User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 26

MBlaze saga continues
Hi RegentsPark, There is an effort to revert all of MBlaze Lighning's edits across Wikipedia, saying that they were sock edits. Nothing wrong with that of course. But I have said that I am taking responsibility for them as per policy but they don't accept this. Can you please comment here and lay down the law? If you would like, I can send you all my off-wiki conversations with MBlaze so that you can check there is no "meatpuppetry." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Canvassing I see. 5.71.178.216 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi RP, the IP has changed his address and is continuing to attack the pages . I suppose we need to semi-protect them? - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page harassment?
Doesn't this behavior seem like harassment? SheriffIsInTown's continued edit warring on MBlaze Lightning's talk page seems a little too much like harassment, to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Abusing language
Hi can you please take care of this edit summary and warn the user. Thank you – GSS (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The user is already blocked. I've removed the edit summaries. Thanks for letting me know. --regentspark (comment) 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * – GSS (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

FLC for List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1960–69)
Hi! I have nominated the subject list for FL. Could you find some time out and give your comments here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Himalayas
Hi there,

I'd just like to thank you for leaving the Devanagari script as it is instead of leaving it out when you made your edit in Himalayas earlier. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Firebrace, who seems absolutely hell-bent on getting rid of everything related to the native origins of non-English places and Anglicising things as much as possible. You and I already established the last time that Indic scripts are fine so as long as they are left in the 'native name' parameter of infoboxes, or in the etymology sections - and left off the lead sentence. That is what I have done here, and yet that certain user seems to think that English Wikipedia should leave out any and every non-Latin script even though there is no policy that dictates that. Therefore, I'd appreciate some help from you in resolving this (frankly ridiculous and petty) dispute, wholly started by this user who reverts things as they deem fit because they simply don't like it - which is funny because Wikipedia doesn't operate based on people's feelings, and I have done absolutely nothing wrong here. Their latest revision contained a note that told me to 'get lost', which really shows the kind of thought process that goes on behind this user's edits and unnecessary reverting of perfectly acceptable additions. Thank you. Tiger7253 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Tiger, sometimes it is better to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the "law". If you keep this up, you will find yourself in a heap of trouble. You're already causing experienced editors to raise eyebrows and, really, your campaign concerns a relatively trivial point. Given the problems that surround nationalist etc editors across many sectors of Wikipedia, it probably would be best if you concentrated on some aspect that wasn't quite so divisive. You risk being tarred as yet another of the many "warriors" and I can absolutely guarantee you that it will end badly for you if you persist. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sitush makes a good point about this being a relatively trivial thing and that you're tarring yourself with a 'warrior' brush. But, if you get reverted again, I suggest using the talk page. While I'm generally against adding Indic scripts, I think that a case can be made for including the devanagri in this article since the English word is directly derived from the Sanskrit one. --regentspark (comment) 00:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * *Sigh* I can't believe I'm stirring up so much controversy over something relatively trivial. It took me time to come to terms with leaving Indic script off the lead sentence and off many articles, and I can now see the rationale behind that, but I can't help but admit that it does grind my gears to see certain users trying to purge English Wiki of Indic scripts completely. That can only be justified if there is a unanimous and blanket decision to get rid of every foreign script on English Wiki, because it otherwise feels very agenda-driven, biased, and feels like someone is targeting one specific linguistic group - which is wrong. My rationale is perfectly simple - if it relates to the language, it should be there as it forms a part of its encyclopaedic content. I am far from a 'wiki warrior' and even though it may appear that way sometimes, I'm merely trying to uphold the standards that get accorded to other languages and other scripts - and I'm already operating within the limits of the pre-existing policy about Indic scripts, anyway. Cheers. Tiger7253 (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiger, it is statements like the one above "targeting one specific linguistic group" or your edit summary here that place you in the wikiwarrior bucket. I'd go easy on making those sorts of assumptions if I were you. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh
Perhaps we can try to take this article to GA or FA. Please add a talk back on my talk. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea Tito. I can't really help out though. RL issues. --regentspark (comment) 19:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Js82-like behavior
@RP: See Sati (practice) article. Similar Sikhism focus, editing style, new account, seems to know the rules. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Watching.--regentspark (comment) 14:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Same here, I also have problem in Rocket Launcher. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Inviting
