User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 → Archive 35

Siachen conflict

Help me out here in 47th[1] and 48th [2] reference in this article opens up in the cover page of book. Is this enough for reference purposes, or should the page no. be also used for better referencing purposes? What is wiki policy about this situation? Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 17:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

As long as the page number is in the reference you're ok. But, note that you can, in most cases, link to the direct page using the search functionality on google books.--regentspark (comment) 18:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So these references are ok or not? They don't link to the source page. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

They are ok as long as the page number is included in the reference (for 48 it isn't so please add the page number there). You don't have to link to the source page though you should try to. --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not my reference, I don't know whether it is even a proper source. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 18:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You can challenge it if you like. Page numbers should be included, and you can ask for a specific page number if you want. You can also ask for a specific quote if you doubt the authenticity (but, do note that that will be assuming bad faith and you should be careful how you do that). --regentspark (comment) 18:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I will do it in a polite way, but if they ignore and don't give the page no. I will get back to you, Sir... Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 18:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent closing at ANI

You might want to check exactly whether you closed the entire thread there at Sitush/Bishonen. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I closed it properly. The OP seems to have reopened it with the closed thread copied and with comments interspersed. Someone will probably close it. --regentspark (comment) 22:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Saryupareen Brahmins

When you have a moment, is there any chance of you moving Saryupareen Brahmins over the redirect at Saryupareen Brahmin with the rationale "we use the singular form for communities of India". I don't have the permissions. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. There was a fair amount of page history at the target, but I don't think a histmerge was feasible. Vanamonde (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I don't understand history merges anyway! (I understand the attribution point but not the scope). - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Syed Ali Shah Geelani

Sir, what is to be written in "Personal Life" section of biographies. I have seen a wide range of wiki articles in which the only personal info about the birth, marriage, no. of children are mentioned. Here in this article it is mentioned about the children, grand children, his cousin, in laws and what job they do and where they live. I thought it was deviation from the original topic, Geelani would have more grand children in upcoming years, do we have to write it down also in wikipedia, about the schools in which they study, what job they do in life. Please guide me on this. What is the wiki policy about it. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 17:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Owais Khursheed: The relevant policy is at WP:BLPNAME. The main consideration is whether family members are reliably sourced or not (if they are reliably sourced, then the information is already in the public domain). But, that doesn't meant that we have to include every possible family member so use your own judgement on what to keep in and what to take out. --regentspark (comment) 23:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, not every decision needs to be made based on policy. If we start writing policies like that, it would be never-ending. Everything depends on the subject and the context. In the case of Geelani, an argument has been made that he incites youth to fight against the state, but his own children are nowhere to be seen. I don't know the truth of that. But there is a semblance of relevance there. I think your best bet is to discuss with the other editor on the talk page, as he suggested you do. The page is on my watch list, and I will get to it in due course. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the talk page or the comments but, if I understand your point (or rather the point that the argument make is making) that "he incites youth to fight against the state, but his own children are nowhere to be seen", then that looks like an WP:OR argument. Unless, of course, a reliable source points to the notability of the children for that reason. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 00:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Greek uses Greek script, not Latin script

Please see this talk here: [3]. Greek uses the Greek script, not the Latin script, therefore it is wrong to say that "Greek uses Birmania", because the Greek word is Βιρμανία and not Birmania, only the transliteration of the word is Birmania. There is no need to use Greek script in the article if you prefer to say "Greek uses a word which transliterates to Birmania" or "Greek uses a word which derives from the word Burma". Absinthia Stacy 19 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Absinthia Stacy 19:. We can't possibly use every script in the world for the name of a place. Best not to use any and stick to English on the English language Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Usurpation at Amit Rai

