User talk:Ncmvocalist

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

WQA

please refer to the fifth column of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.162 (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

actually thats exactly what it is. Why should i adhere to your norms and guidelines why don't you adhere to mine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.162 (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well first its not an excuse and comments and the like, are not part of the improving wikipedia. By not signing them, and allowing the autobot that does it anyway, i'm in no way damaging the quality of wikipedia's articles. So again i ask why should i conform to your guidelines when you do not comform to mine?

Hi

Please see my most recent post to my own talk page. Then please see recent posts to Sarumio's. The guy is impossible. He just cannot stop himself making mass edits without bothering with consensus. He is clever enough to lie low when he needs and disruptive wherever he chooses to work. A topic ban would be inappropriate recourse now. I think this needs ArbCom. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

btw The Rambling Man is now on a very lengthy wikibreak. Although he's popping in from time to time, he's likely to be restricted by time and technology when he does so, so probably even more limited than I am! --Dweller (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ncmvocalist, just popping in from Varanasi. It's interesting to see a bunch of different editors in a different field of Wikipedia altogether condemning Sarumio's flippant behaviour through his mass edits. It's beyond football articles now - he moved onto rugby for a while before I caught him doing exactly the same thing he was told not to do with the football articles. Now it's a case of changing town for village or vice versa without any consensus to do so. I'd have had his ability to edit removed some months ago - we've wasted hundreds of Wiki-hours cleaning up after him, it's not good enough. Hope that makes my position crystal... Cheers. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Topic bans are pointless to consider. He's clearly disruptive everywhere he chooses to edit. He'd simply accept the ban and move on and disrupt a new area. Some editors are, sadly, incorrigable. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

re Abtract ArbCom

You may have seen this at one of the Admin noticeboards, but here is the notice I received at my talkpage; I would like to voice my appreciation for your past, current and whatever future input you have (had) in this and related matters. Thank you. Mark (LessHeard vanU) (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic music - info box

Hi. You have mentioned a Carnatic music info box would be better for Carnatic music. Can you share your thoughts on what will be covered in such a box? The {{Indian Music}} seems to cover the high level items in Indian classical music, which may be good enough, until the next big improvement on the info box, right? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ncmvocalist. You have new messages at VasuVR's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba: Class A Application

I saw you changed the grade. I need suggestions for further improvement, lack of coherence was another issue. Can you please read the entire article once and point out where topic sentences or more context may be needed. To resolve the RS, i have approached the Wikipedia:RS/N#http:.2F.2Fwww.ambedkar.org.2FTirupati.2FChap4.ht and section below, please help to decide if the rationale provided by me is valid or should i search alternate sources. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i have replaced all disputed references. Please take a look.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look for class A rethink? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Adoption of C class in WP Aus

My view is that using C class has been an underwhelming yawn. At first I opposed the idea on it just complicating things for no good reason and I still feel this is true. At the same time I am slowly rating some articles with C class, especially when they don't have appropriate citations from reliable sources.

Using C class doesn't provide any quick fixes so it is difficult to discern any real benefits. At first there was a lot of confusion about criteria. There is still of lot of inconsistency between types and many articles rated start are probably C class. However other editors who do more assessing or work on specific sub projects that I am not familiar with, may find may find good reasons and have other opinions contrary to mine. So in summary, adopting C class might have some benefits and probably some confusion. You might want to look at WP:VG/A, who also adopted C class. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Workshop - Piotrus 2

Yes, I'm still working on it. I'm hoping to finish the workshop proposals by the end of the week; but, as I've mentioned, the evidence does not lend itself to easy drafting. Kirill ^(prof) 13:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm basically done at this point, and just waiting for further comments. Kirill ^(prof) 23:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Ncmvocalist! Thanks for the barnstar. I am very sorry that i could not respond to you earlier. I have become very inactive in Wikipedia these days. How are you?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

But really, I think it's just arbcom that need be aware. I suppose Jehochman, Moreschi or Chaser could be notified. I'll do that now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFArb page - Motion: Tobias case

Would like to request that you change your vote to oppose (from abstain) so this may be archived sooner, before the RFArb page gets too much longer. I make this request given that the active current case (Kuban) has similar proposals - I expect they can be tweaked in such a way that it will eliminate the need for amending the Tobias case, while providing any necessary clarification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary to oppose the motion to allow the section to be archived; if it doesn't pass in a reasonable time then it simply lapses. If no arbs have commented in a few more days then that can take place. What you really want to be bugging us about is moving those open cases to proposed decisions :) --bainer (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lol...cheers! :D I'd completely forgotten (think I'm in PD mindset still). Hehe, I've already begun bugging on one of the open cases last week - that should be on PD soon. Kuban will be the next target, once the wording re: userpages is satisfactory. Cheers again, :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Thanks for your attention to this. Considering that you have already condemned such behavior, User:Srkris continues to do the same thing, repeatedly, and this for more than ten days and for the past five days, ever since I brought it to the attention of WP:ANI. If you are an admin (even otherwise), I'd like to know what can be done to prevent this. I seriously cannot understand how someone with FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies. Any help appreciated. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. While I am happy that his behavior was punished, I find it ironic that all the aforesaid stuff went unnoticed but he got blocked for edit-warring. It is like being sent to judicial custody for petty theft when one is a murderer. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Any arb?