Hi RP, when I invited to a discussion at Talk:Brahmagupta,  accuses me of CANVASSING. Can you provide a view on this? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 you should invite either neutral people to discussions or try to make sure you invite a couple of people, one neutral and one who is your friend. Inviting someone who shares your POV to a discussion is canvass. You can argue all day that Ghatus is neutral, but that will take you nowhere. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Freeatlast, described you as his "favourite BATTLEGROUND editor" just a few days ago . I see you turning this into another BATTLEGROUND. May I ask how you showed up on Talk:Brahmagupta, which you never edited before? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been watching the Ghatus' TP ever since you started to post msgs asking him to come to discussions. I just wanted to see if you invite other editors to any discussions or just Ghatus. I have not edited the article, therefore I did not participate in the discussion, just requested you not to canvass. Ofc I am Drmies fav Warrior and the Doc "wuvs" me. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Ever since I started ... asking him?" So how many times did I invite him, and when you decide that I was canvassing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 its been like 5/6 times till now, so I thought maybe its just inadvertent and I left you a friendly heads up. Isn't is clear from your contributions history? I mean you can check this up yourself, why are you asking me lol? Just filter your edits to show his TP you will see that you invited him like 6 or so times to a controversial discussion but did not invite anyone else. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, you should take it to WP:ANI. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 lol why? I already said that I consider to be an inadvertent pattern, like you did it once, forgot that you had done it, and then did it again and again. Why waste time at ANI when I can just give you a heads up and ask you kindly to stay away? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As RegentsPark has stated below, it was not an instance of canvassing. So you should let it rest. For your information, neither Ghatus and I are nationalists of any kind. This is a question of history, and being a student of history, can provide an informed opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 why are you telling me to "let it rest" when I have not even "started" anything? I just requested you to involve/ping more than one user next time there is a controversial discussion. What exactly seems your problem? And why did you open this thread style discussion here instead of my TP? I mean if you have to talk to me, use my TP why all the drama here? I really don't care if you are a nationalist or not. All I see is that you have pinged a user multiple times without pinging anyone else and he has taken your side, so I kindly requested you to stop. I am quite sure that from on you will never ping Ghatus without pinging another editor, so there is not even a problem to discuss. Why are you prolonging this? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that in this case the message can be classified as canvassing. It is neutrally worded and the editor has shown expertise/interest in the area. If there is a pattern of Kautilya3 pinging Ghatus during content disputes, and if Ghatus and Kautilya3 almost always end up on the same side of an argument against the same group of editors, then that may be problematic. Regardless, Kautilya, you're better off posting neutrally worded message at WT:IN or WT:PAK rather than pinging one particular editor. Much cleaner. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 17:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVASS is clear on what is canvassing and what is not. According to my understanding, selectivly pinging uninvolved editors about whom you know will support your point of view is "canvassing" and it seems like a similar case here. Kautilya3 has a misunderstanding about that policy and has displayed at many times before as well. For example at User talk:MBlaze Lightning/Archive 1.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 10:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think my understanding of WP:CANVASS is just fine. If you think I am doing it wrong then you should take it to WP:ANI as the WP:CANVASS page advises you to do. What the page doesn't ask you to is to start a whisper campaign. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Editing pattern of Kautilya3 had been controversial. I had been highlighting this over years. Now see how many other users are also pointing his authoritarian approach. If Regent Park is so professional and neutral editor then why not Kautilya3 be so? Very sad to see such users abusing their skill for national political battles. Waste of time and Mis guiding innocent users. 39.32.195.3 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A revert
You have locked the Kulbhushan Yadav page for 20 days. But, before you did that, a revert is made on flimsy ground which excluded the Indian claims from the lead. Since it's locked, we can not edit it. So, you are requested to "revert" this last minute "revert" as it deleted the official Indian theory of "abduction" and only placed official Pakistani theory "arrest" in the lead.Ghatus (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Ghatus I think we should all focus on taking our concerns to the TP of the said article instead of taking them to an admin. The revert was made after a lengthy discussion and the information was added by a relatively new account with very few edits. I will advise you to use the TP of the article to request this change and perhaps focus on debating the issue on the TP and achieve consensus instead of asking for an edit to be made for you. Ty FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark, I would also request you to see how the entire Indian official statement which was there in Indian claim section for a month was deleted by @TripWire yesterday without any discussion. There was no consensus/discussion on the deletion. He just deleted that and you locked it thereafter. In the article, Indian claims are being deleted one by one and only Pakistani claims are being kept. You can verify it. Pakistani editors in the article are working as a group. Why is Indian official statement deleted? It was the only official reaction from the Government of India. Do you want to create an article on an "alleged spy" without giving a space to the narrative of the country the alleged "spy" belongs to?  