The redlinked accounts here, other than the creator account, have all attempted to usurp the article such that it becomes an unreferenced BLP about a seemingly non-notable businessman. It is an occasional thing that has gone on for years but the last example, which I have just reverted, has existed since May 2016. I've added it to my watchlist but is there anything else can be done, bearing in mind the big gaps between usurpations? - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Added to my watch list. The usurpation was a while ago (and the earlier one appears to be vandalism) and it probably doesn't need protection as yet. Will watch though. --regentspark (comment) 00:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and thanks. I've now realised that the usurpations were for different non-notables, including one who (confusingly) was also involved in cinema. It's a common name, I know. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Patidar reservation agitation

Am I being harsh at Talk:Patidar reservation agitation? - Sitush (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No idea about your specific points but your tone is not at all harsh. Constructive, imo. --regentspark (comment) 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindus, etc

There's a certain amount of cluelessness/OR/not-very-neutral stuff coming from this user; and I'm involved on that page. Could you take a look? Not sure a block is warranted yet, but they have shown no willingness to engage in conversation. Vanamonde (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've popped in a sanctions notification and am watching the page. --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

1947 Poonch Rebellion

Hi RP, this page got created today. But it is part of the larger Kashmir conflict as well as the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. The editor says most of the content is taken from Azad Kashmir, but it is of poor quality, with loads of copyvios and absence of attributions. Can you put it under Kashmir conflict edit-restrictions, and I can take care of cleaning it up? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've let the editor know about the restrictions and posted notices on the article. --regentspark (comment) 15:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Mackhan

You blocked this user for multiple accounts and he continued after that, why wasnt user blocked? [4] [5] Till this day he blanks addition to ahbash and their founder abdullah's page. 86.44.231.143 (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure what you want me to do - the diff above is almost an year old. If you think they are socking again, you should file an SPI report. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM

It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM

It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history

You are invited to join the Indian military history work-group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is to exclusively deal with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. Ignore if you are already a member. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Indian defence services

You are requested to participate in the discussion of Wiki Loves Indian defence services on the talk page of WikiProject India. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Namasudra

Hi, Namasudra may need semi-protection if anons reinstate yet again a source published by an OmniScriptum offshoot. The IP address keeps changing, so I am unsure whether it is one person or more. I've left a note at the article talk page but I doubt they'll pay heed. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi protected for 2 weeks. Hopefully that'll work.--regentspark (comment) 20:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ezhava

"Apart from the views based on legends and tradition about the origins there are many historical view points differing in the time and formation in Kerala. The unkown author of the Periplus Maris Erythraei, who visited Malabar about 80 A.D., mentions about commodities exported from Malabar. The coconut not among the 15 items listed in it. A Byzantine monk, Kosmos Indikopleustus visits Kerala during 522-547 A.D. and describes about coconut palm found in Malabar. Based on this fact, William Logan believes that Tiyans (islanders) arrived in Malabar before the time of Kosmos Indikopleustus and after the Periplus was written" How can this be of Kerala alone, It is how William Logan arrived at the conclusion of the period of origin of Ezhavas. --Challiyan (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Mayasutra SPI

I've just seen your latest comment at the Mayasutra/Anon=us SPI. They've already returned to editing. In fact, they've never gone away and per their post of a few minutes ago on their talk page it seems they're still expecting their account to be deleted. I don't know how to explain that it won't happen, having being rebuffed when I tried at the SPI. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Indef blocked for NPA. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  • This outcome was pre-ordained. Sometimes going the "jump through hoops" route seems like a huge waste of time!--regentspark (comment) 15:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep! - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And I thought ...