What makes you think you can rv changes on the RFAR templates 3 times and then say on each summary "(any arb. who prefers..."? You're not an arb, not even a clerk. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because 1/ it was an undiscussed bold edit and 2/ I've reverted on the basis that the previous long-standing version was better. If an arb prefers the bold edit, then they rightfully have the authority to restore it rather than let it become a venue for edit-warring between a variety of other uninvolved editors. Clear? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You fail to realize the paradox. You edit these all the time on the grounds non arbs/clerks can do so and yet you say someone else can't? Yet you then say only an arb can change your changes? Oy the hypocrisy! Clear? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I wasn't clear, or you wouldn't mis-state my position. I edit on the grounds that any uninvolved editor may make bold edits; if either the clerks or arbitrators disagreed with an edit, they're always welcome to revert on the grounds that the edit was inaccurate (eg; a case was active with new motions when I'd edited the template to mark it as stale). I am not aware of this happening to date for the edits I've made. In this case, there was long-standing content (or format) that was substantially changed without any discussion. Ms2ger was welcome to make the bold edit, but I reverted in the same manner. If Ms2ger's new undiscussed version was preferred, then it'd be restored by an arbitrator. Perhaps you feel there is a hypocrisy because you failed to gather the facts before commenting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll intervene here as a Clerk: please refrain from making unapproved changes to Committee pages, but moreover, refrain from reverting through your preferred version of the template—such behaviour is wholly inappropriate. I wish to note that Ncmvocalist is here perfectly correct in his actions, and speculation over his suitability to revert changes made to ArbCom pages without any prior discussion is unhelpful: the changes still do not belong. Thanks, AGK 16:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So he can make changes but only arbs can change that? What contradiction.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What...? That's not what I said at all, Sumoeagle. My comment was noting that changes should only be made by an Arbitrator (or a Clerk), or with the agreement of one or both; if a change is made contrary to that, any editor is permitted to revert. Therefore, changes to the status quo can only be made under those conditions; anybody, however, is permitted to take action to ensure the status quo is retained until such a time as agreement is sought from the Committee or its Clerks. AGK 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting on my clerk hat here, anyone can make changes, but a major change should be discussed first. Honestly, the difference in the two verions isn't that big a deal to me. As to this rv'ing with no discussion (and note Sumo did start a discussion of sorts), one more rv and I'll full protect the templates and I don't care which version is in place at the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Coren already protected one of them, so I'll protect the other two also. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I had no intention of editing the templates on that matter after the 2nd revert on each [1] [2] at 15:46-15:47. This 2nd revert made at 16:04 would've been made at 15:48, but I clicked show preview instead of send and was replying here in another window. If I'd seen the clerks already discussing this on the talk page at 15:49, would not have made the 16:04 edit. In any case, apologies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's all just figure out which is better. I'd especially like to know which is better technically. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Ncmvocalist, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Possibly unfree Image:MLV1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:MLV1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ­ Kris (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported

Your stalking behaviour has been reported at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist. ­ Kris (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply requested

It appears that you do not wish to proceed re [3], nor do you respond to email. Please clarify William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR on M. L. Vasanthakumari

Be easy. This is a bit delayed, but the request for full protection over the edit war just came in. I'm declining in favor of warning. Also, the website you're warring over is not a reliable source and should not be in the article. Regards, لennavecia 05:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I've used some other sources for parts of the affected content, and left the 'citation needed' tags for the rest. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My arbcom candidacy

I've replied to your question: I'm sorry about the delay. I've had a stinking cold for the past few days. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Thanks for the message on my talk page but can I ask you not to do the same in future. Such a message could be misconstrued as canvassing. The AN/I thread is on my watch list and I would have commented anyway. I'm sure you realise that your post wouldn't have influenced me. Nevertheless a more jaundiced eye could read more into it and I have to emphasise that i wish to remain a non-involved editor. The only reason I commented was when I looked at it on the WQA page it seemed an obviously frivolous request and digging further I found a disturbing pattern of behaviour. Regards. Justin talk 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help in conveying the complete context of my situation here. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 09:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)