User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 17

Move review
FYI: Move_review/Log/2013_February.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (Noted!) --regentspark (comment) 02:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well you can add these ones back
Mrt3366 Edit warring on articles to remove content he feels reflects badly on India. Mar4d Edit warring, personal attacks, reinserting unsourced information in a BLP. Crtew Edit warring unsourced content into a BLP. Adding linkvios to a BLP. Accusations of tagteaming on my talk page. And keep User:Applesandapples A SPA & meatpuppet in there. In fact the only one I got wrong there was Abbasfirnas887, as other than being a SPA he really has done nothing wrong. Do you really need diffs for these guys? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a meatpuppet. In fact the only thing I (and probably the others there too) have done is disagree with DS. Applesandapples (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tariqmia is the meatpuppet. You were just edit warring, and strangely enough restoring the same content as was added by a blocked user. My bad for thinking you were a meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Leave it alone DS. You're only going to get into trouble over this. --regentspark (comment) 02:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Mrt3366 Edit warring on articles to remove content he feels reflects badly on India." - I feel insulted by this baseless remark. A. I have backed my claims with prima facie evidence. B. DS you being involved in the issue shouldn't be the one to warn me. I won't accept that. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * These charges are outrageous. Based on your record DS and the fact that we're all saying the same thing about your judgment, I honestly don't your credibility would be high enough to issue a warning about anyone. I mean absolutely anyone. At this point, hypothetically, I would even take a horrible sock pocket off the list you made, even if that sockpuppetry were 100 percent true and entire WP community knew it be true, just because you say the person needs a warning. I really think your lack of credibility requires an independent and uninvolved editor make these edits -- I am so grateful that RegentsPark has stepped in. What I really wonder, is why you think it's so important to go after people who have edited on your coveted pages? I just don't understand your motives. Going after someone who made good faith copy edits? Come on, please, be for real.Crtew (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I formally request that all of the names that Darkness Shines has listed be removed and regardless of charge based on obvious COI and his blatant lack of any credibility.Crtew (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Mar4d Edit warring, personal attacks, reinserting unsourced information in a BLP." @DS, you're entitled to your views but I believe when you resort to making accusations (as you have in the preceding comment), you should substantiate them. Based on what I'm reading here, you're actions as of late have been losing credibility. Could you for a moment stop adding every user onto the list just because they become involved in a content dispute with you? This is disruptive and in fact a misuse/abuse of the arbitration list. Just take a deep breath, get off from the high horse for a minute and stop being so judgemental. It would really help cool down things. No one is perfect, and that includes you.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I be removed from this list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=539119300 I'm in the same boat as the three editors you took off the list, and I'd appreciate it if you could do the same for me, as I'm assuming I'm not supposed to directly edit the page. Applesandapples (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the User:Applesandapples case, and what this user says here is true. It's exactly the same method used on us. Crtew (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Kindly tell
Crtew that following me around making baseless accusations is not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I am following our case until I hear back about the fate of ALL the names listed by DS. I have made my request clear above that all names be removed, even sock puppets.Crtew (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also tell him he should not be doing this Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FFS read WP:COI, you keep using it yet obviously have no idea what it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also making an appeal based on Aminul802, who is currently blocked for sock puppetry (a matter about which I don't care). I only know of Aminul802 from his defense of the David Bergman (journalist) deletion request, but I was aware that the nominator, again User:Darkness Shines, and he, Aminul802, were involved in content disputes before Aminul802 was judged on that matter. I took part in that nomination process and ended up helping to save the article, and this is where I first saw DS in action (I was not impressed then either). I am very disturbed at the general pattern that I am seeing of using administrative techniques to game "contentious" content (or actually made to seem contentious when it really isn't) and go after editors, which is why I am appealing on behalf of the others (see above) and not just myself. RegentsPark, I will accept without question whatever your decision is about this matter and I will take it as final. On that you can be assured. Crtew (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I assumed that the connection between User:Tariqmia and User:Aminul802 was more linear than it actually was, my mistake. The names sound jibberish to me, there were so many names on the list added by DS, and I overlooked the other