Anna Salai was a St Thomas Christian female. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Four Noble Truths

I pinged you twice at Talk:Four Noble Truths; please have a look at both. See also User:Robertinventor/Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:. The size of that wall of text scares me. I'll drop a note on Robert Walker's page but I'm not sure it's going to help. --regentspark (comment) 01:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
In a way, I am impressed with Robert Walker's ability to write so much, those walls of text. It is an unsual experience, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, RegentsPark. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

@RP: Thank you for chipping in and sharing a few words with Robert Walker, Joshua Jonathan and me about the Four Noble Truths article. A stitch in time it was. Your thoughts are as always much appreciated, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. What fascinates me about Wikipedia is the number of people, like Robert Walker, who know a great deal about a topic and have the potential to vastly improve our coverage in those topics. The challenge, of course, is to get them to recognize the difference between original research and the a mere summarization of secondary sources. I hope that happens with Robert Walker. --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pachwaniya

Can you take a guess at what is happening at Pachwaniya? I don't know if it is the creator editing while logged out or perhaps a meatfarm orchestrated from some web forum or similar. There are different IPs etc hitting it in fairly rapid succession, as well as the creator, and generally making a mess of things. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably the same user on a dynamic IP (same provider, same general region). Watching. --regentspark (comment) 21:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. It looks like the creator is also the writer of the meenawiki articles on which this and other of their creations were based. A sort of personal WP:CIRCULAR! - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI review of Robert Walker's editing behavior

Please see this. I post this here since you are also mentioned there, and I believe I am supposed to inform you. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Some help

This chap [6], who claims to work for a certain Bangladeshi newspaper, has been adding promotional material in various places for a while. I just gave him a third block, this time for a week. I'm tempted to indef him, but I wanted a second pair of eyes on this, because there also seems to be some socking going on (look at the history of his deleted articles) and also some copyright issues. Additionally, it seems to me that discretionary sanctions should be available here because of ARBIPA, but the wording doesn't seem to support that; the manner in which the decision is worded suggests that DS stop being available for Bangladesh in 1971. What would you recommend? SpacemanSpiff: Any thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Bangladesh is not covered by the DS (though East Pakistan is). I concur with an indef block for Kolotan. Mutliple issues, multiple blocks and no response on their talk page at all. That's good enough to toss em out. We can resort to protection if they continue to sock. --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. So indeffed. About the DS: that seems a bit silly, does it not? I don't know of issues serious enough to make an issue of this, but I can certainly think of circumstances when it would have helped. Vanamonde (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that's because Bangladesh wasn't on the POV radar when the case was at arbcom. There were a few good editors editing Bangladesh articles (Ragib, Aditya Kabir, both gone now I think) and not much POV action. The India Pakistan side, on the other hand, was flooded with the "my country is better than your country" editors and so that's what came out of the case. Since Bangladesh wasn't explicitly mentioned, it isn't covered. Since pre-1971, it was East Pakistan, it is covered. --regentspark (comment) 17:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
(tps) I gave an ARBIPA warning to an edit-warrior for this verison of the Bangladeshi calendar article, since the Mughal empire was prominently mentioned. ARBIPA for Bangladesh topics would be nice, but we don't have it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I hear ya. Ideally we should say South Asia but then people would start arguing about what is or isn't in South Asia :) --regentspark (comment) 23:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't need DS for this kind of stuff, most admins routinely indef block for such behavior; we shouldn't handle with kid gloves just because of the geography.

Content dispute

regentspark,

I have never been involved in any aspect of any extended content dispute in any forum, at least not that I can recall. I am moreover a bit unlikely to go all the way through a terrible process on Bengal famine, probably just hanging up my spurs instead. I write. I (used to, but no longer) do content review. I may be (have been) an asshole when I do (did) content review, but I don't go to arguing forums and argue with Valued Editors for extended periods of time. I gave up on that many many years ago when I spent weeks trying to keep school articles of Wikipedia.