Ghatus (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark, I would request you to intervene in the article creation like you did many time in the past and rewrite the article. There won't be anything fruitful there in the article unless an admin takes part in the article creation as both sides are high on nationalism in this article. Discussions after discussions are leading to nowhere. So, you are requested to take part.  I have  even seen you taking part in Talk Page discussions substantially in many articles. Further, there is an effort not to let any third party in. I do not know why.Ghatus (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment An admin taking part in writing an article will do so "as an editor" and will lose many of his admin privileges related to his own content. Seeing that no other admin is available to police Indo-Pak articles this will result in a loss of policing capability to some extent. So in my opinion RP should police the articles instead of actually editing them, just my two cents. Also @Ghatus you will be better of using the TP of the related article for proposing this edit instead of asking an admin. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ghautus, all of your queries are answered at the concerned TP. Let's concentrate there.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 10:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire, no. You just tell Why is Indian official statement deleted?. There was no discussion on it, forget getting any consensus. Four editor opposed you after you changed it. Give me the link where the "queries are answered". You have none except FreeatlastChitchat on your side. I would tell other admins also to look into this matter, since the article is locked for 20 days.Ghatus (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ghatus, I'm sorry but, as the protecting admin, I can't chose which version is the 'right' one (unless there is clear, not-content related, evidence available). You will probably need to ping another admin or take it to AN if you think a revert is necessary. --regentspark (comment) 12:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Since you are protecting this article, I am pinging two other admins &  for this request. They would go through it and take necessary actions. Ghatus (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict restrictions
Hi, RP, speaking of your restrictions for Kashmir conflict, which are fine in my book, shouldn't they be logged somewhere? I suggest that very humbly, as I've been looking around the usual logs and it's hard find anywhere to put them. However, in the central DS log, you can see how some topics under 2015 have a "Page-level sanctions" sub-section, for instance GamerGate and Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (why that one is not called "Biographies of Living Persons", so that a normal person can find it in the alphabetical list, I don't know). These sections are much rarer under 2016, presumably because… oh, never mind, I'll skip a rant about the labyrinthine difficulties of placing discretionary sanctions. Anyway, presumably you can create a page-level sanctions section under 2016 under India-Pakistan. Better hurry before the discretionary sanctions bureaucracy collapses under its own weight. Pinging User:Doug Weller, as being an arb. You don't have to say anything, Doug. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks Bish. I've logged them under 2016 rather than in a separate page and am hoping that some competent person like can figure out how to do this better! --regentspark (comment) 13:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Bishonen Can there be a place to discuss which restriction should be implemented? Seeing the high amount of socking/use of VPN's and proxies etc I want to request a restriction that requires at least 500 edits(mainspace) and 6 months of tenure for editing a controversial article such as Kashmir conflict. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems logical to request that at WP:ARCA. What do you think, RP? But if I were you, FreeatlastChitchat, I would definitely request the 500 edits/30 days of tenure restriction that has become something of a standard — not 6 months — and not muddy the waters by anything about "mainspace", either. You may think your version is better, and it may be, but you need to think practically: it's far easier for them to approve the usual thing, without getting bogged down in a discussion about novel details that would most likely lead to nothing happening. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC).
 * 500/30, I doubt that asking for something different will get anywhere. Doug Weller  talk 11:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. That will help keep the socks out. But we need a better solution because socking is only marginally a problem on these articles. Most of the conflict is between editors who handily surpass the 500/30 threshold. Though it is against the principles of Wikipedia, what these articles really need is an active monitor, a czar with full authority to accept or reject changes. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. 500/30 is trying to solve a non-problem. Further more, any idea like this needs to go to the ARBCOM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Kautilya3, that's why I said WP:ARCA, a page for requests to arbcom. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC).


