User talk:Nichalp

About this page...

• POST A NEW MESSAGE

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 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 |56 | 57

• Please do not reply to topics more than 3 days old. I may miss it. If you wish to revive an old topic of discussion, copy the entire text of that topic (including any WikiSyntax) and put it at the bottom by following the edit link above.
• I will usually reply on your talk page
• I usually archive every 15 days or if the page size > 30kb.
• Please NO REVIEW, COPYEDIT, USER MEDIATION, or MAP REQUESTS. I don't have much free time to look into it.

---

A look at Sikkim and Kalimpong

Saw your edits in improving the Gangtok article. As you are the chief content writer ofSikkim and Kalimpong I would like you to give a look at both of them. If you find time try to improve both the articles. Editing Sikkim and Gangtok side by side is not a tought job. Kindly try to improve those articles. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 02:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do have a message put up that I am not so free these days. Could you also help us out? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Census India

I came across the new site of census while updating Gangtok, and found that the provisional table of population that GR India template uses is now outdated. Unfortunately, I could not dig out any such updated table, which would provide us with the population of cities.

Please see this and comment. As the provisional data is replaced by updated data, somehow we should change that, too. But how? This is very fundamental, and needs to be addressed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

God forbid!!!

No way was it me who commented "This is a nutty question. Please be more specific with quizzes. so many companies keep touching alltime highs and lows on a daily basis. This is not a quiz, this is trivia, get on page 3". I have clarified my position on the Quiz page! To be honest I really respect you and your contributions towards Wikipedia. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma

Hello Nichalp, I've noticed you moved Burma back to Myanmar. Your decision is overrunning process. Please consider undoing your action, as Burma should only be moved back to Myanmar following a consensual move proposal listed at WP:RM, or a consensual community decision that the closure of October's move proposal to Burma was inadequate. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on my talk page, Nichalp. Here are my comments to your expressed views:

• WP:IAR is a policy created to bypass other policies IF the result of its application would provide a better result than the strict application of those policies. It pretty much sums up to allowing Wikipedians to use their common sense in providing the best solution to problems, if necessary by not adhering too strictly to policies or even bypassing them. This you know well. BUT WP:IAR doesn't certainly mean that one user may do whatever he thinks it's better for the project. Particularly, if other users disagree with his or her application of WP:IAR. You are of course allowed to use WP:IAR like everyone else but, just like everyone else, you are even more allowed to listen to concerns and ponder your decisions.
• There is no established way of determining consensus on Wikipedia. Move proposals, just like any other poll-like discussions, are closed according to the closer admin's discretion. That doesn't mean that the closing admin's discretion to determine consensus was adequate, but by Wikipedia tradition we are generally required to trust his or her judgment (that's why we have RfA's to determine if a user's judgment is approved by the community). WHEN we do not agree with a closing admin's judgment, we should request feedback about his decision, e.g. at WP:ANI. None of this was done, therefore his closure remains valid and totally within process.
• No, of course it's not fair, but there's no way to be completely fair on disputed article titles because we may only have one title despite the validity of the arguments provided by the disputing sides. There's always one side who feels is in disadvantage because no consensus on a new move proposal will default to keeping the title as it is. Still, this works a thousand times better than going out of process and enforce a move through WP:IAR, resulting in controversy, drama, and likely new WP:IAR being cited to revert everything back. A Pandora box that should really be avoided.