Having said all that, given AidWorkr's latest post, content dispute resolution seems inevitable. If you know anyone who is into that sort of thing, send them thataway, please... or... what?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I scanned aidworker's various posts and note that they haven't provided any sources whatsoever. No sources, no edits. Extensive posts without sources becomes disruptive. So, I'd say just ignore the posts. I've informed them of discretionary sanctions that apply to India and Pakistan articles and will monitor their posts going forward. --regentspark (comment) 23:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
And the article is definitely not going back as AidWorker seems to want. --regentspark (comment) 23:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The word you are probably looking for with regard to Aidworkr is 5 letters in length, starts with an "I" and ends with a "T" and has two vowels in between those letters. But you're far too polite. Maybe they'll revisit their welcome note but I doubt it. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't wanna comment, since I am an involved party. But I do hope that things will go well.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

ahem and hello …

Thank you for attempting to be helpful, but please do not revert an edit to my talk page which was made, by me, for the purpose of structuring.
I did not libelously corrupt another user's comments, nor commit any other reasonably–defined grievances against another user or any audience of Wikipedia. I was tidying my own talk page.
I don't like to be the sort of person who throws around those [[Wikipedia:]] links, but I believe what I did was in conformance (oh so–precious Conformity) with Wikipedia:OWNTALK. Where, of course, it tells me that I can archive, delete, and otherwise tend the talk page as I deem necessary, so long as it doesn't violate certain other policies.
Now, on the other hand, if you would be interested in offering a third opinion on that silly mess of miscommunication Sitush and I had — well, I thought that was done and resolved, more or less. Probably best to just leave it be. If you do, though, you should probably leave the comments on a user talk page, because the Chattar talk page got a little cluttered — and I expect the travesty of a discussion there will probably be deleted for off-topicness. Cheers. — JamesEG (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to document stuff under your own section heading, you should do it off-wiki because you're misrepresenting the other editor's comment. But, if you're willing to live with the long term effects of the choices you make, go ahead. --regentspark (comment) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but I honestly need someone to explain to me some precedent for why making copies of the discussions on my talk page caused such a conflagration of the animosity or whatever it was. I thought it would be helpful to read the things all on one page — but, of course, why would a third party take that rather than the original documents? Anyway. — JamesEG (talk)
Any chance that you would be so kind as to consider my request for a WP:3? You've seemingly known Sitush for longer than I have, and honestly I'm rather perplexed at why all this became such a fracas. If you already did consider it, then please don't take this as me badgering you for it. — JamesEG (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
On-wiki documentation of inter-personal issues is generally frowned upon because it could be viewed as harassment. In your case, you also changed the section heading (Talk:Chattar) which is unfair to Sitush. Anyone reading the text on your page will lack the context as well as the original heading. There is nothing to stop you from documenting this off-wiki if you like (but note that that's not particularly productive). I'm not sure what caused the fracas itself but there is clear consensus that Raj era sources are not acceptable. Perhaps Sitush could have explained it better but this area is swamped with edit warriors and tendentious accounts who keep Sitush very busy (and, consequently, rather brusque). My suggestion is to forget about all this and move on to something else. --regentspark (comment) 20:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

COMPLAINT

Dear RegentsPark I am afraid I have received no reply to my complaint, so I am sending you a copy.

BIAS, FALSE STATEMENTS, AGGRESSION AND BULLYING The Bengal Famine Wikipedia page was removed in its entirety and replaced by another. No detailed criticisms of the previous page were made to justify this (cf WP:BRD.)

The main author of the new page User:Lingzhi has said that he is writing to support his personal point of view, that nothing that Indians did or did not do contributed to the catastrophe of the famine – a view not shared by Indian commentators at the time, or by modern scholars. He stated that he has the objective of removing anything on the page that says that they did, and indeed anything that could be interpreted as being pro-British. He has removed from the page generally accepted, and verifiable, evidence that throws doubt on his point of view. He has also removed the conclusions that various commentators with a range of other points of view have reached. He has introduced his own, unpublished interpretations. Those of his citations that I have checked prove to bear no relation to what is in his source. There also appears to be cherry-picking, including parts of papers and individual sentences that supported his POV, and suppressing others. In the academic world, in Wikipedia, and for the aid agencies these actions are agreed to be totally unacceptable, as they necessarily produce a biased and untenable conclusion.