 * I'm seeing some violations of you restrictions, but I doubt the article lies within the restriction area:
 * A revert without discussion
 * Violation of '1 RR restriction' ( and ) & ( and ) Mhhossein (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein that is why we are trying to get a blanket rule up there like gamergate has one. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein, I am sorry, but how does restrictions for [Kashmir conflict]] gets applicable to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? This is notwithstanding that fact that some admin patrol is surely required on all Indo-Pak related pages— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

RE: Yadav
This entire article is a shambles. I have tried to help the consensus build, but the efforts of most editors are not constructive, in fact they are disruptive, and I think it doesn't really have much reason to remain on WP, especially in the manner it is currently written. I was maybe going to attempt a rewrite but.....
 * Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 22:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Make a rewrite proposal on the talk page. If it gets traction, I'll unprotect the article. --regentspark (comment) 23:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Already have, and its well beyond that now.
 * Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You do make some good points in your summary at the bottom of the talk page. Unfortunately, I doubt if you're going to get carte blanche for a rewrite. You could try proposing rewrites for specific sections and see if that helps - assuming you're still interested! --regentspark (comment) 23:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi RP, please see Talk:Kulbhushan_Yadav. It is the usual suspects. I would recommend edit restrictions of the kind you have imposed on Kashmir conflict. I think they have been working well so far. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose I the only option is for an authority to declare that specific editors can contribute to a rewrite, not just me. I am truly 50/50, mainly because I don't like to quite, but I also feel I'm becoming bait for others agendas and secretive goals, to be very honest. Clearly their is a massive problem with Sub Continental issues in general on WP, which I'm slowly discovering.
 * Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 23:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi RP, please see Talk:Kulbhushan Yadav. It is the usual suspects. I would recommend edit restrictions of the kind you have imposed on Kashmir conflict. I think they have been working well so far. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by usual suspects (not a very good term to use to describe your fellow editors)? Do you want certain editors to stop editing because they do not agree with your point of view. You have been almost always part and parcel of every dispute, once you cannot have your point of view prevail, you almost always run to RegentsPark for intervention. This is Wikipedia not a dictatorship. I request you not to intervene in this matter like you did at Kashmir conflict rather Kautilya3 can avail other venues for dispute resolution and there are many available on Wikipedia. He should not always run to a specific admin. I request you to discourage him from doing that in future. He can resolve content disputes by availing DRN, RFC or formal mediation.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 23:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is truly ridiculous! You are harassing me as well as an admin at the same time. RegentsPark has full-protected the page due to edit-warring. I didn't "run" to him. Even if I do, I doubt if I need anybody's permission to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am not harassing anyone, I am expressing my opinion in this matter like you yourself did. You asked for intervention like you did many times in the past and I am requesting the admin not to intervene at your request rather usual procedure of dispute resolution should be adopted. When did expressing an opinion became harassment?  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Of course you are harassing us. It is visible to every one. You also fundamentally misunderstand what admins do and why we go to them. It is not to resolve content disputes, but to enforce conduct. The edit restrictions that RP has imposed on Kashmir conflict are just the sort of conduct policies that all good editors follow. The fact that some editors are not following them is precisely why they are having to be enforced. You are truly out of line here. I would apologise and withdraw, if I were you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You have no credibility on this matter, nor do you cite WP policy as a genuine concern about content, instead you use it to further your agenda. This is extremely evident, and I'm calling you on it quite bluntly. You do not edit in good faith, you do so to push Nationalistic POV that you support, which is not what is needed on WP. The views that differ from yours are done so correctly, and you continuously try to redirect this away from you and other Pakistani editors, in a most obvious way. This is called a Block in political terms. The way you have joined this conversation also speaks volumes as to the manner in which you think is an acceptable way to force your views as the correct and only one. You are not trying to present a secondary Point of View, your are trying to control the narrative and protect you fellow Pakistani editors actions, very disingenuously and with contempt of WPs overall goals to build an encyclopaedia. I have formed this view over the course of interacting with the contributors to this article and the subsequent involvement of yourself on the AN/I, of which I state honestly and without reservation or regret.
 * Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sheriffisintown, I don't see the editing restrictions on Kashmir Conflict as particularly onerous. The goal is to encourage consensus seeking behavior amongst editors by forcing them to use the talk page rather than letting them aggressively edit the article directly. Regardless, this article is protected now, so nothing much is going to happen until the protection ends. Then we'll see how it goes. --regentspark (comment) 01:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Now we have this showing up on my Talk Page, which is actually incorrect as I haven't edited the article at all, only debated it, so this is also a lie...and I consider it harassment by, whom I don't consider someone with the authority to behave in such a manner towards another editor. What is this anyway?
 * Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 02:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All editors that edit India/Pakistan/Afghanistan articles (as well as discussions) are supposed to get this sanctions alert sooner or later. It means that administrators can observe you and apply sanctions when necessary, without having to go through an arbitration process. You probably knew that already. So nothing to worry about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Riiiight.....yes the formal notice is it? well, I'm duly noted then. My apologies regentspark for this ending up on your TP, it was meant to be a short Q/A by me but.....well sorry again.
 * Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 02:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 is saying that "you probably already knew" about WP:ARBIPA. Did you already know about that before issuing the above statement addressing me? The one which starts with "you have no credibility in this matter"!  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 04:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment @regentspark you called for a debate/consensus building talk on the Kashmir conflict TP. However despite repeated efforts on my part neither KT nor any other editor from the group who were extremely vociferous about "editing restrictions" before has bothered to respond or engage in debate. Now I can see that once again editing restrictions are being proposed. I am just pointing this out here before engaging in a long debate on the Yadav page. The usual tactic seems to be that some editors will just change their arguments and reasons again and again and again. Whenever they will see that their argument has been broken they will come up with a new argument instead of accepting the other party's opinion. This is not an accusation of bad faith, just the way things are being done, and I have pointed it out on the Kashmir Conflict that editors are changing their opinions again and again. Having informed you of this I will put in my two cents about yadav in the evening. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are an admin and I do not have any problems if you exercise your powers on your own but dragging you in disputes by an editor or group of editors should be discouraged if they are the same editors each and every time especially when they are requesting restrictions like these. These types of restrictions are detrimental to building an encyclopedia because no further improvements can be made to the said article. Rather, I suggest that normal procedures should be followed when disputes such as these arise. There are procedures to request page protection, editors should be encouraged to follow that. There are procedures such as DRN, informal and formal mediation, RFC and ARBCOM. Editors should try that to resolve content disputes. There are procedures to report editors for their conduct such as ANI and it should be availed instead of asking a specific admin each and every time. I would not have objected to this if it was once in a while but I have observed Kautilya do that many times recently. It always happens whenever a group of editors cannot bring consensus in their favor, instead of going for other dispute resolution measures, they reach an admin of their choice and request a measure like the one taken at Kashmir conflict which stops the article from improving since nobody can make changes and the group which requests such measure stops discussing further because they know that no more changes can be made to the article so they don't even bother to discuss.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 04:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record SheriffisinTown, no one reached out to me to protect the Yadav page. If you think that the editing restrictions on the Kashmir conflict are onerous or unfair, I suggest you take this elsewhere (AN, ANI, Arb enforcement). Restrictions generally run the gamut from 1RR all the way to topic banning and the restrictions you're complaining about are, imo, on the lighter end of the spectrum but you're welcome to try your luck elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, what do we know? Refraining from edit-warring, explaining reverts, civility, and avoiding ethnic battles are detrimental to building an encyclopedia! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3, what do you mean by 'usual suspects'? How is it that (only) what Dragon Fly, who have been constantly attacking all opposing editors' POV is correct (which you BTW support) but the opposing editors' not?? Who are you or for that mater Dragon Fly to declare which article is good for WP or not? He gave arguments at the concerned TP and were rebutted to no avail. You too admonished him many times there. Why the WPBATLEGROUND attitude then? I am sorry, but I gotta ask this, is there something personal between you and other editors?, I am sorry, but I take great offence at this statement by Kautilya3. How can you allow this to continue? Did you not see the conversation that has taken place at Yadav's TP? Why and how is it that Kautilya3 alone can always be right and everyone opposing him always wrong? Isnt this biased attitude towards a certain group of editors? How can we allow such editors to prevail at WP when they so openly (many times before) have admitted to having a preconceived notion about editors belonging to a certain nationality? I am really sorry, this is getting beyond me. Apologies, but is it the systematic bias that WP perhaps have that some talk about?— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * TripWire, WP:Systemic bias is an essay that says, roughly, that the editors on the English Wikipedia are not representative of the demographics of Internet users (or, if you will, of the actual distribution of knowledge that we wish to embody on this encyclopedia) and that, therefore, the content on Wikipedia is inherently biased or that it over-represents knowledge from some regions. It does not refer to any idea of giving a free pass to anyone. You could argue that there are fewer Pakistani editors and therefore there is a systemic bias against Pakistani held viewpoints and I would have probably agreed with you a couple of years ago but I'm no longer so sure that that's true. Regardless of the definition of systemic bias, no one gets a free pass on civility. Unless they're yelling at me because that doesn't bother me at all. 'Usual suspects', though it could be phrased better, is not a remark that needs particular censure. --regentspark (comment) 23:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Phrased better? Should have said sugar-coated insult, instead. Thanks for your time though. Cheers.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Cambridge Dictionaries Online, "usual suspects" means "the people or things you would expect to be present somewhere or doing a particular thing." The phrase is used exactly in this sense quite often in the US. If it has other meanings in other countries, I am afraid I don't know them. My meaning in using it here was that the editors involved were the same ones RegentsPark has been dealing with over the last couple of months in a dozen battleground pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If that be the case, aren't you too the 'usual suspect' here?— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Trupti Desai
Thanks for writing the article. I will take it to DYK. But what hook do you suggest? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No clue. I'm not a DYK kinda person :) --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay! No problem. Will figure out something. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about something like "Did you know Trupti Desai, a gender equality activist, was beaten up by priests when she tried to enter the Shani something temple". (I know you've already submitted a DYK but this might be a nice hook.--regentspark (comment) 20:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't receive this ping! I have noticed this few times that I don't get all the pings. Dunno why?! The DYK has not been reviewed yet. So will add this as an ALT hook. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Biji Rai
You have tagged article Biji Rai for deletion and has shortened it to a single sentence. This seems you are taking racism into this. Just because the article is about a Hindu you want to led it down. I want to tell you that it is neither a hoax nor it is unnotable. Typing the word "Biji Rai" in Google books would clear your doubts. To check the validity of wiki articles is the responsibility of administrators so deleting them blindly shows a clear racial Strategy to let other races down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hono77 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * . No racism at all Hono77. I merely aligned the text with the source provided. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and reliably sourced. This is particularly easy in the case of historical figures since good academic sources should be available. I did google Biji Rai, and I even looked up JSTOR, but couldn't find anything. Google threw up many contemporary Biji Rai's and JSTOR pulled up nothing. You're welcome to add reliably sourced (academic ones) to the article. --regentspark (comment) 13:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Trupti Desai
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Balochistan conflict
Sir, you protected Balochistan conflict due to edit-warring/disruptive editig by. Now that he has been blocked as a sock, the protection may be removed so that his disruptive edits can be removed, please.—<b style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; font-size:medium;"> Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 08:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, I had pinged RegentsPark due to the heavy nationalistic argumentation on the talk page, exactly the kind that RP had prohibited on the Kashmir conflict page. I don't know what the solution is. Perhaps we should go to WP:DRN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We can keep the protection if we have to, but sock's edits need to be reverted because that is a WP:WRONGVERSION. Admin can revert them himself. It's important that we do that because if we keep the wrong version, it encourages serial sockers that they can create a sock to create controversies so no matter if they get blocked afterwards, there are editors who can preserve their edits. We should not give this impression.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Read wrongversion again, also it takes two to edit war, hi RP how's tricks 86.0.200.166 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , apart from the fact that sock edits must be reverted to discourage them, just want to ask you, how many socks and their edits, including Mr Mouse, have you supported till now? MBL was another one. I am guessing alot! A good editor like you should not harm his repute by supporting sockers, their masters and people who are not here to build WP. But then you already know that.
