User talk:RegentsPark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Weird image[edit]

Do you think File:Immanuvel Devendrar.jpeg really is "own work"? It has been there since 2012 so trying to prove it via a web search is likely to be difficult due to propagation. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a chance. A color photograph taken in the 1940s. No way. The "own work" person will need to be around 100 years old now. --regentspark (comment) 12:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've sent it >> thataway. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Socking?[edit]

Hello RegentsPark, I just notice you blocked Abcdofmeenas recently and I found user MeenaWala and Meenapangebaaz also editing in the same area. All three users were registered within 48 hours and having very similar usernames so can you please take a look. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 08:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sounds like loud quacking from over here. I'll leave you to do the actual block since I don't know the history of this case. Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I blocked them both. Am busy for the next couple of days so please block any others that show up and, if someone has the time, file an SPI to catch other accounts. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 14:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
✅ I just filled the SPI under Abcdofmeenas as the master. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 17:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I moved it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MEENAKACHORA as the master. I don't think there are any sleepers (just noticed that the new accounts are all recent) but you never know. --regentspark (comment) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Namasudra[edit]

We've got someone at Namasudra who just won't let go. They have engaged in discussion but nonetheless keep trying to get their version into the article - it is becoming tendentious. They're hopping IPs and have also registered an account, প্রাকৃতনমঃস্বেজ. You and others have semi-protected the thing in the past and I'm beginning to think it is needed again, although that won't stop the IDHT stream on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've semi protected it. Will take a larger look tomorrow. --regentspark (comment) 04:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

An all-encompassing source[edit]

Am I on reasonable ground here? I will revert my change to the article if not. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd say so, though the other possibility is that the article was based on (or copied from) the book in the first place, except it wasn't cited. Personally I think the most likely explanation is that the book is plagiarising Wikipedia. Vanamonde (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Add that it is a government publication and I don't think it is an RS. --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both. They're not happy with me but I will stick with it. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel[edit]

Substantial copyright violations at Standup India; I'm involved with respect to NM, would you care to do the honors? Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I've protected it for now because of edit warring. Looks like the copyvio problem is resolved for now. --regentspark (comment) 13:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the protection; the copyvio revisions are still visible, though. Vanamonde (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Gone, I hope. Shouldn't this be merged somewhere? Doesn't look like a standalone topic to me. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 17:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, not enough for a standalone article, to be sure; but as with many of the policies of this Indian government, pages tend to get created very quickly; and it's easier to wait, and then show that enduring notability is absent, than to try to remove it early and have a fight over it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm also wondering about the Narendra Modi template. Does every government initiative, however inconsequential, during his tenure as prime minister need to have this template? (Or, to express it another way, does this article increase our understanding of Mr. Modi?) --regentspark (comment) 18:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
My gut feeling is that any article not among the links in the navbox should not contain the navbox. I daresay there's a guideline about it somewhere. I'll take a look. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 18:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Gandhara locking[edit]

Under what pretext was that article locked with that ridiculous edit as the base? Can you please explain to me how Gandahara (a region in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) has a Punjabi and Sanskrit translation without the native Pashto translation? I know you and that IP sock puppet are working in tandem, but this is unacceptable behaviour. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:WRONGVERSION. --regentspark (comment) 14:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's best to remove all scripts from there. Even Indus Valley Civilisation contains no transliterations. This is a pandora's box which invites all sorts of silly edit warring under the guise of nationalism. Mar4d (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you talk. Glad to see somebody here seems mature and educated enough to give a proper response. Much appreciated. I agree that all the transliterations should be removed. Really sad to see other established Wiki editors acting like little children. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
What did I tell you recently about accusations, explicit and implicit, of nationalism etc, PAKHIGHWAY? You have got to stop because it gives the impression that you are the nationalist. You'll end up being blocked or topic banned, as per the alert you've already received (and already been reminded of, in a different context). - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Who are you? And what concern is this of yours? --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of IP hopping sock puppets. Such as the one on my talk page. Can you please check them out? RaviVery (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC) RaviVery (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Siachen Glacier[edit]

Hi! There is a string of pending changes at Siachen Glacier that seem to be in violation of the restrictions on the article. I rejected the first two, made to the infobox, but found the editor, [[1]] had continued to midify the text. I read the post you made to the article talk page, and was unsure if reverting pending changes is a problem when restrictions exist. Could you take a look look, and either revert yourself, or let me know if I should do it myself? Thanks. — Neonorange (Phil) 14:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're fine with reverting obvious POV stuff like this. Since this is a disputed topic, I've changed protection to confirmed users only so that should make things easier. --regentspark (comment) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)