As expected by Wikipedia WP:BRD, I put up a longer, detailed and evidenced, version of these criticisms was on the talk page to explain why this page was unacceptable. I restored the previous page, which covered a wide range of POVs including ones I found unconvincing, which was verifiable and which met Wikipedia standards. No doubt it had its weaknesses, arising from trying to cover a very complex subject concisely and readably. (There have been contributions to this page over the years by serious scholars were able to argue politely and construcively, as well as occasional vandalism by undergraduates.) This page was immediately removed and replaced by Lingzi’s page.

Lingzhi responded to the criticisms as follows: ‘I don't know how strongly I can stress this: For the record, for once and for always, for any admins who want to see, for Herostratus, for everyone: AidWorker's edits, every comment made above, are a hardcore British apologist POV (or at the very least, hardcore FAD POV; the two overlap considerably but can in theory be separate). This is not a case where I sorta kinda maybe feel like perhaps I sorta suspect it might perhaps be a pro-British and/or pro-FAD POV; it's a case where you can read the itemized list of POV statements directly above. POV problems of the previous version – and "problems" is a vast understatement – I'll try to find them... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)’

This raises very serious issues

1. Lingzhi’s fantasies about my political beliefs and the results of my economic analysis are false.

2. I cannot accept that only a ‘hardcore British apologist’ would require that an entry meets Wikipedia standards of balance and integrity, and that its facts are correct. There are honest, rigorous, scholars holding a range of POVs.

3. Contrary to Lingzi’s statement, my criticisms were not ‘FAD’. Indeed, I complained that Lingzi had suppressed the section on Greenough, who produced some of the most thoroughly researched work in the literature and who presented a non FAD analysis and explanation. This was very influential and widely cited. However, Greenough concluded that the famine was largely caused by Bengali men, which contradicts Lingzi’s personal point of view. So why was he removed?

4. Contrary to Lingzi’s statement that it was pro-British, the page that Lingzi removed mentioned prominently that there was very strong criticism indeed of the Governments of India, Bengal and Punjab for not getting substantial amounts of food to Bengal, and criticism of the UK Government for not supplying shipping for imports. It is widely believed that these failures killed millions, so these criticisms are strongly anti-British. However, these criticisms are only valid to people who agree with the ‘FAD’ view that the famine was due to crop failures etc. Their opponents say that Bengal had plenty of food, so no outside supplies were needed. So, contrary to Lingzi’s conspiracy theory, the crop failure believed by ‘FAD’ is compatible with an anti-British view, and in this case necessary to it. Lingzi clearly does not understand what ‘FAD’ is and what it implies, which is alarming as it has been important in the literature he cites.

Inflammatory statements were put up which will prevent reputable scholars from taking part in future edits: ‘Sorry, @AidWorker:, can't read rambling texts, so I didn't read yours. But if you are thinking, even remotely, of randomly removing any sourced content from this article, even a fragment that hasn't quite worked its way up to a clause, you've got another thing coming. The present text is the current version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)’

Lingzi has attacked other contributors for being pro-British (which they denied), and has sworn at them ‘But WTF? [abbreviation for a very abusive phrase]. . . pointless bullshit? . . . You were bellyaching above about how shitty one of my resources was. . . But please don't add pointless bullshit just to show you can. It's quite childish. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)’ He also proposes thought police monitoring of them ‘For the record, please do keep running track of the sum total of F&Fs suggestions/edits and see whether they end up tilting the entire article in a British-friendly direction.... But the pro-Brits are here in force, some with bloviation, and others with barnstars. So I'm fighting pro-Brits, which might make me appear ant-Brit, kinda by default. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)’

Any academic would try to produce an academically respectable page, one which students could use to find the main points of view as the starting point of their research. No tinkering with Lingzi’s page over any length of time would produce such a page. So they will leave it alone or replace it in full.

No scholar would waste their time on editing when they have been told that their comments will not be read, and their edits will be removed.

