User talk:RegentsPark

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 3 days may be automatically archived by .

INCOTM revival and lead

Following the discussion, I have started this section, could you do initial works before we ask the larger team to participate? Or if you have any suggestions, please let me know. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the discussion :( I can't do a lot on Wikipedia because of RL issues but this is a great idea (the collaboration as well as the idea of recognizing Indic wikipedians). If I may make a suggestion, try to get a core set of Wikipedians who commit to making x edits to the COTM each month. COTM has fizzled out in the past because of a lack of participation and a prior commitment may help avoid that. Even a commitment to a small number of edits will help and I'm happy to make a small commitment of my own. Then, we can give barnstars for meeting a commitment, barnstars for x edits each week to the COTM, barnstars for 'at least one edit a day' to the COTM, etc. Of course, this adds to the administrative overhead so we'll need someone who agrees to be the person keeping track of commitments and handing out barnstars. Perhaps you or Capankajsmilyo?--regentspark (comment) 15:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Although I do not want to act like a jerk by posting this here again, I did want to make sure you read it.

Says Socrates — 'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.' While I did not expect anything better from others, I must confess I am deeply disappointed and hurt by the your approach, in your capacity as the arbiter. Without responding to any of my several requests to intervene (following on your own suggestion that I participate in this debate), you have been prompt in responding to and adding fire to misleading allegations and ad hominem attacks. I cannot emphasize enough how disappointing that is for an editor like me who expects admins of impeccable integrity such as yourself to remain neutral. Sarah Welch is unnecessarily reverting to some January version, when Feb 17 is the last stable version (arrived at in consensus with the sources added by Jujhar Pannu). How can this be allowed ? Pinsi281 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]