 * With reference to this, pinging to see to the IP and his comments—<b style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; font-size:medium;"> Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 01:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave it alone for now because from the history it is unclear who made the original edit. Regardless, reading the text in question, someone should prune it (once the article is unprotected). --regentspark (comment) 02:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The original edit was made by Bharatiya29, then the responsibility to add this POV was taken over by socks and IPs:
 * As it was then restored by Freedom Mouse - the sock
 * then again restored by an Ip6
 * and again by the IP
 * then again restored by FM (sock)
 * then again re-added by FM (sock).
 * So, it is not difficult to see the pattern here. What infact was happening that the socks/IP were baiting all for an edit-war. This was despite the fact that a talk-page section was opened to discuss the issue with no support whatsoever, expect that the sock (Freedom Mouse) was nibbling through the comments. Leaving the edit there would be allowing victory to this mouse, and I am sure WP wont like socks to win. Now, the point to note is that this not the only instance of this happening. Almost all Indo-Pak related articles have been subject to this mouds oprendi in the past: An edit is made, socks take over, the other editor gtes banned/topic banned, Kautiliya3 supports them all the way - everywhere: talks, AE, ANI, then someone from the other side is able to pick the pattern and get the sock blocked, but by the end of the day socks' contributions flawlessly make their way to the article. They have been gaming the system for quite some time now, and this needs to be stopped.—<b style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; font-size:medium;"> Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 02:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * According to TripWire, those socks which oppose Pakistan's POV are bad socks, while, LanguageXpert socks IPs and accounts and "Nangparbat IP socks" are good socks. TopGun is a sockpuppet expert and he was aware of as Lyk4's talk page has TopGun's comments. TopGun is also under indefinite 1RR restriction. 223.176.4.173 (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Even though this disputed edit was made by Bharatiya29, I see it was disputed right after it was made thus no consensus to keep it in. For the sake of WP:STATUSQUO that edit needs to be reverted and there is no better person to do that than you. Time and time again during these conflicts we have seen that wrong versions were protected e.g. which were not WP:STATUSQUO. I am not saying that its your fault but once a mistake is pointed out then it should be corrected. Thank you!  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 03:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @IP, there is no good or bad sock, but only a smelly, pathetic sock, like yourself. As far as Mar4d is concerned, he has been penalized for what he did, unlike you and your gan of socks who need to get a life ASAP. And I dont know of others that you seem to have so much knowledge, old habits?—<b style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; font-size:medium;"> Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 04:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * TripWire & Sheriff, please don't feed the troll IP (sock of Cosmic Emperor). That's what he wants; to incite you and create bad faith between you and Kautilya3. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Let it go guys. A much better idea would be to agree on a rewrite of the entire section using the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 13:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus at the talk page is clearly in favour of keeping the "disputed" text, as no valid reason has been given for its removal. Bharatiya  29  16:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

1RR
This is the place where TopGun was indefinitely restricted with 1RR. TopGun's work in DarknessShines SPI shows he good in catching sockpuppets. He knew that Lyk4 is Mar4d, but he remained silent. He even gave barnstar to Lyk4. I found out about 1RR searching for ANI archives. That's why after 1 revert, he does undo instead of reverting with Twinkle. 223.176.12.235 (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

IPs edit warring at India/Pakistan wars articles
Could you please check the current state of List of wars involving Pakistan and List of wars involving India? I'm not knowledgeable enough to know which of the IPs (if either) was correct. Meters (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you've reverted to the right place so no worries. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Meters (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 05:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi
Hello RegentsPark, you reverted this edit citing BLP violations. For my benefit, please explain to me HOW is this a BLP violation? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  21:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I dropped a note on your talk page. --regentspark (comment) 21:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I replied here.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Operation Polo
RegentsPark, Edits are totally neutral. Data has been taken from the most authentic book written on this topic. Read the Story of Integration of Indian States by V P Menon. He has narrated every thing in his book. If you dispute authentication of these events, come with concrete expediences. Don't edit something because it is not as per your choice.CAKrutesh (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above user is adding incoherent pov to articles related to the Princely state of Hyderabad and related articles using very biased language please try and enforce some sort of block on him. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:A4E6:A3F:C283:FD91 (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hyderabad State vandalism by CAKrutesh
Dear admin could you please explain to that pov warrior above his edits are utter pov? that article has been violated by poor edits ever since he decided to edit it making up odd terms such as Razakars etc its sad I had to be the one to revert his pov and so called champions of neutrality Kautilya turned a blind eye and is more concerned with Pakistan and China. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:A4E6:A3F:C283:FD91 (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Watching. --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please see my comment on the talk page of the article? The user is back at it again with his usual pov edits. Protection is needed or at least explain to him to stop pushing pov with his blogs and primary sources. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:D5AA:E7F2:540C:E498 (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like Bishonen has taken care of it. --regentspark (comment) 12:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Odd that my name should get mentioned in all kinds of places. Incidentally, I had been working on Chabahar Port, which, as far as I know, is neither in Pakistan nor China.