The ‘checking procedure’ has failed to identify the many factual and other errors, and the POV biases. Evidently checking by someone who has not got the theoretical training in the subject and who has not read the papers carefully and critically in their entirety does not work. Again, a serious scholar would not participate in this system.

It is agreed by scholars that false beliefs on this famine killed millions, though there is strong disagreement on which beliefs are the correct ones. The dissemination of false beliefs by Wikipedia will influence people dealing with future famines and may kill millions more.

Wikipedia should remove this page and go back to the previous one.

Criticisms Nor have I any evidence that anybody has read the detailed criticisms which would improve the page immensely. They are couched in the terms that I would expect to give and receive when working with a team in the field or giving or receiving referee’s comments on an academic paper. They give all that is needed for action - detailed references are not necessary or desirable here. Admittedly I would normally be working with international experts on food marketing and policy, some of whom, like me, may have prevented a famine or at least been part of a group that did so, while the people editing this page boast of not having any professional qualifications, much less of working in subsistence agriculture sectors similar to 1940s Bengal. This lack of qualifications and experience does not appear to have diminished their self confidence, and their willingness to attack and abuse anyone who disagrees with them.

Again, no scholar would devote the next three months to the sort of thing that has being going on on the talk page.AidWorker (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't seriously expect anyone to read the lengthy post above. I admit I don't like the idea of a lengthy rewrite of an article outside the normal editing process but this is where we are now and I don't see any route to the article going back to pre-Lingzhi days. My suggestion is that you make pointed suggestions or edits, properly cited. If you feel that someone is making a personal attack, report it with diffs. You can drop a note here but I'm only desultorily on these days so WP:ANI may be a better venue. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 20:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

India

Just did a highlight/right click check on the edit you reverted. [7] [8] so it can be sourced if you think useful. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Are Indo-Aryan, Dravadian etc. ethnic groups? I thought those were racial classifications. @Kautilya3:--regentspark (comment) 13:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think they are ethnic groups. The sources use them to mean language families and the speakers of those language families. But, there are quite a few pages here that treat them as some kind of super-ethnic groups. I have been removing such references whenever I run into them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your warning

Noted and fair enough. Appreciate that you stepped in, it was becoming all very concentric. Ceoil (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think things have settled down and, if the peace continues, not only will we see a featured article but, given the depth of the sources that Lingzhi has brought to the table and that Fowler will doubtless add, this could be a top journal quality survey article. Keeping my fingers crossed. --regentspark (comment) 21:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I've successfully worked with Fowler under pressure in the distant past, so there is respect there. Your intervention is very welcome; you have a lot of credibility. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
My read is a tactic of wear and tear, via snide, aw shucks, insults. Yuck. Ceoil (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Islamist/Persian slant on Mughal Empire

Hi, you undid my edits without discussing on the talk page. I had already mentioned all my concerns on the talk page for Mughal Empire regarding POV and UNIDIRECTIONAL islamist/persian slant in violation of wiki guidelines. Currently its highly POV and one-sided and incomplete section (UDRU section of that article). I had corrected the wrongs. This section is unacceptable in its current form. I'm going to restore my edits. Please refer to my comments on the talk page for the Mughal Empire and discuss specifics there. You can suggest alternate rephrasing to address my concerns or else to eliminate the current POV please immediately restore my changes. The usual process is, if there is discussion posted on the talk page of the article pertaining to the edits made, then do not just revert, discuss first on the talk page, evolve consensus and then revert/amend/whatever is agreed. In future please take care not to directly revert without discussing the already open and ongoing discussion on the edit that was made. Any further discussion this, please address directly on Mughal Empire's talk page and undo the revert. Thanks Being.human (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh just noticed

