ghatus that did the big revert. I undid him, but RP agreed with Ghatus and reverted it back. There the matter should have ended and the discussion moved to the talk page. But about 13 reverts and re-reverts took place after RP drew the line. Sheriff, what I wrote on your talk page is factual. No accusations. All the debates are about NPOV, but very few of the involved editors know what that means. When one editor says it is UNDUE, the other editor says it is "sourced." So it goes on. It cannot all be blamed on MBlaze.

RP, the 1971 pages that are affected are 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and possibly other related pages. Some piece of contested content is produced and then inserted into all the 1971 pages. Thus the fire spreads. There were also problems with Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, you are not right about your meatfarm accusation. I am not talking about your comment on my talk page. I am objecting to your accusation of meatfarm while showing your comment in which you say that you were disappointed to see me show up on that page. That is like accusing me of meat-puppetry and that is not true. You clearly know how to check page history. You should know for how long I have been contributing to that page.

Also, why is that, that every sock-puppet I get blocked have been in contact with you. Start with Akbar the Great about whom you asked me to be gentle with him because he is fragile, he comes out to be sock of Bazaan then Greek Legend was regular visitor of your talk page and he comes out to be sock of CosmicEmperor, now this guy MBlaze regularly contacts you via email and you go assist him on all pages he edits, comes out to be sock of KnightWarrior25. While doing all this yourself, you accuse others of meatfarm? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean "meat farm" in the sense you are taking. My point was that TZB has plenty of people who are ready to reinstate his edits. So, his 1RR restriction serves no purpose.

As to why people write to me, I have no idea. I give welcome messages and help out when they start, and they probably think of me as a friend. You will also find plenty of people writing to me on my talk page, including people who want me to review their books on Amazon! What can I say? In the case of Akbar the Great (about whose socking I had no idea until you just told me), I wrote to him myself because he declared that he was retiring because of something I said to him.

I myself don't spend any time trying to identify and chase after socks. I rather spend my time reading and writing, which is what I am here to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RegentsPark, A LanguageXpert sock is on the prowl again [3]. Can you semi-protect Indo-Pakistani War of 1965? You had protected Kashmir conflict earlier, but he is attacking the talk page. I don't know if it is possible to semi-protect the talk page as well? Thanks, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Done. Blocked. --regentspark (comment) 18:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@RegentsPark: IP range 39 is an A class range, it's a huge block of IPs, not all of them can be sock of LanguageXpert. We should not call anyone a sock and block them because we guess that they could be sock of LanguageXpert. There should be some behavioral evidence. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Incidentally the IP who was bothering Sheriff appears to be from UK, unlikely to be MBlaze. MBlaze has been in touch with me for the last few days, and he promised to be good. Apparently the first few accounts he created got blocked within a few weeks, and he didn't know enough about the policies at that time. But now he knows. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Kautilya3: Are you saying that you knew that he had accounts previously blocked and you have been in contact with him through email all the while when he was causing disruption knowing that he is a sock-puppet or i misunderstood it? Also, you are saying that he knows about policies which means he knew about WP:SPA but he still continued editing using a sock-puppet account instead waiting to apply from his original account. Does that make him a good editor? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That is why I said specifically "in the last few days," especially after you started the SPI. He told that me that he thought he was going to get blocked, and he didn't know what to do. I advised him as I should. He also asked for my support for his unblock request, which I declined. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LanguageXpert socks have been attacking me for ages and I can recognize them pretty easily by now. Blocking an IP doesn't do anything to him, because he swaps IPs routinely. I know that blocking the entire IP range is impractical. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to hide the uncivil/racist edit summary for this and caution the IP? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: I have not undone that edit, as that IP's edit summary probably needs hide/other fix. FYI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it. --regentspark (comment) 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done --regentspark (comment) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Ms Sarah Welch – GSS (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Canvassing I see. 5.71.178.216 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RP, the IP has changed his address and is continuing to attack the pages [4]. I suppose we need to semi-protect them? - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi can you please take care of this edit summary and warn the user. Thank you – GSS (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user is already blocked. I've removed the edit summaries. Thanks for letting me know. --regentspark (comment) 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! – GSS (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good idea Tito. I can't really help out though. RL issues. --regentspark (comment) 19:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Watching.--regentspark (comment) 14:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RP, when I invited Ghatus to a discussion at Talk:Brahmagupta, FreeatlastChitchat accuses me of CANVASSING [5]. Can you provide a view on this? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Freeatlast, Drmies described you as his "favourite BATTLEGROUND editor" just a few days ago [6]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

In that case, you should take it to WP:ANI. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]