Coming back to the Hyderabad State page, most of the article lacks footnotes and hence is not verifiable. It is hard to defend it in such a case. How can we reject new unsourced content when most of the existing content is unsourced? One of these days, I will need to take time to rewrite that page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

See ANI/3RR.
I left you some questions about your forgetulness of what edit-warring includes even without crossing 3RR there on my report of epipelagic. Will you please reply to them there? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done. --regentspark (comment) 01:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Constitution of Medina dispute
Thanks User:RegentsPark for noticing my DRN entry. I have a question. In hindsight I probably should have also invited Pincrete, and an other user (whose name I will have to look up) who commented on the talk page. I didn't do so. Would it be appropriate for me to change the DNR entry I made, to include them as well and then invite them via his talk page? Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can add people to the dispute. And anyone can add themselves if they think they are involved in it. I notice pincrete is already there so perhaps this is moot anyway. Thanks for opening the dispute. Generally, getting the process moving results in either the dispute being resolved or the disruptive editors being identified. Either of which is helpful in deciding if and what administrative action is necessary. --regentspark (comment) 18:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pincrete indeed added himself citing some fears that he may have disturbed some bot. But that doesn't seem to be a problem. CounterTime removed himself from the equation however, although he did leave a comment, which will make the talk either easier ore more complicated, since he introduced the option most discussed on talk in which Pincrete seems to be interested. I've added some comments on the talk there, but I suppose I should keep that to a minimum until a volunteer admin opens it and chips in... I will take a waiting attitude until that happens. Frankly I don't expect Ivanov to turn up. But who knows... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hinduism and Sikhism
@RP: An IP is busy re-inserting WP:SOAP and unsourced OR/opinions in Hinduism and Sikhism. Reminds me of someone. Worth a watch, nothing more for now. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

India League
A certain India League existed in pre-WWI era in England with which Baron Brockway was associated. It seems to be different from the Indian Independence League that was operative in late 1920s in SE Asia. I am unable to find much info about it given its similar name and thanks to various contemporary sports leagues. Can you write about it if its notable and if you get more info? §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging others who might be interested in this §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

New edits to change the lead of Jerusalem
Hello RegentsPark. You were one of the closers of the RfC at Requests for comment/Jerusalem which ended July 9, 2013. The conclusion of the RfC placed a freeze on the lead of Jerusalem for three years. Depending on how you interpret that, the freeze either ends in a couple of weeks, or it already expired on 27 December, 2015. That date was three years from the date set in the authorizing Arbcom motion. Recently some users have been trying to edit the lead of Jerusalem again. This was reported at WP:AE. It seems possible that the freeze could be extended as a discretionary sanction until a new RfC is held, and there are some ideas on how to go about that in the AE thread. Would be interested in any suggestions from you or the other two closers on what to do next. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Higeru copyvio
has reinserted the copyvio into after his/her block expired. I reverted and request RevDel. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 09:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir Valley
Sir, can you please look into this and why am I being asked to gain consensus when the burden of changing/removing precisely sourced info is on the editor(s) affecting the change?—  Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice
You may want to look an an ANI notice I placed here Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)