  • Did you put that damn n00b-flag discretionary sanction tag on F&F's talk for "let me suggest politely that you bag the grandiosity and condescension"? I didn't notice if you did. Fair is fair. Start tagging.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
    I assume he's already aware of them (the notice is generally given to editors who edit in these areas). However, am happy to check but after the holiday weekend. BTW, anyone can give the notice, all you need to do is check that they haven't received it in the past one year.--regentspark (comment) 20:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    I took a quick look. Fowler was alerted in this edit. That's a little over an year ago so you can re-alert him if you think it necessary. --regentspark (comment) 22:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The point was not to get a tag on his talk, but to see if you would deal with us even-handedly  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
    Ah. I see. The purpose of the notification is to make an editor aware of the existence of these discretionary sanctions and repeated notification is both pointless, rude, and actively discouraged (for example, neither I nor any other editor can notify you again until at least an year has gone by). So this has nothing to do with even handedness. If you think some sort of admin action is required against Fowler, let me know and I'll take a look. --regentspark (comment) 01:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
    Ok. I took a look at the quote and it is from 22 days ago so I guess you're just being pointy which is fine by me. Reading that section, however, I still think the main problem is that you're assuming that anyone who is critical of what you're writing has either this POV or that POV. And, when editors like me point that out to you, you're assuming that we're all just ganging up on you. Imo, that's a very unhealthy way to approach editing on Wikipedia. Articles that are written collaboratively, and with constructive engagement, are usually the better ones. But I think I've said that too many times, and with little effect, so que sera sera. --regentspark (comment) 20:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Pashtuns

I think Saadkhan12345 (talk · contribs) should be blocked for disruption and restricted from editing the Pashtuns article. He made up his mind that he will revert all my edits. For example, I corrected a sentence here and he reverted it. It is common knowledge that the Pashtun Hotaki dynasty and the Pashtun Durrani dynasty ruled eastern Iran for roughly 100 years. Similarly, the Pashtun have an even longer history in Northern India. Malala Yousafzai is an internationally recognized face of a Pashtun female. Saadkhan12345 keeps removing her picture. The women's section is a separate section to the article. When I edit the article he asks for source and when I cite it he reverts everything and says "this source mention nowhere of the said fact". [9] How do you get rid of such disruptive editor? Kojakkrags (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Couple of things. First, it doesn't look like the source says anything about Pashto or Pashtunwali being a remnant of an ancient Buddhist tradition. If it does, it is incumbent on you to point to the specific place where it says that. Second, the source itself, alamahabibi.com, doesn't seem to pass the reliability test (see WP:RS). I don't have the time to look at this now but you might want to consider going to WP:RSN to see if the source is reliable and you should - always - be very specific where you are are drawing your material from. When reverted, point to the specific location that supports your edits and quote them on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 20:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
First, it is me as a Wikipedia editor claiming that Pashtunwali is "likely" a remnant of an ancient Buddhist-Hindu tradition. This is a general view among all scholars, as well as the Pashtuns themselves. I cited indisputable evidence to support my statement. Second, the source is actually Abdul Hai Habibi. He has done extensive research about the origin of Afghans, and he relied on and cited all the top-notch sources. Readers should know that Pashtuns are connected to the Indian culture, and it's not a new thing like diplomatic relations but a historical connection.Kojakkrags (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The source you cited doesn't say that it is likely a remnant of an ancient Buddhist-Hindu tradition. If there are other sources, you should provide those. I suggest taking your Abdul Hai Habibi source to WP:RSN since it is not peer reviewed. --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Habibi "was a prominent Afghan historian for much of his lifetime .... He is the author of over 100 books ...." The source I cited says the land of Pashtuns was Buddhist prior to Islam's arrival, nobody disputes this. Therefore, it is safe to say that they were "likely" Buddhist.Kojakkrags (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a big leap from saying that the land was Buddhist to "the traditions are likely derived from Buddhism". The latter is original research. As for Habibi, you should cite his works published in peer reviewed journals rather than from a website devoted to him. --regentspark (comment) 17:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
This is on my page also. I agree with regentspark on this. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
"Abdul Hai Habibi (1910-1984) the reckoned Pashtun scholar has viewed the matter of Pashtunwali in a pure scholastic lens.... In this account he has discussed the ways of Pashtuns in totality.... Habibi’s approach is objective and based on the scholastic evidences through an in-depth analysis of the cultural and anthropological stock.... As the local scholars reduce the history and evolution of Pasthun culture through connecting it to the inception of Islam and conversion of the Pashtun imaginary forefather Qais Abdul Rasheed. The young archeologist Rafi Ullah has precisely defined it in a relatively holistic context. 'As a matter of fact, Pakhtunwali has evolved from the phenomenal historical developments in terms of religion, politics and culture in the Pakhtun land. The fact is supported by Aryan, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist and Graeco-Roman remnants in the Pakhtun culture.'" (emphasis added)[10] (pp. 13-15), by Barkat Shah Kakar, Lecturer at Department of Pashtu University of Balochistan (June 2012).Kojakkrags (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, RegentsPark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Jstor