editor's involvement.Crtew (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think all of you need to back off a bit. Crtew, you're off the sanctions list, leave it at that. Digging up the past rarely does anyone any good. --regentspark (comment) 14:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * With due respect, it is quite recent past, and I think a little digging would go a long way towards preventing this kind of thing from happening again. DS is clearly very unrepentant. Applesandapples (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm looking through the list A&A (have already taken you off). If anyone has questions or concerns about an SPI investigation, I suggest taking it to the checkuser or admin who made the finding. --regentspark (comment) 14:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers regentspark!Applesandapples (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you RegentsPark for your attention, fairness and calmness. As I said I would, I accept your decision as final and definitive and for me the case is 100 percent closed. Crtew (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Crtew. Much appreciated! --regentspark (comment) 15:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Majority first, objectivity second? WTF? (read it patiently please). Thank you. v/r - TP 16:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Struck dumb best describes my reaction :) --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 Hyderabad blasts
Please keep an eye on this article. A new editor may end up adding back all the media speculation about the event. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  17:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. No problem. --regentspark (comment) 17:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Kashmir
Can you unlock this so I can add the new source please? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the article? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Still protected. Do you want me to unprotect it? --regentspark (comment) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, instead what I would very much like you to do is comment more frequently there. Let's not fool ourselves please; that is DS's synthesis, he has done it all along. The ALRC source doesn't even mention Kashmir and Indian Army/Police in one paragraph. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a reason why DS couldn't find a better source and why the claim in the source is itself hazy at best. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for the last bit, I haven't really been following the dispute. TParis is probably a better bet. --regentspark (comment) 13:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been disappointed with the way he so suddenly and easily almost capitulated to the endless repetition of DS. He DS said nothing new, produced nothing new simply kept repeating his stuff. I hope TParis doesn't mind I don't mean to sound overly judgmental. I can only hope that you understand my frustration with all the blank reactions I am getting. It's a fairly open-and-shut case. There can be no need for interpretations as such. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea on how to end it quickly. I once did it with Amatulic. It's pretty simple, suppose you have my power of attorney ; you're my eyes and ears. You kindly and very judiciously read the much touted ALRC source and tell me if 'tis explicitly saying that it's Indian Forces that is using children in Kashmir . I expect you will be honest. Give it your fair appraisal. You be the fair judge. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll do that. But with the condition that I'll just give you my opinion here and that's it. I'm a bit tied up with work right now but should get to it by tomorrow if that's ok. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. You give your fair assessment of that page as a reliable source (with special regards to WP:SYNTH). Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the source Mrt and, unfortunately, I agree that the source does say that there are credible allegations of the Indian government using child soldiers in Kashmir. The key here is in the UN committee on the rights of the child report referenced in the article which says that the Indian government needs to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India (emphasis added) and the fact that these are allegations is clearly specified in the text on the box on top of the talk page. A UN report is a credible support for a statement that includes the term allegations, so, to me anyway, the statement seems to be well sourced. It is indeed possible that these allegations have since been refuted (the report is from 2007) but you'd need to find a source that refutes them. --regentspark (comment) 15:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your efforts, genuinely. I need just some more of your time. I hope you don't mind. ″ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India″ — if we were to consider the whole of India, sure, why not? But not every square inch of India is violating Children's rights, how do you know that kashmir is one of the places where Indian armed forces are using children?how do you know, from that very source, that the allegation is based against Indian Forces not the anti-state militia and insurgents ' use of children?how do you know that that allegation had anything to do with kashmir?? It's not a question of reliability. No, my dear. It's a question of personal inferences. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, the allegation by UN COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS OF CHILD wasn't about Kashmir . It doesn't mention kashmir. Not once. BTW, Reports were from Indonesia, Guyana, Armenia, Germany, Netherlands, India, Papua New Guinea, Slovenia, Japan. Would you like to reconsider your views?


 * Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)




 * This is the source cited in ALRC page, now it doesn't mention Indian forces are using children. Read what they are asking Indian government to investigate:


 * I hope it helps. Notice that it doesn't imply anything as to who might be responsible . That is enough proof that they have no credible evidence to accuse India. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Now read the source no 12 The Naxalite Challenge: Ramakrishnan, Venkitesh they talk about neither kashmir nor Indian armed forces "″The naxalite infrastructure includes sophisticated weapons such as Kalshanikov rifles and Claymore landmines, modern wireless equipment and electronic gadgets. It has also been assessed that the naxalites' sphere of influence has spread in the past year and a half from 76 districts across nine States to 118 districts in 12 States.″"
 * The last source doesn't even mention children. Would you like to reconsider your views?? Bolds are my own and wikilinks too. Based on which the ALRC source says, "There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities." it doesn't mention Kashmir or Indian armed forces. Then how can we despite this, link children's use in Kashmir with Indian armed forces?? The source is clearly talking about religious divide and naxalites. Come on! Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Mrt, note that the complete text from the Human Rights Asia article says urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India.[13] However, the reference to child soldiers in the report was limited to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s north-eastern states; It quite clearly says that the UN report refers to child soldiers in Jammu and Kashmir. Apparently this is a reliable secondary source so we have to take their word for what's in the UN report (unless the full text of that report is available for examination). --regentspark (comment) 17:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the confusion here. Mrt, what your saying is that this source is cited as [4] (or [12] or [13]) in the source that DS wants to use and does not support the text it is cited for.  However, although it comes from the CSC, the date of the citation is 2006 and the date of the report your saying the text is not found in is dated 2009.  I believe you are looking at the wrong report and assuming it is the ALRC's source.  It's not.--v/r - TP 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, from this report I just found by googling, it appears that the definition of "child" by the UN is for kids under 18 while the Indian Army recruits anyone over the age of 16. That would definitely mean that the Indian Army uses "child soldiers" as per the UNHCR definition. Mrt, you may be better off looking for reliable sources that explain the allegations than trying to remove the statement from the article. --regentspark (comment) 18:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. I am looking at this COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: Thirty-fifth session, CRC/C/15/Add.228, 26 February 2004 ← full text. Please read it patiently. The link between child-abuse, Indian armed forces and Kashmir isn't sufficiently clear. I hope you'll remain just as equitable and patient as you are. It doesn't merit further discussion. If you guys are unsure why don't you ask someone else? Go right ahead. But settle this issue. I am confident that if enough people (you two included) read my posts patiently along with the source they will fall in line with me. RP, all three of TP's criteria and two of mine need to be supported for a source to be eligible for inclusion. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just read that source too. Did you miss line 68?  "The Committee is concerned that the situation in areas of conflict, particularly Jammu and Kashmir and the north-eastern states, has seriously affected children, especially their right to life, survival and development (article 6 of the Convention). The Committee expresses its very serious concern at reports of children who are involved in and are victims of these conflicts."  "In light of articles 38 and 39 of the Convention, the Committee recommends that the State party ensure respect for human rights and humanitarian law aimed at the protection, care and physical and psychosocial rehabilitation of children affected by armed conflict, notably regarding any participation in hostilities by children."  Are you concerned that the use of children is not supported by a source of a source?  I do not believe that this source was intended to support the sentence "In all of these conflict zones, children are employed by both parties to the conflict."  It was located and intended to support "The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report dated February 26, 2004, urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India."  The former sentence is in the words of the author of this source and that is not prohibited by Wikipedia policy.  If we expect that each source have a source, than we'd have circular logic.  The report must be generated from somewhere and in this case the citation that children are being used is the ALRC report itself and not the citation that supports the next sentence.--v/r - TP 18:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

