User talk:RegentsPark

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This user is back to edit warring immediately after the block expired block expired. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second block. RegentsPark (comment) 21:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RegentsPark, If the article is clearly violating NPOV rule of wiki what can be done ? Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best is to explain the reasons why it violates WP:NPOV on the talk page. Then you can either wait for consensus or just boldly make your changes. If you make the changes and are reverted, then try to build consensus or, if that doesn't happen, use dispute resolution. RegentsPark (comment) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsParkGot it,so finally we have dispute resolution system.Say for example recently I was in discussion in 2 caste pages Daivadnya and gaud saraswat brahmin.Atleast in the first page I am able to add the content based on talk but second is pathetic even after having discussion for single edit I must rely on someone but they never help.Kindly try reducing the protection of this page (gaud saraswat brahmin) from extended editor to our level.If any sock or issue comes definitely we can increase the protection.Kindly look into it as I can feel some editors are not even following NPOV.Thanks Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsParkOne more thing,one editor is there(not taking his name to respect his dignity) who had maintain his POV for years I have challenged it for NPOV purpose .Now instead of replying wherever he goes calls me sock(not even suspected !).Isn't this void of wiki rule , isn't this demotivating nature/destructive nature?.Until now I had neglected him and didn't took it personally as per wiki article.Just guide me as this is one kind of mental harassment!,how to deal with this kind of people? Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hey Rajeshfadnavis, please show the diffs, and don't worry; I am going to warn them! Further action may also be taken! Ekdalian (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark's page is lucky to me .I found many solutions here anyhow the wiki void behavior will be addressed if it is continued by the concerned editor. Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all I'm new to editing Wikipedia so if that's not how wiki users contact each other than I'm sorry. I noticed that you (ReagentsPark) removed my edit from Battle of Panipat regarding advice given by Suraj Mal to Maratha. Reason mentioned for removal of edit was that source is unreliable. So if I will provide a source already used in the wiki article then will you republish the edit? Amitdabas123 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ReagentsParks Amitdabas123 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitdabas123: This is perfectly appropriate and thanks for checking in with me. FYI, you don't need to ping someone when you're writing on their own talk pages because the system will automatically post a notification. The problems with the text you added are that (1) you're using a source that is not reliable. Generally, for historical events, you are better off using recent academic sources rather than older ones and, in most cases, sources pre-1947 are not considered reliable, additionally (2) the text you added was not written in an encyclopedic style. Think summary style, sticking to plain and clear sentences, as the best approach. If you have material that is not already covered in the article, you should summarize it in your own words, be direct, and cite it to recent academic sources. RegentsPark (comment) 18:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. As I said earlier can I use Kaushik Roy which has been used 5 times already as citation in the said article? You can check Suraj Mal's advice in Kaushik Roy's book which has already been used 5 times in the article. Here's the link https://books.google.co.in/books?id=jpXijlqeRpIC&lpg=PA85&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q=Suraj%20Mal%20&f=false

Also just now I noticed in the reference section of the article that "History of Jats" has been used as citation before I used it again and it was removed.

So can you please further advice me if I can use both already existing sources in the article to write the said Sub section of Suraj Mal's advice to Maratha commander-in-chief? Amitdabas123 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't use pre-1947 sources if possible - whether they are already in the article or not. And paraphrase in a summary style. And include only information that is appropriate (i.e., don't just add information because it exists). If you need specific help about what is appropriate or not, you can post a message at WP:IN. RegentsPark (comment) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 25: Hacking Night @ Prime Produce

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for NYC Hacking Night at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. It is intended primarily for technical contributors, though newcomers are welcome as well! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Wikimedia's Technical Code of Conduct. Meeting info: Thursday, April 25 Hacking Night @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00 pm – 9:30 pm (Introductions + Hacking) 9:30 pm – 10:00 pm (Showcase) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind having a look? Drmies (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:. Sorry, I was off grid for a couple of weeks. I see the unblock request is still open and will take a look at it once I get my bearings! RegentsPark (comment) 13:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RegentsPark! Always nice to have you on board. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 8: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! This special WikiWednesday will feature a welcome session and beginning of a listening tour by the newly appointed executive director of Wikimedia NYC, the first staff member leading our local non-profit. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. Meeting info: Wednesday, May 8 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RegentsPark, I thought this ANI thread might be of interest to you since you warned this user in the past for such behaviour-[1]. It's clear that this user paid no heed to that warning since his edit history is dominated with gross attacks and condescending remarks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

only reason i reverted the template is because he has posted a number of duplicates, but i suppose that's fine. it just read as test edits to me. also a little unusual for a very new account, but then maybe I'm biting the newcomer... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Some newcomers hang around posting templates or making minor, often pointless, edits while they get used to Wikipedia. RegentsPark (comment) 21:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

A consensus is indeed necessitated when there exists a contention regarding the outcome of a battle, war, or siege. However, in this instance, all the wars have unequivocal results, corroborated by numerous credible sources. By perusing the links that annotate the battles, one can readily ascertain the results. The issue at hand pertains to the table of results, where victories of the Marathas were erroneously represented as defeats. I rectified this discrepancy and had also cited an incomplete list prior to the table. I implore you to abstain from such edits, as they consume my time and effort in adding or correcting information. It would be more prudent to question the editor who initially created the article, given the numerous instances of incorrect results. I trust my perspective is now lucid to you. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammad Umar Ali: It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong. If you're making a major change to an article, you should seek consensus. At the minimum, you should add a note on the talk page explaining why you're making the change. Since you've reverted me, I suggest you add that explanation to the talk page. RegentsPark (comment) 13:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RegentsPark. Firstly, I want to thank you again for helping me out a few days back with the personal attacks. I was hoping if you could take a look at the evidence I presented for RangersRus here and provide any sort of comment. I know this isn't ideal way to do things, but you have to understand that his disruption has gotten so bad now that it will be quite difficult for admins who haven't dealt with HB to deal with it. The guy is openly using, at the very least, 2 or 3 different accounts and voting in his own AFDs; it's completely appalling, he's openly mocking everyone and having a grand old time doing so. I'm fairly confident that if you read the evidence, you will also come to the conclusion that there's blatant sock puppetry going on. Please, please take a look. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also when these accounts get nailed, it'll be quite easy and straight forward to deal with any other sock accounts who attempt to disrupt AFDs. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Give me a day or two (RL busy!). RegentsPark (comment) 20:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's kinda long but I think the evidence is pretty ironclad. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark:. The bogus SPI is a repeat of previous SPI against me that two admins found unrelated. Pinging @The Wordsmith: and @Drmies: if they would to say something. I have replied on this SPI case. RangersRus (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HaughtonBrit has created such a convoluted, extensive web of lies that his sockpuppetry cases have acquired an esoteric nature; it's just a fact that a lot the content and MO nuances are gonna go over a non-SA admin's head. I also admit that my previous SPI was not well written and I definitely jumped the gun with the report, which I explained to Abecedare as well. Since March, a lot of new evidence has come forth. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]