User talk:RegentsPark: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Confirmation |
RegentsPark (talk | contribs) →Is this statement true?: reply |
||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
==Is this statement true?== |
==Is this statement true?== |
||
"You are not allowed to use large quotations in "quote=" parameter. It should not exceed more than 25 words in general." {{u|RegentsPark}} Is this correct? [[User:MehmoodS|MehmoodS]] ([[User talk:MehmoodS|talk]]) 16:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC) |
"You are not allowed to use large quotations in "quote=" parameter. It should not exceed more than 25 words in general." {{u|RegentsPark}} Is this correct? [[User:MehmoodS|MehmoodS]] ([[User talk:MehmoodS|talk]]) 16:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|MehmoodS}} Not to my knowledge. Imo, quotes should be avoided (because they are lazy) but if there is a quote less than 25 words you probably don't even need the quote= parameter. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 16:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:33, 9 June 2022
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 256Drg (talk • contribs) 09:40, May 3, 2021 (UTC)
Audrey Truschke
Deserves a 30/500 protection under ARBIPA. Consult recent edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks; semi-protection is prob. warranted at Gyanvapi Mosque. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- EPC - indefinite, please. Semi isn't helping. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I second that. Even EPC wouldn't guard against the editor that got 3RR warning this morning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like it will only partly help but done anyway (not sure why this mosque is topical?)--RegentsPark (comment) 20:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hindutva wants it back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- We need semi-protection of the t/p too. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Soomra dynasty need to be indefinitely semi-ed under ARBIPA — edit-warring to insert Rajput in lead (or delete Dani's comments) for the past one year. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- RegentsPark is not some kind of janitor at everyone's beck and call. As V. S. Naipaul said (before me), "Don't bring Regents Park every two-bit squabble to resolve. Bring only the big battles." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Forgot to say: both the late V. S. Naipaul and I are (talk page stalker)s Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- RegentsPark is not some kind of janitor at everyone's beck and call. As V. S. Naipaul said (before me), "Don't bring Regents Park every two-bit squabble to resolve. Bring only the big battles." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Soomra dynasty need to be indefinitely semi-ed under ARBIPA — edit-warring to insert Rajput in lead (or delete Dani's comments) for the past one year. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- We need semi-protection of the t/p too. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hindutva wants it back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like it will only partly help but done anyway (not sure why this mosque is topical?)--RegentsPark (comment) 20:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I second that. Even EPC wouldn't guard against the editor that got 3RR warning this morning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- EPC - indefinite, please. Semi isn't helping. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks; semi-protection is prob. warranted at Gyanvapi Mosque. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done. F&f, it is fine to bring these requests to my talk page. The main role of an admin is janitorial! --RegentsPark (comment) 15:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
RegentsPark Can you please take a look at this page as there is a disagreement on where some of the information is best suited within the article? Kamhiri has been part of the contribution to this page and had no issue with it whatsoever but all of a sudden today, decides to place some of the information within the article from section "Aftermath" to section "Siege". Also the user is misbehaving by calling initial rv as disruptive even when explained the reason in description. And the user continued with such comments, the second time as well. I even tried to resolve the issue by moving some of the information from the section "siege" which best fits under "aftermath". This is why I think an admin should step in to resolve this issue as Kamhiri still disagrees and continues to revert. MehmoodS (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- just fyi - We both are discussing in article talk page. MehmoodS (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- User Kamhiri continued to revert even while discussion was on going on. MehmoodS (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- RegentsPark, I believe that this user is hounding me as per [1]. Here he is, following me on both discussions I posted on the TeaHouse unprovoked[2], [3]. Some other concerning things I noticed: [4], reverting a 1993 Cambridge University source while putting sources from Patwant Singh, who is not a historian (and he got confirmation of this on RSN) [5] and other highly concerning edits on Sikh Empire where he [6] removed content sourced from university scholars under a false and I would say maybe abusive edit summary and he did the same thing on Ranjit Singh's page the same day. He even cited a book published by Singh Bros as a Cambridge University book even though absolutely nothing in that book suggested it was. [7] Today I believe I justifably removed some content as the citation was a source from the Sikh Educational Trust for Sikh University Centre (clearly appears to be a COI). He reverted the edit and classified it as disruptive even though it was poorly sourced [8]. May I add that he immediately went to an admin instead of going on the talk page first- as per WP:BRD. We were told this on RSN that involving admins or third editors is the last thing to do, not the very first. Going back to the topic, it strongly appears to me that this user is following me around (even if he watchlisted these pages) it doesn't explain some other things I've seen. In either case, I will accept an outsider opinion in regards to Siege of Sirhind but I also want to inquire about possible interaction ban with this user. Would this particular situation suffice for that? Kamhiri (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is perfect example of personal attacks where now Mr. Kamhiri is coming up with baseless