User talk:OrangesRyellow

This user may have left Wikipedia. OrangesRyellow has not edited Wikipedia since March 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Note regarding email: When I tried to register email accounts with my exact username, I found that those account names had already been taken. If you receive emails seemingly from me, please do not assume it is me simply because the email account name is same as my username here. At the very least, please check to make sure that the email comes through the Wikipedia emailing system and is coming from this Wikipedia useraccount only. Thanks.

 [2]

Hello, OrangesRyellow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! reddogsix (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your post in the RfC on Caste. Please respond. (See Talk:Caste.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you move most of the content of User:OrangesRyellow to your sandbox or some other sub-page? Everything from the sentence beginning "This is a list of terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012." has the appearance of being a draft article and it is inappropriate to have such things on the main user page. Please take a look at Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages.3F. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had picked that markup from some existing Wikipedia article (to study it's markup and practice my own markup on it).OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still should not be on your main user page. If you are unsure how to move it then just let me know & I'll do it for you. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more convenient to have it there and I do not see why it should not be there. Please no not worry about every little thing.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a breach. Either you move it or I do. You have no choice beyond that. - Sitush (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your problem? There is not breach. If you do anything there, I do have a choice. I will revert it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrangesRyellow. I moved the article to User:OrangesRyellow/Sandbox. Keeping it on your user page is inappropriate but you can use your sandbox to build on the article if you like. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what problem does it cause if it remains on my userpage? Another user had assumed that it is some kind of a draft. It is not, as I have explained above (within this thread). If you guys are too shy of showing things about Pakistan, why do you allow the article to remain in main article space? If it is not a problem there, how can it be a problem here? Is there some rule that the userpage cannot be used like a sandbox etc.?OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal OrangesRyellow. The material is there in your user space, just not on your user page. User pages are generally meant for information about you as a Wikipedian and material about articles is not encouraged there. In fact, it is not encouraged even in your sandbox but I've moved it there anyway for the time being to give you time to incorporate your material into the article. --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a big deal. You have deleted my userpage. And you have still not explined yourself why you need to do this. Bloody Pakistani POV. You are dishonestly trying to make it appear as if it is a draft. It is not. It is a copy of some other existing article. Now restore my userpage.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like a draft - and WP:POLEMIC to me as well. Certainly needed to be moved elsewhere, and if it's not used in an article soon, it will likely need to be deleted fullscale. Beware of the personal attacks you used above, as they can lead to sanctions. Let me know if I can be of more help dangerouspanda 14:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a draft, but a copy of an existing article. This article Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012. How many times do I need to repeat? If you cannot even understand that much, how can I believe you could see through Pakistani tricksters. I am sorry, but has anyone asked you if you are naive? I am sure you don't have any experience with Pakistanis.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was merely a copy then it violated Wikipedia's copyright rules by not having attribution to the original editors. I stated clearly that it looked like a draft ... and appearances are often more important (it sure did not look exactly like any article on Wikipedia that I have seen...didn't even match the format we're required to use). As a journalist that has spent time in South Asia, I can guarantee you that I "have experience with Pakistanis" and that I'm not naive. dangerouspanda 09:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If attribution is the problem, then that could be solved. I have no objection giving attribution and credit should certainly be given where it is due. It is just that I did not think that this could be an issue because I was not trying to pass it off as something I had written. But I still have to find out how to add attribution for other eds. I also have a copy of another article in another sandbox.[3] So, attribution may be needed there too. As for that article's format, it is in list format and Wikipedia seems to have thousands of articles in that particular format. If you have not seen them, it could mean you have not been around on WP too much. But it does not mean that such articles do not exist. Well, you may have had some experience with Pakistanis, but I am yet to meet any naive person who would not guarantee that they are not naive.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and now you see why it had to go into a sandbox. No need to attribute if it's something you're playing around with in order to learn coding, etc. It also is less likely considered to be WP:POLEMIC, and therefore less likely to be immediately deleted without warning. You did not take the entire article - which was your claim; you took portions. Of course I have created articles that include lists, so don't be ridiculous. Before you make bizarre suggestions like that I "haven't been around WP [sic] too much", you would be wise to a) check my contributions, and then b) check the contributions of my primary account. Let me know then if your "holier than thou" attitude (or indeed, your now-escalating personal attacks) has any valid reason to continue. dangerouspanda 10:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss with your Pakistani stuff. Aside from the nasty racial stereotyping, you seem to be under the impression that I have some sort of connection with Pakistan. I have no idea where you get that from but it looks likely that you have jumped to a conclusion somewhere down the line and now cannot get it out of your head. It is an incorrect assumption and you should withdraw it. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotyping should not be a problem for you. You yourself have been ascribing "Hindutva" outlook to lots of people at WT:IN and various other places. You say my thinking is incorrect. Well, you tell me, except for the Pakistani POV, what POV could be troubled by a long list of troubles in Pakistan [4]? Actions speak louder than words?OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not racially stereotyped anyone, anywhere (aside perhaps from Drmies, an admin with whom I sometimes share a few light-hearted moments). None of those who have responded to your comments here are troubled by the list of terrorist incidents, as far as I am aware. We are troubled about your breach of community consensus. I suggest that you drop this or at least amend your tone because you are digging quite a big hole for yourself here: each response that you have provided so far is taking you closer to a block for personal attacks. You made a report at WP:ANI, it is still active and the boomerang effect is not uncommon there. - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love your explanation: "these two fatalities in Pakistan can be neglected". I thought they were interesting, but ok. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortibus (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am glad someone noticed. :) OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is edit warring. Stop posting hypocritical warning templates here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD, It may be an essay but with the policy support that I have, sorry but you lose. I am off to bed but either you self-revert and discuss or you face the consequences. There is room for discussion and you have admitted that in your last post on the article talk page. I know a POV warrior when I see one and I know the policies far better than you do. So far, all you have done is fail to gain consensus at numerous venues, including WP:ANI. I suggest that you learn to walk before you run: I am happy to help you in that process and would encourage you in it. What I will not do is bow down to someone who has a proven, noted POV agenda (again, as confirmed at ANI). - Sitush (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brd applies to you as much as it does to me. There is always room for discussion and I welcome sorting out issues through discussion. However, you seem to have an extreme talent for constant fighting. That you have been longer on Wikipedia does not mean that only your (agenda driven) interpretation of policy is right. You are the one who is fighting all the time to further your Pakistani POV agenda of whitewashing human rights violations in Pakistan. And do I want to learn anything from shameless people who indulge in lowly practices like canvassing?OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you accuse me of Pakistani POV or canvassing once more, I'll lead you to your block. As for the remainder of your comment, you clearly have not read WP:BRD: you were bold in inserting Khan's comment, I reverted' you and then we should discuss. Instead, you reinstated the comment. Now, stop it please. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to expand Women in Chad that you created. Since you have created the article I suppose that you'd be interested.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yogesh Khandke. Thanks for taking an interest in the article and for providing much more context. ... However, somehow I suspect that editing the article anymore will result in constant fighting and will be unproductive, maybe even counterproductive. ... So, you can make your own decision whether you want to edit it anymore...OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I come across as being a bit mysterious/cryptic. You can just go ahead and see what happens...OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, sigh! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out[edit]