TP, I'm sorry to say this but either you're not reading my posts attentively or you're yet to get the hang of the issue at hand. What on earth are you talking about? Did I read line 68? I quoted it first for Christ's sake. Please read & answer my question to the point. Let's not digress from the issue.The UN report didn't allege or imply anything as to who might be the recruiters or responsible for the infringement of children's rights. We cannot take it on faith here. I am not asking one report for another report, nor am I judging the reliability of the either, I am merely trying to discern the context. It's imperative that we all read the sources cited in the ALRC page because the ALRC page's claims are not unambiguous. Were it unambiguous I wouldn't have harped on this issue. For the umpteenth time we are dealing with WP:SYNTH on a very controversial page, not WP:IRS yet. All the contentious assertions have to be directly attributed. Currently there is not a line in any of the sources that even implicitly say the State, Government, or state-sponsored armed-groups are using the children in Kashmir. Don't you find it little off, TP? For simplicity's sake I'd like to break my two contentions in two following points:  Indian forces do use children in central and north-eastern parts of India, albeit the current source does not specify that it is going on in Kashmir also.  Children are being used in Kashmir, though our source does not explicitly or even implicitly claim it's by Indian forces. There are sources that directly point to anti-state militia and insurgents. Here we are, COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: Thirty-fifth session, CRC/C/15/Add.228, 26 February 2004 —— says nothing, nothing whatsoever, about Indian Armed Forces' use of children. <li>′ ′ source doesn't even mention children or Kashmir or Indian Armed forces while claiming, "'It has also been assessed that the naxalites ' sphere of influence has spread in the past year and a half from 76 districts across nine States to 118 districts in 12 States.'" The source doesn't say that Naxalites are state-sponsored militia. AFAIK, they are not. The source also doesn't say that they are operating in Kashmir.(It may very well be that  didn't mean any of Kashmir's districts while pointing to 118 districts in 12 states.) <li>And the main ALRC source while cleverly synthesizing the previous two sources also doesn't specify whether any part of Kashmir falls within those 118 districts (in 12 states) or if Indian Armed Forces are recruiting children. But this also mentions Naxalites. ALRC says, "Local human rights organisations, including the National Commission for Women, have expressed concern about the employment of child soldiers in Chhattisgarh by the State and the Naxalites.[1] The Naxalite child soldiers wing is called the Bal Mandal (Child Forum).[2] The members of Salwa Judum are known as ‘Special Police Officers’ or SPOs. "</ul>I think, the sources are obviously talking about religious divide and Naxalites. How can we despite so much ambiguity and based on this slenderest of the innuendos, contentiously claim that Indian Security forces are using children? I don't get it, do you TP? Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gods and demons. Has your heads exploded yet? This has spread over how many pages and for how long? All because MrT does not believe the armed forces would use children. Give it up man. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mrt - you are arguing that the source of a source doesn't support the original source. Show me in policy where such a thing is required.  The CSC source you are quoting is not meant to support the sentence in the ALRC source you are criticizing nor is it required to have a source.  It's that simple.  The ALRC is a reliable source on it's own merits and we can use it to support that children are being used by the State.  RegentsPark, Darkness Shines, and I have all agreed on this matter.  You had my support when I felt like Darkness Shines was mixing and matching bits of sources.  But he has demonstrated in a reliable source that the claim exists.  There is nothing else to discuss.  Per  WP:REHASH, you should review your argument for the holes and bring better arguments.--v/r - TP 14:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. As far as I'm concerned, the statement is well supported. Your time would be much better spent finding sources that qualify or explain the allegations. --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Or counter the allegations.--v/r - TP 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366
Is edit-warring WP:POV into Kashmir articles, first on Nanga Parbat and then on K2  using weak arguments + uncivil CAPS lock shouting. On K2, he also accused me of WP:NPA when I made none and when I confront him about it on his talk page, he simply chooses to look the other way. Relevant discussion can be found here. How do you suggest that tedentious editing and POV like this be dealt with?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He hasn't actually crossed any line here but, fwiw, I'll drop a note on his talk page. --regentspark (comment) 12:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Either you get involved in the discussion or also warn Mar4d...he is enthusiastically edit-warring. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * no time today. Best to either report edit warring on the 3r notice board or get hold of another admin. Still think the onus is on you but .... --regentspark (comment) 18:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Being stalked