Do you still have access? I'm wanting to take a squiz through this if possible. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming your email hasn't changed, I've sent it to you. --regentspark (comment) 13:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want to keep an inaccurate definition of child on wikipedia?

You're going to have to bear with me because I don't know the nuances of editing wikipedia. You clearly have more time to devote to this than I do.

You saw the reason for my edit. So what if it's controversial? Did you even look up the Merriam Webster and Oxford definitions? You want dictionary.com's definition because it says what you want it to say. Is Wikipedia's purpose to tell people accurate information, or is it's purpose to mislead people? You don't like the biological facts regarding the definition of child, nor do you like these time-tested and academically sound dictionaries because none of that supports the definition of "child" that you've taken it upon yourself to assign. This is why Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of middle schoolers and people who are too lazy to do real research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.83.150 (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Any edit that is controversial should be discussed on the talk page and you should seek consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS. So please do that. Fortunately or unfortunately, middle schoolers or high schoolers, that's the wikipedia way. --regentspark (comment) 09:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Anmolbhat

Anmolbhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Persistent edit warring, restoring unsourced or non-RS content in Hinduism, Hindu cosmology etc. Instead of providing the requested sources, they add, It's very heartbreaking how you are targeting Hinduism. Warned by multiple editors. I am wondering if they need some admin counseling or nudge to get help / guidance at teahouse, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I took a look and will drop a note on their talk page. I see that they are repeatedly adding large chunks to the page but am not sure if that's subtle edit warring or just different content. Keep me posted. --regentspark (comment) 19:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing?

This looks like it was done before your warning and there might possibly be other IPs too. Just an FYI in case you were unaware.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Iron Age India

User:NadirAli reverted the title of Bronze Age India and Iron Age India again. After you clearly told him to build consensus on the talk page. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:BCA2:321B:2B37:338C (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC))

Hey, Can you please move the page back to Iron Age India. I believe contested moves should go through move request, Not move first and then get consensus . RazerTalk 05:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it's been taken care of.--regentspark (comment) 12:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1. I noticed that you recently removed content from Manhattan without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Mangal Pandey

Hi, you semi-protected Mangal Pandey a while ago, that has expired and I'm afraid the anons are continuing to be disruptive. Would a longer period of semi be worthwhile? - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. 3 months this time. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Weird image

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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, [[11]] 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)

Mail

Hello, RegentsPark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Moves of sourced Nair-related articles

See here. They're moving articles that, prima facie, have some sort of connection to Nair per the cited sources. And they're adding unsourced stuff to justify the moves. I could probably move them back but I am going out and I suspect a move war might develop anyway. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked as a suspected sock anyway but thanks for moving the things back from whence they came. - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam4math

He's still evading his block now using 107.77.240.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It's a static IP as well[12] —MBlaze Lightning T 06:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Though a static IP, it looks like they're using public machines (probably at a school/university). Let's watch and see. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_29&oldid=1139200301"