I would like your opinion and appropriate action on this edit. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask for action. - Sitush (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See. Just as I predicted. The fighting has started already. Better leave the article. I have a great distaste for fighting over trivial matters and am trying to find a way to stop the hounding. Maybe I will just edit a hundred articles and let the hounding continue through all of them and then post it all at ANI. And then, if nothing happens, rub it all in Jimbo's face. What do you think?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It was your baby so I brought it to your notice, I understand your predicament. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts. It is just that I do not think it can be good to interact with this user. You know, there are some drugs (like Tramadol) which could make people seek out fights in a zombie robot like fashion.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to engage with me then don't post stupid comments when you know I am watching. Especially when they are grossly incorrect speculation regarding editing practices. You really, really need to disengage from Yogesh, imo. Although I (and others) doubt very much that you are a new contributor & so perhaps should be capable of working that out for yourself. You and he are the ones who are getting into trouble, not me, and I'd be surprised if you are not both blocked again before long. Just stick to building the encyclopaedia: you can speculate with Yogesh as much as you wish via email etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could engage more in building the encyclopedia if you would stop interfering with my efforts and with things I am interested in.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I had your talk page watchlisted weeks ago, before Yogesh came on the scene. I've had his watchlisted for well over a year. Yogesh has a troublesome history here, which is one reason why he has been subjected to blocks and a topic ban etc. Given that history, it is entirely reasonable to keep an eye on what he does.

Similarly, various concerns have been raised regarding your contributions. As with Yogesh, it is far from being the case that I follow everything you do but there is enough reasonable doubt & actual practical outcomes to counter any charge of stalking etc, plus our paths will in any event overlap fairly frequently both in articles and via user talk pages that we both watch/contribute to. I think you were told this by someone else only a few days ago - Qwyrxian or Drmies or someone like that.

You are already contributing to many articles that I have not looked at. I am not going out of my way to do so either. I would strongly advise you against a trip to ANI any time soon, though. You've been mentioned twice there since your arrival in September and on neither occasion did the outcome favour you: that is exactly a part of the pattern that culminated in Yogesh getting into so much hot water. He had too many visits and ended up on the "wrong side" every time - ANI is a fairly high-profile place and having your name popping up there frequently in such circumstances is not going to help your cause. Nor will appealing to Jimbo, I suspect. But, of course, that is entirely up to you. However, not rushing to the defence of Yogesh is probably a good move: defend him when you are sure but not otherwise, else you might end up being another MangoWong, ThisThat2011 or any one of a number of other acolytes who have fallen by the wayside. And that would be a shame because I have no doubt that you have much to offer. - Sitush (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody told me that our paths would cross frequently. I am looking far a way to avoid interacting with you. If there are doubts about my editing, there are lots of users who can look through them. I see your activities in some of the articles which I had edited recently as stalking. If you stop stalking my edits, you are unlikely to have complications with me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is part of the problem: you have accused me (and several others) of things that are patently not per the definitions used on Wikipedia. Just as there is a difference between puffery and WP:PUFFERY, so too there is a difference between stalking and WP:STALKING, and your accusations of a pro-Pakistani POV simply display a gross breach of WP:AGF and research. If you are involved with Indic stuff (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka ... you name it), then you'll likely struggle to avoid me. Your best bet in those areas would probably be music or movies, where I tend only to copyedit and fix the aforementioned puffery etc. Oh, and the various articles on specific deities tend to make my eyes bleed. - Sitush (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Conspiracy theories about attack on Malala. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Malala Yousafzai#Public reactions. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Malala Yousafzai#Public reactions – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deleting administrator has emailed the deleted article as I requested him have another look at the deletion. Please check his talk page for more.[5] I will be creating a sandbox. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just bear in mind WP:STALEDRAFT. It will likely end up at WP:MFD unless it is developed within a reasonable time (say, a month or two) & a review/move looks likely. - Sitush (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yogesh. I am glad that someone has taken an interest in resurrecting the article. I am sure it can be a stand-alone article in its own right. There is much which can be said about conspiracy theories around Malala attack which cannot be included in the main article on Malala. Looking forward to help from you in developing the article. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I hope you have noticed my reply to your latest comment in an above section.

Actually I considered that application of A/10 used in its deletion inappropriate, so I took it as far as I could, my arguments were more technical/procedural and not related to content. Pakistan isn't one of my favourite subjects, secondly I am terrible strapped for time and this flurry of activity is because of a Diwali time lull in business. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just felt that you should strike out few sentences here. Just an opinion. --sarvajna (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is normal for people to request and offer such substances on Wikipedia, I do not see much wrong in me pointing it out.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reflect on the "use" of your responses , have you heard of being forced out of the ring with an uneven enforcement of civility or selective application /amnesia of rules it happens . :) Intothefire (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, ITF - you are on a last warning regarding this sort of comment. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever interacted with JanetteDoe before or are you just being a shit-stirrer? FWIW, see User talk:Dennis Brown - another admin. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why you wanted to get involved in this spat is beyond me. All it seems likely to demonstrate is what quite a few have suspected for some time, ie: you are either socking or a returning user with a new account. The first is wrong; the latter is ok but it might be best to disclose. I've had involvement with Giano somewhere in the past and also, separately, with Coren: that particular battle is not going to go away and inserting yourself into it will bring more grief than is worth the effort. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to criticize people, you should inform them so that they can defend themselves if they feel like it. Criticizing people behind their backs is not good.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it looks like you were stalking. I don't suppose you read my talk archives for September, did you? Or User talk:Dennis Brown? Or perhaps look back to contributions by myself and Orlady around February last year? You are shit-stirring, Oranges, and you are being led down the wrong path by people such as ItF and Yogesh, both of whom do not exactly have great records of getting things right or, indeed, even understanding policy. If you want to be some sort of civility police here then god help you: all you'll get is a load of grief. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You accusing me of stalking? Pot calling the bucket yellow/brown/whatever? Ask yourself, is it not you who keeps sifting through all my edits, and the edits of numerous other users? You seem to be doing it all the time.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had Orlady's page watched since Jan/Feb last year when she helped me with my first WP:GA; I've contributed to various discussions relating to recent events concerning ArbCom and have those watched also. I've also contributed to thousands of articles and have a good few of those watched. That is not stalking.