Have a word with him please. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to. The page was on my watchlist just like this one.Crtew (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A page you have never edited before is on your watchlist. Pull the other one. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually have many pages on my watch list that I've never edited before (not that it is any of your business), but why do you always try to make everybody's edits into some big struggle. Why don't you concentrate on the edits themselves? I simply thought you deleted material when you restored it. My mistake. Good edit! End of story. Crtew (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough. this guy is obviously stalking me He is now bitching because I requested PP on articles being targeted by Nangparbat. If he continues in this manner I will put him back on the list for, failure to AGF, personal attacks, hounding and displaying a battlefield mentality. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is being abused to game the content using many different strategies. Semi-protecting pages is one of the most flagrant misuses/overuses of policy. It has its purposes and times when it is appropriate. There are also ways that people with an axe to grind can abuse it. Anybody who follows International Crimes Tribunal and some of the other pages in that area can see clearly the results -- some of the worst POV pages on Wikipedia. I'm keeping my eyes and ears open, and I have every right to do that. Thank you so saving me the time in making the links (see above)! I stand by my BOLDNESS! Crtew (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Where all these abuses come head to head is over the case of User:Aminul802. He may or may not be a sock puppet (I don't care), but Darkness Shines was overly involved in edit warring with this user in multiple contexts at the time User:Aminul802 was sanctioned and then later blocked. The content that Aminul802 contributed was then quashed in favor of DS's POV on several pages. The edit history at Mohammed Nizamul Huq is highly instructive: Here DS used nomination for delete (which failed), 3 revert rule (which was successful but bothersome), ganging up on a user helps because a single user is overwhelmed and can't revert anymore while the group has reverts to pocket, sanctions list (for more power in future disputes!), sockpuppetry (which he eventually won the day), and BLP discussion (which didn't come out in DS's favor but -- so what -- he got rid of Aminu1802 as a sockpuppet and then could do anything he wanted to the page). And he even used the stub template here to game the content! Semi-protected pages elsewhere helped against this user (it makes it easier to deal with anyone who has another POV by limiting what they can do). In the end, DS got the page he wanted, but the article is so awful (now) it only has a vague lead and has persisted as a stub. The story on a lot of these pages is the same -- that they contain POV that's heavily biased (in DS's favor) because they've been gamed to the ground. Anyway this is the playbook. I think it's absolutely scary that DS has rights other than a default user has and after he's abused the system in such an open manner. Crtew (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * calm down guys. Lets not get carried away. Crtew, you need to be a little careful here. If you want to accuse another editor of asking for page protection in bad faith, you'll need to back at up with some evidence. Otherwise it's just a personal attack. Also, the line between showing up by accident at another user's page and following them around is a thin one and you don't want appearances to count against you. Back off from DS for a bit. (Apologies if the reply is terse - editing on an iPad,)--regentspark (comment) 04:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, RP! Thanks for your note ... and this seems like a good example of what I've not been missing these last few weeks. My time will come! ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * never a dull moment here :)


 * I'll do that. I'm just saying, somebody should be watching out for the widespread (ab)use of Wikipedia policy to game the content since it's right there in history for all to see at the page I mentioned and the others where Darkness Shines and Aminul802 interacted. DS was able to (ab)use policy to get rid of a troublesome editor (one who comes from a different POV). It's clear in those page histories. But it's particularly troublesome when somebody like DS goes after a newbie (like he did with Snackathon last week). There's nobody to protect them from DS. Crtew (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Any further attacks from you and I will restore your name to the AE listing. How the hell did I abuse policy to get a person using sockpuppets blocked? He choose to use socks, I did not make him. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are an involved editor, and you WILL not be putting me on any kind of AE listing. I have enough evidence to show what I say is true and I stand by my claim. If anybody should be examined here, it's quite clear who that should be. Furthermore, you should know by now that you cannot intimidate me, and I think many others in this community have learned how you work (as is shown from the deletions of all of our names from your private sanctions list). It's only the extent that is not fully known at the moment. Crtew (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per arbitration ruling any editor can give those notices and add names to the list. So yes I can and I will if you continue to attack and stalk me. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then your name will be right behind mine. Very quickly, too. Crtew (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually as I was a part of the arb request I do not need to be informed, but if you want to add me to it go ahead. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