accusations to justify his actions. I have numerous pages from Maratha Empire, Mysore Empire, Sikh Empire, religions under my watch list to prevent from vandalism and disruptive editing. First of all, according to WP:RSN Patwant Singh's book is not reliable and the source was removed AFTER. So what is the point here? What does this even have to do with the current change? And what was so concerning about the edits on Sikh Empire when I clearly mentioned to get opinion on WP:RSN regarding the reliability of the source? This is absolutely baseless argument you are coming up with instead of focusing on the topic of discussion Siege of Sirhind. Also you cannot remove or alter changes because "you believe so". You have to get consensus or 3rd opinion or even WP:RSN. Removing citations with information it supports is disruptive. RegentsPark you can clearly look at the history of Siege of Sirhind and can see who made irrelevant accusations. Description will provide the information. And since there have been many disagreements with Kamhiri without any conclusion to getting a consensus, that is why I thought it better to get admin involved. Even the discussion on the talk page was started by Kamhiri after 3 edits, when he should have done it before making the first change. And even while the discussion is ongoing, Kamhiri reverted the changes with 4th edit. Finally after he sends you a message here, his last message is that he is ok to get 3rd opinion. And this is what I was here for in the first place, to get your involvement because this is where it was ultimately going to end. Kamhiri, please stick to topic of discussion. MehmoodS (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is the timeline of what happened on Siege of Sirhind today- I made a change, you reverted, I reverted, I start a discussion on the talk page, you revert, you post this message on RP's talk page, then you go on the talk page, then I revert (last revert perhaps an error in my judgement). But you going to get a third opinion defeats the purpose of going to the talk page because we're supposed to exhaust the discussion on the talk page first and then ask an outside opinion as per BRD. That's why I didn't bother going any further on the talk page because I knew it would be inevitably decided by a third editor shortly afterwards. "Also you cannot remove or alter changes because "you believe so". You have to get consensus or 3rd opinion or even WP:RSN. Removing citations with information it supports is disruptive.".....I certainly can remove info if the citation is contentious, of course if another editor disagrees with it, it would have to decided on the talk page whether that citation can be used or not. "And since there have been many disagreements with Kamhiri without any conclusion to getting a consensus, that is why I thought it better to get admin involved"....are you forgetting the 2 RSN posts? Also it doesn't matter, we as editors need to stick by BRD. Any editor is free to consult the history of Siege of Sirhind and come to their own conclusions, I dont mind. Also I would recommend taking this discussion to the talk page of the article- as we shouldn't clog up or unnecessarily send pings to RegentsPark talk page.Kamhiri (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Admins can view the timeline by going through the history. No need to give details. Admin can confirm it. Also removing citation and information because "you feel are contentious" isn't the right method. On to topic of Siege of Sirhind, after 3 edits, you started discussion and still continued to revert committing edit warring. That is why, you should have had the discussion in the first place. And I even tried to help by moving some of the aftermath information from "siege" section to "Aftermath". But you still ended up reverting. Sorry RegentPark for such lengthy discussion here. Kamhiri, if any further discussion,
- This is the timeline of what happened on Siege of Sirhind today- I made a change, you reverted, I reverted, I start a discussion on the talk page, you revert, you post this message on RP's talk page, then you go on the talk page, then I revert (last revert perhaps an error in my judgement). But you going to get a third opinion defeats the purpose of going to the talk page because we're supposed to exhaust the discussion on the talk page first and then ask an outside opinion as per BRD. That's why I didn't bother going any further on the talk page because I knew it would be inevitably decided by a third editor shortly afterwards. "Also you cannot remove or alter changes because "you believe so". You have to get consensus or 3rd opinion or even WP:RSN. Removing citations with information it supports is disruptive.".....I certainly can remove info if the citation is contentious, of course if another editor disagrees with it, it would have to decided on the talk page whether that citation can be used or not. "And since there have been many disagreements with Kamhiri without any conclusion to getting a consensus, that is why I thought it better to get admin involved"....are you forgetting the 2 RSN posts? Also it doesn't matter, we as editors need to stick by BRD. Any editor is free to consult the history of Siege of Sirhind and come to their own conclusions, I dont mind. Also I would recommend taking this discussion to the talk page of the article- as we shouldn't clog up or unnecessarily send pings to RegentsPark talk page.Kamhiri (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is perfect example of personal attacks where now Mr. Kamhiri is coming up with baseless accusations to justify his actions. I have numerous pages from Maratha Empire, Mysore Empire, Sikh Empire, religions under my watch list to prevent from vandalism and disruptive editing. First of all, according to WP:RSN Patwant Singh's book is not reliable and the source was removed AFTER. So what is the point here? What does this even have to do with the current change? And what was so concerning about the edits on Sikh Empire when I clearly mentioned to get opinion on WP:RSN regarding the reliability of the source? This is absolutely baseless argument you are coming up with instead of focusing on the topic of discussion Siege of Sirhind. Also you cannot remove or alter changes because "you believe so". You have to get consensus or 3rd opinion or even WP:RSN. Removing citations with information it supports is disruptive. RegentsPark you can clearly look at the history of Siege of Sirhind and can see who made irrelevant accusations. Description will provide the information. And since there have been many disagreements with Kamhiri without any conclusion to getting a consensus, that is why I thought it better to get admin involved. Even