I'm still waiting to see your response regarding past interactions, and I know I'm not going to get a response to the obvious other point. It is probably best to stick to your own battles and not get drawn into the crap that surrounds your on-wiki friends. One is topic banned for a reason and is consistently proven to be wrong even in areas where their ban does not apply; another refuses to take their complaints to WP:ANI because they know they'll "lose" (they've said as much somewhere, IIRC, arguing that ANI is corrupt/biassed). Getting yourself involved is asking for trouble and, believe me, you would not be the first to either burn-out or be blocked for blindly supporting those people. Just get on with building the encyclopedia and leave the politics to people who seems often to have nothing better to do than promote religious, political and nationalist POVs all over the shop. FWIW, I quite often ignore situations where, for example, Malleus is in trouble yet again - I like the guy and I've met him but that doesn't mean that I have to hang off his shirt-tails or come to his defence on every occasion. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked. As of now, I have 1479 pages watched (excluding talk pages) and there have been 431 changes to those in the last 168 hours. I've been unwatching some of late - the figure was > 2000. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There can be a lot of things which could be "obvious" to lots of paranoid folks. It is not on me to help them out of their problem. I do not understand a lot of what you are saying and you cannot expect me to understand unless you provide background and diffs to explain what you are talking about. This is the end of this conversation as far as I am concerned.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You ask for examples. Take a look at MangoWong, Zuggernaut, Thisthat2011 and Ror Is King for starters. Plus block logs for those people and your friends. Put the name of those friends into the archive search box at WT:INB or WP:ANI also. I'm not saying that you should avoid anyone, merely suggesting that you should choose your battles and perhaps understand a bit more of what you are getting into before you engage. Still not got an answer to my query, have I?- Sitush (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would clarify at ANI why Doncram is not at fault for issues detailed at "Doncram at lists of various churches", including ownership, personal attacks, edit-warring based on carelessness, and harassing other editors into months-long departures from the project. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a pot-kettle type of situation there. Is it not hypocritical to take note of problems on one side but ignore (probably greater problems) the other side of the coin?OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I didn't expect to find Nyttend editing (lobbying?) here. I came here to ask OrangesRyellow to clarify comment at the ANI, "Oppose I have seen enough of Sitush's extreme behavior, including the starting comment on this thread, to think that Don's behavior could be the problem here." That was followed by another editor's "Huh?". I think you meant to say you've seen enough to think that Sitush's behavior could be the problem. Either way, I wonder if you could possibly please edit to clarify, and hope no one takes this as undue lobbying. Also, thank you for some sympathetic comments, including one that I quoted from in a recent comment at what is now the bottom of a long ANI. --doncram 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oranges' comment is certainly nonsensical, probably due to a word or two going missing during the edit (been there, done that!). I have no problem with it being clarified. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confusing "verifiable" with "verified", and probably also "contentious" with "benign". Please do not rip up articles without at least doing a simple web search & take note of what Dr Blofeld said in response to your query of a few days ago. You removed a perfectly good source and some easily verifiable info: that is not a clean up but wanton destruction. If you cannot edit Pakistan-related articles neutrally & sensibly then perhaps best not to touch them at all. Thanks. Sitush (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Wikipedia is some kind of blog hosting service where people can deposit unsourced info and expect it to survive merely because it looks legit. That they have to provide sources is a basic requirement. If it is easy to find and add proper sources for that info, why was it not added already? If I delete unsourced info, it is not on me to find sources for that info. I am perfectly within my rights to delete unsourced info. If you reinsert unsourced info which I deleted, be sure to add proper sources. The burden of proof is on you. There is nothing non neutral about deleting unsourced stuff. We even had a long discussion at the village pump about unsourced and poorly written Pakistan articles and there was considerable support for mass deleting such articles entirely. I am being lenient in that I am leaving them stubbed. I usually leave properly sourced content unless it is undesirable in some other way and I have also been nuking unsourced stuff from non Pakistan articles. My dislike is for unverified stuff, not with your lovely Pakistan.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection or affinity with Pakistan and your wikilawyering will not wash with me. You deleted a valid source & so turned the article into an unsourced BLP, you failed to explain your other deletions and you failed to explain your concerns before rushing off to BLPN. This is not about your rights or mine: you are being careless, and not just at one article. Do I have the will to check everything you have done recently? No, but hopefully someone else has because it concerns me greatly and I am not the only person to have raised concern. In such circumstances, stalking could be justified. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you talking about stalking? I did not raise it anywhere in relation to the Kurd article. You do not even seem to be reading my comments. Who else is worried about me deleting unsourced stuff? Which valid source did I delete? Stop making false claims. I had to rush to BLPN because you had some kind of fanatical urgency about reinserting contentious, defamatory material without proper sourcing. You have added some sources only after I took it to BLPN. Why couldn't you wait reinserting until completion of discussion at talk page? And I do have a right to delete unsourced stuff, as does everyone else. It is about my rights because you seem to be trying to usurp that right from me and your Pakistani POV has always been obvious to me ever since you were troubled merely by looking at the long list of troubles in Pakistan on my user page. You have reinforced my perception by whitewashing properly sourced negative info about Pakistan from various other Pakistan related articles.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a valid source (Daily Times) in this series of edits. Even if it did not support the entirety of a statement, it was easy to make an informative statement from it. I've already explained that Blofeld has expressed concerns. The sources were being added even before you went to BLPN, and the statements were being adjusted, eg: here. If you think that I have a Pakistani POV then take it to ANI because, believe me, the last think we want here is more people pushing their POV on Indian and Pakistani stuff. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You will never stop making false claims, will you? Here is the material "Kurd was arrested on 29 April 2007 in Quetta on the charges of inciting people during an absentia funeral of Nawab Akbar Bugti a year earlier. Upon protests from lawyers, he was released." And this [6] is the sourced which was supposed to delete it and which I deleted. I still do not think it could support the statement it was supposed to support. You can go to RSN/ANI/ARB/DRN/start and RFC/go to FBI/CIA/Mossad/KGB/Cheka/SS/MI5/MI6/UNO/UNESCO/UNICEF/WHO/whatever catches your fancy to get a certificate that the above material could be properly sourced by the given source. I would still say that it cannot. I do not think it is of any use to continue arguing over it. Stop it.

I had myself gone to Dr. Blofeld seeking guidance from an ed who has earned my respect. I value what he said. You need not make a song and dance of it. Period.

You had added that "source" in a further reading section here. I do not regard it as "source" for article content.

I do not see why I am expected to take your Pakistani POV to ani. Is it a blockable offense?

This whole conversation seems unproductive to me. Please discontinue it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer your question, yes, POV pushing is blockable because it is disruptive. They might just give me a stern talking-to but, in any event, you cannot keep making these unsubstantiated accusations of pov pushing - look what happened to Intothefire. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just rebuilt Alhamra Arts Council using sources that you had removed from the article. I've also removed the tags: I have no idea why you were querying the notability of something that you presumably knew from your reading of the source had won a notable architectural prize, ie: the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Anyways, the complex seems notable to me but feel free to send it to WP:AFD if you must.

As a suggestion, if you remove copyvio or similar in future, it can be useful to retain the source even if that means placing it in an external links or further reading section. Similarly, sources that obviously have merit but you remove for some other reason might best be placed there. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think just winning an award (which I never heard of) makes something notable. I could not find too many news sources mentioning it, so I wanted its notability to be checked by others. I have no inclination to pursue it any further.

About leaving sources when removing copyvio, please take your own advice, while removing negative info about Pakistan from an article, you claimed copyvio on much of the deleted content, but did not leave the sources.[7].OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I said. I said it was close paraphrasing and "police believe it was a dispute between criminals". That is, it was irrelevant to the article. Yet again, you are accusing me of pov pushing. Put up or shut up, please. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a diff of about 80 edits by you [8]. If you look into the edit summaries of intervening edits, you have claimed "copyvio" in lots of those edits.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation is frequent on Indian and Pakistani articles. If the sources have merit then they should be retained either by rewriting the violation or by adding to further reading. The latter is easy in an article but less so in a long list. You are well aware that the list you refer to had numerous statements that were both copyvios and of no merit vis-a-vis the purpose of the list, as in the first example that you gave.