And Awful tactics used against him by others, definitely His first ever edits to ANEW are strangely on a report I had commented on a short time ago. Enough is enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on crtew's talk page. DS, you cannot invoke India/Pakistan sanctions on an editor when you're involved in a dispute with them. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You left him a note which he has chosen to ignore, he went straight to ANEW to accuse me of tag teaming and coordinating edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not true. I'm done. Leave me alone. Crtew (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is really rather pointless calling a person a liar on Wiki. RP tells you to drop it at 13:51, 24 February 2013. You post your newest attack at 16:03, 24 February 2013 Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
Does this look like edit warring to you? See history and talk at David Bergman (journalist). Permission to file a report on warned user requested. Crtew (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet serious edit warring. You can, of course, report him for edit warring at AN3 anytime he violates 3RR but do make sure you make neutral comments and don't make blanket statements about DS. Trust me, in the long run this will work better. Also, are there other editors editing that page? If yes, you can try to get consensus on the talk page. That's the best way to work around other editors. --regentspark (comment) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I saved the page from deletion a while ago and then made another major revision later, but I don't see anybody else who is watching it.Crtew (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Question: Are people allowed to foul-mouthed language on talk pages? Crtew (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well. Whether foul language is allowed or not has been the source of a lot of contention on Wikipedia. Generally, it depends on who, where, how and with whom. I'll need to see an example. --regentspark (comment) 01:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the language here, then a civility complaint won't get you anywhere. The f word there is incidental and not directed at you. --regentspark (comment) 01:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Block requested for..
156Jaka555. Vandalism-only account, leaving a frustrating job for others to clean up.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked. --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

saraiki language
saraiki dialect is redundant with the Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect, Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect articles. I suggest merging these articles, as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Kindly See these External Links http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=skr http://globalrecordings.net/en/language/16338 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.40.254 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Peter Proctor request for unprotection
You recently full protected Peter Proctor, and I'd like to request unprotection. The editors who were behind the disruptive editing have all been blocked as socks of the page subject (Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive), so there really is nothing more to protect. There may perhaps be a consensus to delete the page, and it will be easier to discuss deletion if the protection is removed. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --regentspark (comment) 00:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Still following me
Not a few hours after I had been there. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've filed a notice about this controversial edit about a page that is on my watchlist (as is this page): Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

Please consider warning the other user about WP:Civil or about whether these "following" charges should be strikethrough by user. This is about the edits, Thank you, Crtew (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another article you have never edited on your watchlist, sure. Also RP please inform User:Scythian77 about hounding, since he lost a debate over his insertion of unsourced OR on the Iranian Space Agency‎ article he has also taken to turning up to revert or oppose me. Diffs available upon request. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You know. I had assumed Scythian77 had posted to the NPOV board before, but he has not So his first and only edit there was to oppose me. And he strangely turns up at an AFD to an article he has never edited before And of course on Hindu Taliban as well. Three in a row is not coincidence, this is obviously hounding. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * DS, Crtew does edit articles related to the liberation of Bangladesh and it is not unreasonable for him to be following that page. I was going to move this back as a contested move but noticed that the article was moved without discussion from the current title early last year so haven't done that. Crtew, you should start a requested move on discussion on the talk page instead of going to WP:NPOV. (See WP:RM and let me know if you need help.) --regentspark (comment) 13:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Will take a look at Scythian in a bit. Am busy at work. --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dropped a note on Scythian's talk page. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I did this correctly. If you could double check. Crtew (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. If you have some common name evidence, hits on google books/jstor for example, that would help your case. Moves often hinge on those. --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