the discussion on the talk page was started by Kamhiri after 3 edits, when he should have done it before making the first change. And even while the discussion is ongoing, Kamhiri reverted the changes with 4th edit. Finally after he sends you a message here, his last message is that he is ok to get 3rd opinion. And this is what I was here for in the first place, to get your involvement because this is where it was ultimately going to end. Kamhiri, please stick to topic of discussion. MehmoodS (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- RegentsPark, I believe that this user is hounding me as per [1]. Here he is, following me on both discussions I posted on the TeaHouse unprovoked[2], [3]. Some other concerning things I noticed: [4], reverting a 1993 Cambridge University source while putting sources from Patwant Singh, who is not a historian (and he got confirmation of this on RSN) [5] and other highly concerning edits on Sikh Empire where he [6] removed content sourced from university scholars under a false and I would say maybe abusive edit summary and he did the same thing on Ranjit Singh's page the same day. He even cited a book published by Singh Bros as a Cambridge University book even though absolutely nothing in that book suggested it was. [7] Today I believe I justifably removed some content as the citation was a source from the Sikh Educational Trust for Sikh University Centre (clearly appears to be a COI). He reverted the edit and classified it as disruptive even though it was poorly sourced [8]. May I add that he immediately went to an admin instead of going on the talk page first- as per WP:BRD. We were told this on RSN that involving admins or third editors is the last thing to do, not the very first. Going back to the topic, it strongly appears to me that this user is following me around (even if he watchlisted these pages) it doesn't explain some other things I've seen. In either case, I will accept an outsider opinion in regards to Siege of Sirhind but I also want to inquire about possible interaction ban with this user. Would this particular situation suffice for that? Kamhiri (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- User Kamhiri continued to revert even while discussion was on going on. MehmoodS (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
we can use article talk page. MehmoodS (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- RegentsPark, the issue has been resolved on the talk page. However, could you provide feedback on a user asking an admin to "step in and resolve the issue" before even engaging in the discussion started on the talk page. To me this seems like an intimidatory or unfair way to get an upper hand in a content dispute and completely disregards the use of the talk page. Moreover, it's widely known that admins don't get involved in content disputes, unless it involves very overt vandalism. Kindly provide your feedback. Kamhiri (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Disregard of the talk page is when someone continues to revert the change even without reaching a consensus. There is nothing intimidatory or unfair here by asking an admin for advice. Where did you get that idea? Intention is to get advice on how to resolve issue or they can even help by assigning a 3rd editor to take a look at the dispute or even review the article. MehmoodS (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- RegentsPark, the issue has been resolved on the talk page. However, could you provide feedback on a user asking an admin to "step in and resolve the issue" before even engaging in the discussion started on the talk page. To me this seems like an intimidatory or unfair way to get an upper hand in a content dispute and completely disregards the use of the talk page. Moreover, it's widely known that admins don't get involved in content disputes, unless it involves very overt vandalism. Kindly provide your feedback. Kamhiri (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- @MehmoodS and Kamhiri: Apologies, RL became suddenly busy. If the issue is resolved, best to WP:AGF and move on. Though, I do agree that it is better to (a) seek consensus on the talk page and (b) seek dispute resolution rather than attempting to get help from an admin when the primary issue is content related. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Could you look at the content dispute? To me, neither preferred veersion is good. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: That and Udal of Mahoba are a mess and I think we should just revert to some version before these two new editors arrived on the scene. Perhaps @Bonadea: has ideas? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see you've reverted and fully protected, for the best. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would happily see both TBANned at this point. My impression is caste warfare/glorification --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I dropped a CS CASTE notice on Iamritwikaryan's (littered with warnings) talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why do we even need a separate page on Udal of Mahoba? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I dropped a CS CASTE notice on Iamritwikaryan's (littered with warnings) talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would happily see both TBANned at this point. My impression is caste warfare/glorification --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see you've reverted and fully protected, for the best. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
Unexplained addition or removal across multiple pages
Hi, some user @Smith Jats is editing multiple pages and adding/removing things without any explanation. All without any source. Please check the user contributions. Thank you. Krayon95 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
You talk my page.Smith Jats (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Need your attention here
Dear Admin, I checked that you have blocked the user ( for 1 week ) who created this page [[9]], is such caste based Wiki project allowed? I have not seen any similar example till date. I think the above newly created page should be deleted. Akalanka820 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Is this statement true?
"You are not allowed to use large quotations in "quote=" parameter. It should not exceed more than 25 words in general." RegentsPark Is this correct? MehmoodS (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @MehmoodS: Not to my knowledge. Imo, quotes should be avoided (because they are lazy) but if there is a quote less than 25 words you probably don't even need the quote= parameter. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)