I offered a suggestion that I know has the support of sensible people. You can take or leave that suggestion but, either way, if you continue to demonstrate a lack of common sense then you can expect me to follow you around and fixing any poor contributions while the sources are not buried deep in history. I am sure that you do not want me on your back but if that is what it takes to protect the integrity of this project then it is what will happen. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think copyvios are are particular problems in India-Pakistan articles. If you think it necessary that someone deleting copyvios must retain sources, get the copyvio policy to say that. I think the primary concern is to remove the copyvio and I did that. If someone wants to rewrite the material, they can do so, it is not necessary for me to retain the copyvio source or to rewrite the material. If you seriously believe deleting copyvio along with the source is demonstrative of lack of common sense, take it to ANI and get me blocked, but your extreme demands do not allow you to hound me. I have deleted copyvios, unsourced stuff and improperly sourced stuff and I am going to continue doing so. If you seriously believe doing things like these is compromising the integrity of the project, take it to ANI. I think you are creating hurdles in the way of me fixing serious problems and I see that as a problem.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That copyvios are a big problem with India/Pakistan articles is well-known here. I didn't say that you should leave copyvio in an article. The policy is clear: rewrite or delete, with possibly the emphasis on rewriting where feasible. What I did say was that there is a halfway house that is constructive rather than being entirely destructive, ie: if the copyvio'd source has merit but you cannot rewrite then delete the violation but retain the source so that someone better equipped than you to rewrite does not also have to reinvent the sourcing wheel. I can deal with the integrity issue without taking you to ANI; my point was merely to explain why it is I will be following you round if you choose not to accept my suggestion. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through quite a few Pakistan related articles and I do not see copyvios as much of a problem there. Others are free to disagree, but I have my opinion based on what I see. The major problem that I see with Pakistan related articles is that they are mostly unsourced, or improperly sourced, or simply saying defamatory/glorificatory things which are unencyclopedic. Again, others are free to disagree. If you want to resurrect the unsourced content which I delete and provide sources for them, and if you want to fix copyvio sources and material which I delete, you are welcome to do so, but don't land on my talk page or elsewhere saying that I have done something wrong.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said you have done something wrong in relation to this thread. I do think that you are being less than collaborative by completely removing potentially valid sources and my suggestion was based on the collaborative ethos that is at the heart of this project. If you choose to adopt some less-than-collaborative alternative then that reflects badly on you rather than on me, and it creates more work for everyone else. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were not saying that I had done something wrong, then perhaps I have misread you and there is no problem at all. From now on, I will leave a diff of deleted material on talk pages to make it easier for you or anyone who may want to recover anything from the material which I delete.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier for you to do as I suggest because it reduces the number of clicks etc and is accessible to people who often seem not to realise that we even have talk pages (ie: the general reader rather than a contributor). I am sure that you are capable of determining what is or is not a source of merit and to place them appropriately in EL or FR. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is good in some ways, but does not work for me in most cases. The difficulty is that I have some fixed ideas about what is/isnot suitable for FR/EL sections. Most of the sources which I delete would not be covering the article scope as a whole or not even a major part of its scope. They would usually be used for some small tidbit of info and I would not consider them suitable for FR/EL sections. That is why, I think placing a diff on the talk page is more prudent even if it means a bit of extra effort on my part.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here of "admins are clearly engaging in racist behavior here" is completely unacceptable. Accusations of racism, sexism, or just about any kind of "ism" are not tolerated on this project; especially when there is nothing to verify such defamation. Quite frankly, had this been directed at an individual editor, you would most likely be blocked at this point. Please read No personal attacks and understand that this is something this project takes quite seriously. Any further attacks such as this will be most likely be met with block. — Ched :  ?  07:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you retract that comment. I see no evidence of racism from Boing or any other admin (including myself), and find it a very offensive accusation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too see no evidence of racist behavior on your part. Actually, I appreciate your efforts on WP very much. You, and others can disagree with what I said because you too have a right to voice your opinion.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OrangesRyellow, you have frequently voiced your opinion in a manner that is offensive or otherwise detrimental to collaborative editing. As on this occasion, you have even done so at WP:ANI. This is rather like you pinning a target on your back. I suggest that you think twice before doing something similar again, and that you nip over to the ANI thread and apologise. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is too mcuh incivil beahvoir on wiki , see also on wikipedia bias https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.wikipedia/u4dJIwvCQc4 --Nvihlhe (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
10		Rawat, Murree (talk)						Add sources
145		Blasphemy law (talk)						Add sources
43		Hindko dialect (talk)						Add sources
2		Perhinna (talk)						Add sources
168		Off-color humor (talk)						Add sources
10		Java Institute for Advance Technology (talk)						Add sources
2		Ghous Bux Khan Mahar (talk)						Cleanup
5		Dheri (talk)						Cleanup
1		Ghafe (talk)						Cleanup
22		Battagram District (talk)						Expand
184		Khorasan (Islamist group) (talk)						Expand
70		Omar Bakri Muhammad (talk)						Expand
33		Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
405		East Pakistan (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
125		Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
155		Hephthalite Empire (talk)						Merge
2		Gunjial Janubi (talk)						Merge
97		Solar maximum (talk)						Merge
65		Textile industry in Pakistan (talk)						Wikify
8		Facultad de Ciencias Medicas Sancti Spiritus (talk)						Wikify
96		Rape in Pakistan (talk)						Wikify
6		Muhammad Ajmal (talk)						Orphan
2		Baroo (talk)						Orphan
2		Alamgarh (talk)						Orphan
2		Mohandri (talk)						Stub
90		Bangladesh Cricket Board (talk)						Stub
2		Talhata (talk)						Stub
2		Jante, Nepal (talk)						Stub
2		Kehal Urban (talk)						Stub
1		Jaloo, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrangesRyellow -- thanks for the CB and your welcome re. Oxford sex gang and Telford sex gang. I'm not an expert Wikipedian, so make mistakes in formatting (and wikiquette). So clean-up would be appreciated. I'll try to add more to the articles in time. There's a lot of material, unfortunately, but so it goes at present in the UK. CurrentUK (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CurrentUK. It is always a pleasure to welcome new users. I too am no expert on Wikipedia. Wikipedia looks bewildering at first, but things will become clearer with some time and effort. I am aware that there is a lot which can be added/improved in those articles (been through a lot of sources). Will join in as I find the time. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I'm now on the lurning kurve and adding stuff when I can. CurrentUK (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this [9]? [10], [11], [12], [13]? God help Britain! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Britain can help itself without comments from you or help from a god. However, this is a useful comment for me to add to my collection demonstrating your ani-Muslim, anti-Pakistan POV, so thanks for that. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OrangesRyellow, you have been warned before about making personal attacks. Your recent attack, here, in which you likened named admins to "Nazis lording it over Jews" was utterly unacceptable - if I ever see you repeat such an obnoxious attack again, you should expect to be blocked for a lot longer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review - OrangesRyellow, where I have requested a review of this block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to make any comments at ANI, please post them here and I'm sure someone will copy them over for you - I'm watching this page and will be happy to oblige myself, though I have a busy day and can't promise prompt action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere have I ever likened anyone to Nazis. You have blocked me by misrepresenting and cherry-picking my words. I was only illustrating the effect of giving paramount power and hearing to people from only one side of an equation and the Nazi-Jew thing is an easily recognizable illustration of that phenomenon. There is nothing nefarious or PA there.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want that copied to ANI? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(And to answer, if you liken A to B, then B to C, then you are still likening A to C. Any analogy that ends in a comparison with Nazi treatment of Jews is still horribly obnoxious, however many steps separate A and C - and even assuming good faith, you surely know that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