However, I have to object to the recent titles of these sections (see the name of this section). Let me make this request clear (and I'm focusing on the edits here): Request that a strikethrough all of the above edits (even up top) in replace of stalking/following, or a warning be issued, or WP:Civility be considered. Crtew (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing really to strike out or to issue a civility warning for. DS thinks you're following him around and has presented diffs. Perhaps you are or perhaps you are not, but I see no evidence to show that you are and can make a reasonable case that you could have arrived independently at the article in question. This is all fairly normal stuff and I wouldn't worry about it. Or about the section title as well. It's just on a talk page. --regentspark (comment) 20:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ottava Rima - alteration to block
I'll just copy over what I wrote at the Arbcom noticeboard: Talk page block restored. RegentsPark, please do not alter Arbcom-imposed blocks without Arbcom's permission. I will note for the record that the Arbitration Committee has not received a request from Ottava Rima to have his talk page access restored; if we did, we would without doubt consider it, particularly given several respected members of the community expressing an interest in the issue. Risker (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

re: ^^^
Been there, done that ... still have the t-shirt. :) — Ched : ?  20:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York
The (2nd) move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The 39 Steps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Title
Did you know ... that Bach composed his cantata Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22, as an audition piece for the post of Thomaskantor in Leipzig, displaying a "sheer range of forms and musical expression"? (now on the Main page)

Can you imagine that with an English title? Can we say Beethoven composed the Moonlight Sonata. Can we say "Richard Wagner composed The Flying Dutchman."? As you will have noticed, Wikipedia has 15 articles on his stage works, 14 of them are in German. As you will have noticed, the topic was discussed parallel on project opera, and one of the project's leading members switched from oppose to support after reading The Grove. The move is only a matter of time (I predicted before 2020), it could have been now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I undid it. It failed the sleep test. :) --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seen, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to give you Precious for that, - only to find I did before ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You phrased "all the interesting Wikipedians", interesting, - any correlation with this missed list? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very high correlation! It does make one wonder where Wikipedia is headed. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"><p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0;">br'erly treats
 * I don't know them all, but was on good terms with all I knew, including three names mentioned as "suck at getting along with just about everyone". I seem not to be everyone? Or does it take two to not getting along? - see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Back to the move request: it now says that YOU requested it ;) (oh bot!) - did you sleep enough to perhaps close it the other way, in the light of this unrelated comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? I haven't even visited the page since I reverted my close (except for now, of course!). --regentspark (comment) 14:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kleinzach stressed the importance to name articles as serious sources like Grove call a thing, on Classical music related to the naming of Mozart's masses. Michael Bednarek had (before) studied the Grove for the Holländer and found the opera listed as Holländer, on the move request, which made him switch from oppose to support. Nothing much happened since you looked last: one comment (against a move) because the myth is called in English (naturally, but why does a different piece of art derived from a myth have to be named the same? I guess there are several operas on Greek mythology which are not named like that), and one more support. - (More personal: what you seem to have been for Drmies, Michael Bednarek was for me.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. But, I don't think I should close it. The main reason I reversed my earlier close was because the Met uses Holländer (though, I think, it's been a while since it figured in their program). I suppose that makes me involved. I'm trying to cut down on drama. :) --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Understand, fully! - Someone mercifully closed "Moonlight Sonata" a year ago, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)