I must add that I was quite surprised and mildly disappointed at your decision to move this article. Your good judgment is well known, but I'm afraid this is a case where it was not at its best. I once again ask you to reflect on your action. Best regards, Húsönd 16:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've lowered your credibility, I just think you made a bad decision like everyone else does every now and then. Have you considered that you are actually wheel-warring with User:Duja by reverting his decision to move the article to Burma following a move proposal that was discussed by tens of users? There is no current move proposal for moving this article, therefore none can even attempt to establish a consensus in the arguments provided by both sides, because users aren't even aware of any ongoing discussion. You effectively trampled the entire process and made an unilateral decision through WP:IAR. There is no justification for that. Your judgment was not good because you made a decision out of no concrete grounds, bypassing a regular process that involved many users through many days, and bypassing the decision of a fellow admin. As for the arguments provided, there's bad arguments on both sides, that's not the point. The point is, you made an unilateral decision for which there was no procedural discussion and no consensus. Undoing it is the only wise thing to do. Because if you don't realize your mistake, then yes you will be lowering your credibility. Regards, Húsönd 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that WP:CBB is a better place for advertising a move proposal than WP:RM?! I even feel the need to confess that despite being on Wikipedia for two years this is the first time I learn about the very existence of WP:CBB. Did you read my concerns on any discussion about the name of the article? Probably not, because I didn't even know of any proposal. And just like me, many others didn't. Nichalp, you are not being sound. Please reconsider your action instead of finding grounds that do not exist. I will be regrettably forced to request further community feedback on your action if you do not realize your, in my view, mistake. Regards, Húsönd 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, after waiting for hours I have reverted your move. Many users both on and off wiki agree that the arguments you invoked to justify your action were unreasonable, against process/consensus, and your move should therefore be reverted. Please don't take this personally. I except a reaction from you which I will be open to discuss. Regards, Húsönd 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And, I've reverted myself as some users expressed deep concerns on my reversion. The last thing I want is to put more wood in the fire. Regards, Húsönd 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the way this matter has spiraled out of control tonight. We've had two admins who have expressed views before in this discussion moving it back to their preferred title. No one in this matter seems to have given much thought to the protected status of the page. Whilst you made rational arguments in support of your assessment of the strength of arguments for each name [1], I find it usually better if the person who starts a discussion does not assess it's outcome. There is an inference that someone who starts a poll "There seems to be a greater number of comments on this page by wikipedians favouring Myanmar to Burma" [2] does not favour the status quo. You also expressly said that the poll was not to be the basis of renaming the article, with makes participation by those happy with the status quo less likely. The discussion also took place on a subpage of the article's talkpage rather than on the talkpage itself, which may also have skewed participation - it certainly is likely to be a less watched page. If you were going to base a page move on the discussion, it would have been appropriate to (a) declare this upfront at the beginning, (b) list it as a requested move, (b) note on the article's talkpage that the poll was taking place and (d) ask at the outset whether there were objections to you determining the consensus of the discussion. With respect, this was bound to be a controversial move and I think you could have handled it in a manner that would have avoided the disruption that occurred due to people being unhappy with the move. WjBscribe 04:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming and server load

Re: your question about "the resources needed to effect such a rollback" in the discussion about User:Serein on the noticeboard, just to let you know from a conversation I had with Voice of All that the developers have recently changed the way the database deals with renames. They are now much less heavy work on the server and should no longer cause database locks. Eventually we should be able to rename an account with up to 2,000,000 edits with minimal consequences on performance. I'm definitely not advocating that we suddenly start renaming everyone whenever they get bored of there names (frequent username changes cause other problems), but thought I'd give you a heads up that database performance will be much less of an issue from now on. WjBscribe 16:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think repeated username changes are a problem:

1. People remember their interactions with other users based on usernames: frequent changes are going to make it hard for users to keep track of who is who.
2. Creation of double redirects: especially where someone has many user subpages, frequent renaming is going to create a tangle of redirects that put a burden on others to cleanup.
3. Waste of bureaucrat time: we are already looking at over 300 renames being performed every month, I don't think we should be required to indulge the whim of every kid (I don't think it unfair to say that frequent rename requests come from some of our younger users). We run the risk of people wanting to change their usernames as often as they change their signatures.
4. Exhaustion of usernames: I don't like the idea of a new user using a name that was used for some time by another user, which causes confusion, especially with regards to old signatures. Every time someone is renamed, they effectively take away yet another name a new user might want to use.

So in my opinion, there are still plenty of good reasons not to allow regular renames of the same account. My instinct would be that unless there is a good reason (i.e. just realised my new name is actually quite similar to User:X and is causing confusion, may I be renamed again) we should insist on at least 6 months if not a year between requests. Oh, another thing that I realise you may not be aware of - block logs now move when we rename a user. WjBscribe 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I give you this award for your boldness in neutralising the Myanmar issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Changing username

I agree with that statement.--I am sooooo cool! 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)--I am sooooo cool! 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar

Hi Nichalp. I tend to believe that your primary motivation in the move was to resolve the issue rather than to impose your view on the process. I do think you went about it the wrong way (as I've explained in various forums) but hope that we can all work this out together. I've put together a survey on the Burma talk page and hope that you will support this as a way of finding what an acceptable solution is. It may not work, but it is worth a try. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this to AN/I as multiple admins are now involved with moving the page. Your comments would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)