My apologies: I've already copied it there. I can remove it if you wish. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you did -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are falsely claiming that I am likening people Nazis. I am not. I am illustrating the effect of giving paramount power and a hearing to one side of an equation only. Mathsci was saying that some particular people will have more weight (that means it would not matter what people on the other side are saying) at ARB and three out of four are decidedly on one side of the fence. There is nothing wrong with illustrating the dastardly effect of a one-sided hearing.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC) It is the effect of a selective and one-sided hearing which is obnoxious. You are confusing that with some people. "People" and effect of a selective and one-sided hearing are different things.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want that copied to ANI? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added something to my previous comment. Please do copy.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a reply for YogeshKhandke.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@YogeshKhandke. There was no provocation. So, why should I retaliate? And who am I supposed to be retaliating at without a provocation? There is no provocation-retaliation or anything like it. Please read my comment in question and subsequent comments. I have now clarified several times that I was not likening anyone to Nazis. Since I made that comment, I should know what I was saying. How can you guys know better than me about what I am saying? If you want an undertaking, I am happy to give an undertaking that I would not liken any user to a Nazi.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For me to unblock, I would need to see my additional condition fulfilled that you will strive to avoid further hurtful hyperbole -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not salubrious what is being done here. Mr T^(Talk?) 11:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at PinkAmpers&'s immensely helpful and insightful comment, particularly the Godwin's Law article, I can see the downside of mentioning "Nazi" even to illustrate a point, even when it is not intended as any kind of PA. Looking into their and some other people's comments, I can also see the benefits of trying to avoid hyperbole and will strive to do so on my own. But I see that you know Sitush personally and have a close involvement with him/her. It seems that you are here only to help Sitush turn these articles into his/her personal fiefdom. As such, I cannot rely on you to interpret "further hurtful hyperbole" in a neutral, balanced fashion and cannot give that undertaking to you. I see that this article sphere is being adminned by a small group of mostly involved admins. That is not how articles spheres are supposed to be adminned. I see this as a failure of Wikipedia adminning process. This article sphere is infamous for various problems and I think rather that eds, the problem is due to the failure of adminning process whereby articles are supposed to be adminned by uninvolved admins, rather than a small group of involved admins. If some admin is taking continuous interest in one particular area of articles, they must be having some kind of involvement/interest in the content in that area. That is not respectable adminning and will clearly lead to problems, as indeed it is here. It creates a situation where eds from only one particular orientation will have paramount power on article content and the eds on the other side will get butchered. I do not think this article sphere has any problems that do not exist in other article spheres. Other admins are being kept away by the continuous propaganda that this sphere is problematic and a small band of involved admins continues to occupy "their turf". Thanks and everything.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC) You block summary that I am likening admins to "Nazis lording it over Jews" is misleading (deliberately?)OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm glad to see that you've found my advice helpful. If I may so presume as to give some more...: A point worth remembering here is that most of the Indian-subcontinent articles on Wikipedia suck. This isn't the fault of any editor or group of editors; rather, it's a consequence of Wikipedia's systemic bias. The majority of veteran users don't care that much about Indian/South Asian topics, which means that a lot of the articles get written by people who, unfortunately, don't have as good a grasp on the English language (or Wikipedia policy, or wiki markup) as we'd like. So sometimes keeping those pages readable requires some heavy-handed action, and often it can be maddeningly frustrating to deal with disputes in these arenas. (I once had to stop helping a new Indian editor with an article on his company after he started yelling at me for refusing to "like" them on Facebook.) Long story short, most editors, myself included, choose to just stay away from all this, leaving only a few dedicated contributors to hold up the fort. Obviously this isn't ideal, and definitely can lead to problems where the lines of INVOLVED, WP:OWN, etc., get blurred... but I think it's important to understand why things are the way they are, as, in my opinion, it somewhat mitigates what you're complaining about. In a more perfect world, South Asian articles would be edited by as many competent editors as other articles, but, in reality, they aren't, and sometimes the rules have to be bent in the interest of the encyclopedia.

Obviously this is just my personal view, and I understand if you disagree with it, but I hope you'll consider some of the points I've raised here. Regards. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about what you have said and I can understand your reasons for saying what you say. I agree most of those articles suck. I feel systemic bias should not to be blamed for the poor state of South Asia related articles. AFAIK, the number of South Asians who can speak good English is greater than the number of people who can do so in most other parts of the world (excluding places like USA, Canada, Australia, UK). IMO, systemic bias should be working in favor of these articles. But it isn't. I think the reason is "a few dedicated contributors". If you look a bit more closely, you may agree that it is this small group of "a few dedicated contributors" who are continuously spreading the false and pernicious propaganda that this article sphere is particularly problematic. This propaganda discourages uninvolved admins from taking interest in adminning this area. I do not see any problems in this area that uninvolved, disinterested admins do not deal with in other article spheres. IOW, this small group of "a few dedicated contributors" is causing this failure of the normal adminning process. (You may also consider the point that lots of eds in other article spheres would want to double up as admins on the articles they edit, for obvious reasons. They are not allowed to do so, for obvious reasons. But some eds seem to have been able to trick the community into allowing them to do so here. Why they would want to do so should be obvious. If eds in other spheres cannot live with INVOLVED and OWN violations, it is unreasonable to expect eds in this sphere to be able to do so. So, you see the reason for a lack of ed interest in this area.) The way to solve this failure in adminning process would be to call their bluff on their false propaganda. With proper adminning, I feel much more people with better grasp of English and Wikipedia policies, markup etc. will take interest and ... will not be driven away even when they do take interest. So, calling this bluff will improve article quality. Looking at the large number of articles in this article sphere, it is hardly reasonable to bet on a small group of eds to be able to improve article quality to anything near "satisfactory" level. This so-called small group of "few dedicated eds" has been at it for years now. If they could improve article quality, why is it that these articles still "suck" ? The community has been giving them blind support with the expectation that the articles will not suck, and the expected benefit has not materialized. Clearly, backing this group of "a few dedicated eds" is not working and we should look beyond them. I hope you can give a consideration to what I have said.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The best, indeed probably only way to "call their bluff" is to raise the issue with the wider community. You'd have to name names and provide diffs, of course. If it were a single person then you could initiate a RfC/U or (if an admin) take it to WP:AN. However, since you seem to think that there are several involved and not all are admins, RfC/U is likely to be messy and WP:AN will not apply in toto. That leaves you with WP:ANI or WP:ArbCom, and the latter are unlikely to take a behavioural case unless all other options have been explored. You could, I suppose, try to raise the issue with ArbCom using the existing WP:ARBIPA provisions but I suspect that it would get kicked back unless you have really solid grounds. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That you question the practicability of what I have said, but do not challenge the reasonability, is telling. The reasonability of what I have said remaining unchallanged means that "their bluff" has been called -- already. And it will be called again and again at every available opportunity. The game is up Sitush, and if you are wise, you know it too. It is only a matter of time from here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OrangesRyellow, I'm afraid you have missed Sitush's point entirely - are you aware of the English idiom "Put up or shut up"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...all in good time. Just let the opportunities present themselves. Hurry not.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now: you say it has been going on for ages but you need the "opportunities". What "opportunities" do you need if the evidence is already there? As Boing! says, you need to put up or shut up. After all, you have been making these vague allegations for months now. It looks like I've just called your bluff. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please copy this over to ANI and also indicate that it is addressed to Boing!SaidZebedee.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --regentspark (comment) 15:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As per this, I have now lifted the block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word Nazi is used only when when one runs out of words or in exasperation. No one ought to take such comments seriously. That it was taken meant that it was found offensive. Being offended is the judgement of the recipient of the comment. It is not about what was meant but about what was perceived. I was once blocked for comparing the editing actions of one editor with that of the Norway bomber. It was unfortunate that such a comparison was taken literally, but it was. So I have a little understanding of what could get a person blocked and what ought to get the person unblocked. My opinion is that the most formal and neutral language possible in the situation ought to be used as the debates themselves are quite contentious. I am happy that you've done what it was necessary to get yourself unblocked. Drive safely and happy journey! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PinkAmpersand's comments are a candid confession. My solution to this problem is to have more competent emic contributors, competence is gained by experience, and experience is gained by participation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at ANI and here are a great help and are appreciated. Whether emic/etic, except for the privileged group, I do not think many would take an interest in an area mired with OWN, INVOLVED problems. You may peruse my latest TLDR candidate above for more details.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is permanent, the greatest empires have been forgotten. Good times change, so do bad times. One ought to dig ones' heels in and bide time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that I have used several times but would like to repeat it again "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Things might change.-sarvajna (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit busy nowadays, I am shifting from a country to another one. I will shortly have my flight. Then I will manage the diffs. You need not to worry about them. Faizan 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OrangesRyellow, that's a positively phrased and reasonable opposing comment you made, so thanks for the courtesy of a fair answer. I would say that there's a lot of admins you never see on ANI, though, and that's fine--much of the work has nothing to do with it. When I was admin K-stick ask me to do all kinds of little things that require the tool, and those are important too: cleaning up old sandboxes, moving uncontroversial articles, merging histories. Those kinds of things are easily done with a tool, and I just don't think that Kelapstick is going to get carried away from what he usually does. I hope his RfA is successful, and I am sure you won't be disappointed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost going to give a Like when I ran into the ANI stats. It is a bit of a relief to see you not going ballistic over my O. I know ANI is only a small part of admin functions but somehow, I am still worried that the candidate could be speeding into extreme positions too soon and too many times. Whatever. My oppose is unlikely to effect the outcome and let's hope for the best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think the point Drmies is making is that although candidates are expected to have a broad knowledge of policies, this is not necessarily demonstrated by having worked in all areas. On the other hand, there are a lot of admin wannabes who pester the life out of the AN and ANI boards! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung. Regards. That's a fair point. There are so many policy areas on WP that it may be really impossible for any ed to have demonstrated a broad knowledge of all of them. However, I still feel that a candidate should have a larger footprint in this particular area.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"naturals" at adminning have which traits, exactly? ... aa:talk 09:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be a highly subjective thing. I could not give a scientifically quantifiable or provable list of attributes. But I can try giving a rough idea based on my personal idiosyncratic opinions and observations.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Well, I would rule out those who join Wikipedia with the express intent of becoming an admin, and those who are too eager to get the bit and constantly ply admins offline to nominate them. A 'natural' is probably someone who generally gnomes away creating or adding good content, knows how to handle content disputes with articles they are working on, does not comment profusely to 'managerial' areas ostensibly to get themselves noticed, is polite, calm, and reserved, and who through a long experience of simply working with content has accumulated a broad knowledge of policies and guidelines and knows how to apply them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too would rule out those who seem to have joined Wikipedia with the intent to become an admin. I agree with most, but not all of your attributes for a "natural" admin. Where I differ is that I would prefer an admin who is outgoing, helpful to others and takes much interest in helping the project in avenues beyond the scope of his/her article level interest. Someone who has experience with problem/dispute resolution, mediation etc. Someone who also has experience with the messier side of things. Someone with great diplomatic skills which were demonstrated while resolving some intractable looking problems. A person who has a demonstrated ability to convince others by explaining things clearly, by quoting policy (not just giving policy links) or otherwise. My idea of "natural" admins would be users like Dennis Brown, SlimVirgin, MzMcbride and the newly hatted Anna Frodesiak. And yes, Kudpung too. I am sure there are many more admirable admins, and I apologize for my failure in naming them all. I have had little or no interaction with any of the users I name, but I admire them all. I am not saying that our current candidate is bad. He isn't. All I am saying is that I think the mop should be given to folks with a more outgoing disposition and with a bit more experience in handling disputes/mediation etc.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I share Kudpung's irritation with folks who just make comments on admin noticeboards to get themselves noticed. But I might not mind if they were helping out with investigating, or explaining things or helping resolve the issue by using their diplomatic skills. Of course, people who just calculate which way the wind is blowing and add a pile-on support/oppose comment simply repeating things that have already been said by other users would not be appreciated.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to pardon me for this discussion being very "meta." My concern is that we, as wikipedia, have a sort of "phenotype" in our administrators. There's a lot of group-think, and there's a lot of the same sort of behavior. While I don't pay a terrible lot of attention to RFA, when I do, I am always troubled by the notion that people wish to become administrators to "fight vandalism." The word "patrol" is used a lot. In days of yore, we described adminship as "a mop and a bucket" and used "a badge and a gun" for comparison. My substantial involvement in the project ended when people switched from the mop-and-bucket type to the gun-and-badge type. I want to say this was 2006-ish. Of course we need to have people reverting changes that are vandalous (er, I am not sure that is a word), but it seems that the number of administrators far outweighs the number of administrative tasks to be done. I can think of a couple solutions for this (and I realize someone will point out here some horrid backlog of administrative tasks to be done; I can elaborate on that if anyone cares).

Anyways, the reason I mention this is (I forget the name of the user)'s RFA seemed to be one of somebody who genuinely was out to sort of ease their editing tasks, rather than fight back against some tide of vandals, et cetera. Which was refreshing to me. And then I saw your comment about a natural editor, and wondered whether there was consensus on what such is, or whether you had a well-defined idea. Call it "taking the pulse of the bureaucratic community on the encyclopedia." Thanks for humoring an old lady. I can be something of a curmudgeon. ... aa:talk 16:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you interacting with you and Kudpung was a pleasure. If anything, I should be the one to express gratitude. Your question, and Kudpung's input have helped me further crystallize my ideas on a "natural" admin. So, I think I have a better defined idea now, even if I did not have a "well defined" one earlier.

My view on the changes in Wikipedia is that all things are prone to constant changes. So, the thing to do is to understand the change and work out some fruitful and interesting way to live with the changing environment. As far as I may be allowed to, I would humbly urge you to continue your participation in the project. Surely one can find something of interest on WP. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is mutual. i do poke around my tiny corner of the encyclopedia, and try to steer clear of the dramas. so far i am doing okay. <3 ... aa:talk 14:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey OrangesRyellow

We just deployed another VisualEditor release; bugs fixed include:

• Firefox 13/14 has been temporarily blacklisted, to avoid the insertion of broken links [[./that look like this]] (50720)
• Changing a reference in a template should no longer produce the bright red "you don't have a references block!" error (bugzilla:50423)
• Notices are now shown if you're editing a protected or semi-protected page (bugzilla:50415)
• The template inspector will no longer invite you to insert parameters that are already being used (50715)
• Same as above, but with aliases (50717)
• Parameter names in the template dialogue now word-wrap (50800)
• The link inspector will not show in the top left if you hit the return key while opening it (49941)
• Hitting return twice in the link editor will no longer introduce a new line that overwrites the link (51075)
• Oddly-named categories no longer cause corruption (50702)
• The toolbar no longer occasionally covers the cursor (48787)
• Changing the formatting of text no longer occasionally scrolls you upwards (50792)

Not specific bugs, but other things; cacheing is now improved, so people should stop seeing temporary breaking when the VisualEditor updates, and RTL support has received some patches. I hope this newsletter is helpful to people; I'll send out another one with the next deployment :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey OrangesRyellow! Another set of patches :). Today we have:

• Required template parameters are now automatically added to new templates (50747)
• Templates with piped links now display correctly when you alter them (50801)
• If your edit token expires, you're now informed of it (50424).

  You still won't be able to save - that's due to be fixed on Monday :).

More on Monday, I suspect. Hope you have a good weekend :). I should also have some news about the IP launch pretty soon. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(if you're seeing this and aren't the newsletter recipient - please do sign up here)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding me unblocking Pudeo. The thread is Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey OrangesRyellow; hope you had a decent weekend :). We've got a pile of patches, some of which went out on Monday, some yesterday:

• If you insert wikitext such as links or section headers, you get a notice in the top right corner (over the save button). It doesn't go away until click, though once dismissed you don't get another one that edit. (49820)
• If your edit token expires, VE fetches a new one for you so you can save. (50424)
• If the page is empty of content but does have something non-content (like a category or an HTML comment), VE no longer crashes on load - (50289)
• sub tags are no longer removed ((49873)
• If you type at the end of links, they now extend
• Templates now only take a single click to insert
• Clear annotations clears links (50461)
• The link inspector stays open when you click to another item (50895)
• Typing after multi-byte characters no longer creats pawn icons (51140)
• Resizing thumbnails that have a default size set now works (50645)
• References made by tag:ref now display properly (bugzilla:50978)
• The VE is integrated with the spam blacklist (50826)
• Feedbacl link goes to the right language (bugzilla:47730)

There are a lot more improvements coming, but that's it for Monday and Tuesday. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to say that currently the Indian news search engine is working for me. Why don't you tell it to the user concerned that it doesn't for you? I think you should reconsider your edit on the project page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ugog Nizdast. Thanks for the update. It still does not work for me. But I have reverted my tag on the project page. If it is working for you, and not for me, I guess there must be something wrong with my internet connection. Will try again tomorrow and report to TitoDutta if necessary. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, so it still doesn't work for you? Strange...anyway good day to you. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey OrangesRyellow. The newest updates:

• Links now don't extend over space/punctuation/workbreaks when you type (bugzilla:51463)
• Users with the "minoredit" preference set get working functionality (bugzilla:51515)
• You can tab to buttons in dialogs, including the save dialog (bugzilla:50047)
• We now show the <newarticletext> (or <newarticletextanon>) message as an edit notice (bugzilla:51459)
• You can scroll dialog panels like in transclusions' templates' parameter listings (bugzilla:51739)
• Templates that only create meta-data and no display content at all (like Template:Use dmy dates) now can't be deleted accidentally or deliberately, but still don't show up (bugzilla:51322)
• FlaggedRevisions integration (bugzilla:49699)
• Edit summary will get the section title pre-added if you launched from a section edit link (bugzilla:50872)

Along with some miscellaneous language support fixes. That's all for today; as always, let us know if you spot more bugs. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective is everything. I wrote a civil comment in reply to what could be described as an uncivil response. I explained the reason for that edit. You then took it upon yourself to revert that change with a spurious edit reason - yes, people are allowed to remove what they like from their talk pages, but there is no rule that says it is wrong to respond to that civilly in an appropriate fashion. Essentially you have taken it upon yourself to censor a discussion which you have assumed that Sue would not like. So be it. I think that there is a big difference between someone removing a comment and hiding that comment and putting a derogatory characterisation to it. In doing that I believe that Sue left herself open to having that challenged.

Are you saying that you want a Wikipedia where sexual innuendo and abuse is considered the normal way of interacting with people and is acceptable? Don't you think it is reasonable to ask Sue to lead by example? We have to take it as tacitly accepted that she disagrees with that, but with your interference that's all we have.

I would like you to think about how you have interfered with a reasonable discussion and if you consider that my comments are inappropriate then so be it, but if you set aside Sue's characterisation of my comments as trolling and can see that they were meant constructively, then I would like to suggest that you revert your intervention and let people make their own mind up. Other than that, I'll let it drop. 94.169.24.206 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary, and even unlikely that Sue was describing your comment as trolling. I am not sure. But she had hatted the discussion. So, it is clear that she did not want to continue the discussion, and her wish should have been respected, not disregarded, even if politely. I did not give a spurious reason. It is a long-standing rule that once a user tells you to stop, you should stop posting on their talk page. Otherwise, the poster can be blocked for harassment. You can get this much confirmed from almost any admin. I certainly do not want sexist comments on Wikipedia. The comments were not on Wikipedia in the first place and were not sexist at all. I see no evidence that anyone was being harassed or insulted due to their gender. It is just some friends talking jovially about each other and the one getting poked happened to be female. But there is no indication that she was being targeted because of her gender. Perspective is everything, as you say. Please put it in the correct perspective and see it as some light conversation among friends, which it is. I think it is unreasonable for third parties to insert themselves into a friendly conversation and begin to see ghastly innuendo in their absolutely friendly conversation. Please try to see friendly conversations, joshing etc. as such. It is unreasonable to take these things seriously. I appreciate that you have decided to let it drop. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrangesRyellow, could I ask you to not to post any more comments on User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz? From my perspective, your comments appear to be unnecessarily confrontational. PhilKnight (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick tip: Need to wikilink a word in VisualEditor? Select the word and type Control+k or ⌘ Command+k to enter VisualEditor's link tool without taking your hands off the keyboard. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Keyboard shortcuts for more time-saving keyboard shortcuts.

It's been almost two weeks since the last newsletter, and a lot of improvements have been made during that time. The main things that people have noticed are significant improvements to speed for typing into long pages (T54012), scrolling (T54014) and deleting (T54013) on large pages. There have also been improvements to references, with the latest being support for list-defined references, which are <ref>s defined inside a <references> block (T53741). Users of Opera 12 and higher have had their web browser removed from the browser black-list, mostly as a result of work by a volunteer developer (T38000). Opera has not been fully white-listed yet, so these users will get an additional warning and request to report problems.

Significant changes were made to the user interface to de-emphasize VisualEditor. This has cut the use of VisualEditor by approximately one-third. You can read about these at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Updates/August 1, 2013, but they include:

• Re-ordering links to the editors to put "Edit source" first and VisualEditor second
• Renaming the link for VisualEditor to "Edit^beta"
• Disabling the animation for section editing.
• Changing all labels for the classic wikitext editor to say "Edit source", regardless of namespace.

There have also been many smaller fixes, including these:

• Horizontal alignment of images working correctly on more pages (T53995)
• Categories with ':'s in their names (like Category:Wikipedia:Privacy) now work correctly (T53902)
• Magic JavaScript gadgets and tools like sortable tables will now work once the page is saved (T53565)
• Keyboard shortcut for "clear annotations" - now Control+\ or ⌘ Command+\ (T53507)
• Fixed corruption bugs that led to duplicate categories (T54238) and improper collapsing when multiple new references were added in a row (T54228).
• Improvements to display elements: The save dialog in Monobook is restored to normal size (T52058), pop-up notices on save now look the same in VisualEditor as in wikitext editor (T41632), and the popup about using wikitext has a link to the definition of wikitext that now opens in a new window (T54093)

Most of the Wikimedia Foundation staff is traveling this week and next, so no updates are expected until at least August 15th. If you're going to be in Hong Kong for Wikimania 2013, say hello to James Forrester, Philippe Beaudette, and the other members of the VisualEditor team.

As always, if you have questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 23:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Indians in Bangladesh, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Zayeem ^(talk) 16:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the content I had deleted [14] and I had explained the reasons in the edit summaries. The material was coming from obvious non RS, user-generated, irrelevant, hoppingly biased non RS sources/ opinion-pieces or is simply unsourced. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding about sourcing policies and seem to think that sourced content cannot be deleted simply because it is sourced. Not so. The material was all improperly sourced and is POV (non neutral). Due to utter ignorance of sourcing policies, you have even reinserted usergenerated source like [15], and ironically, are calling my editing "disruptive". You have restored the improperly sourced, anti Bangladeshi nationalistic POV content saying Restoring referenced contents and you have done nothing to overcome my objections to the content. You have not used the article talk page to overcome my objections before restoring the content. You have posted this faux warning on my talk page while you are violating several Wikipedia sitepolicies by inserting improperly sourced content. Moreover, you are violating WP:CIVIL by posting uncalled for warning message on another user's talk while actually you are the one who is being disruptive by inserting improperly sourced content and by posting uncalled for, uncivil warning message. If you want to contest my deletions etc. on the article, try to make your case at the article talk page, without being uncivil. If you think my actions are disruptive, take in to WP:ANI and get me blocked. Don't come here to post your uncivil, ill informed warnings describing my editing as disruptive while ironically, actually your editing is disruptive. Clear?OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

TemplateData is a separate program that organizes information about the parameters that can be used in a template. VisualEditor reads that data, and uses it to populate its simplified template dialogs.

With the new TemplateData editor, it is easier to add information about parameters, because the ones you need to use are pre-loaded.

See the help page for TemplateData for more information about adding TemplateData. The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing team has reduced technical debt, simplified some workflows for template and citation editing, made major progress on Internet Explorer support, and fixed over 125 bugs and requests. Several performance improvements were made, especially to the system around re-using references and reference lists. Weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org.

There were three issues that required urgent fixes: a deployment error that meant that many buttons didn't work correctly (bugs 69856 and 69864), a problem with edit conflicts that left the editor with nowhere to go (bug 69150), and a problem in Internet Explorer 11 that caused replaced some categories with a link to the system message, MediaWiki:Badtitletext (bug 70894) when you saved. The developers apologize for the disruption, and thank the people who reported these problems quickly.

Increased support for devices and browsers[edit]

TemplateData editor[edit]

Other changes[edit]

Several interface messages and labels were changed to be simpler, clearer, or shorter, based on feedback from translators and editors. The formatting of dialogs was changed, and more changes to the appearance will be coming soon, when VisualEditor implements the new MediaWiki theme from Design. (A preview of the theme is available on Labs for developers.) The team also made some improvements for users of the Monobook skin that improved the size of text in toolbars and fixed selections that overlapped menus.

VisualEditor-MediaWiki now supplies the mw-redirect or mw-disambig class on links to redirects and disambiguation pages, so that user gadgets that colour in these in types of links can be created.

Templates' fields can be marked as 'required' in TemplateData. If a parameter is marked as required, then you cannot delete that field when you add a new template or edit an existing one (bug 60358). 

Language support improved by making annotations use bi-directional isolation (so they display correctly with cursoring behaviour as expected) and by fixing a bug that crashed VisualEditor when trying to edit a page with a dir attribute but no lang set (bug 69955).

Looking ahead[edit]

Supporting your wiki[edit]

Did you know?

VisualEditor is also available on the mobile version of Wikipedia. Login and click the pencil icon to open the page you want to edit. Click on the gear-shaped settings in the upper-right corner, to pick which editor to use. Choose "Edit" to use VisualEditor, or "Edit source" to use the wikitext editor.

It will remember whether you used wikitext or VisualEditor, and use the same editor the next time you edit an article.

The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor. Not all features are available in Mobile Web.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and requests, and worked on support for editing tables and for using non-Latin languages. Their weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org. Informal notes from the recent quarterly review were posted on Meta.

Recent improvements[edit]

TemplateData[edit]

Looking ahead[edit]

You can influence VisualEditor's design. Tell the VisualEditor team what you want changed during the office hours via IRC. The next sessions are on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC and on Wednesday 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC. You can also share your ideas at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

— Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me appeal my block extension. You put a lot of thought into it and maybe helped others to think it through, too.

Lightbreather (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about Priya's Shakti at RSN.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Some Quality Streets for you!
	Thanks for supporting me at my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but I'll keep editing as much as I can. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 12:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NP:-) It was a pleasure supporting you. What happened there was almost comical. Supposedly serious and responsible folks demanding perfection in the candidate, while other supposedly serious and responsible folks ( big hats ) were themselves making clueless comments. I don't blame them too much though. They are an overworked and harried lot. All this brings the seriousness of our community processes in question though. So, I hope you will not take all this too personally. It all says something about our community processes, rather than you. What I find most disturbing is that people seemed to be sticking to their already expressed positions even after the weakness of that position was pointed out. Whatever. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I now have a clearer definition of what disturbs me. My difficulty is with folks who go like -- "OK. I accept the basis for me saying X is all wrong, but I still say X because...blah blah blah", Obviously they have great difficulty admitting mistakes and are making it up.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]