User talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Your edit to Madurai T. N. Seshagopalan
Your recent edit to Madurai T. N. Seshagopalan (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 16:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
your edit to Prof S.Ramanathan
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Mapetite526 17:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism and violation of wikipedia's policies
See Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:3RR. You have made several reverts on Carnatic Music which is against WP:3RR. Kindly desist from actions that could be considered vandalism. Persistent reverts might lead to your being banned. Thanks ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 12:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Carnatic Music. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 12:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ncmvocalist 07:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Your message on User:Bharatveer's talk page
Regarding this, only Wikipedia administrators are eligible to block editors. If you have concerns about a particular user's edits, I recommend that you approach an admin. I would also like to request you to withdraw your comments on User:Bharatveer's talk page. Thanks - Parthi talk/contribs 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Muthiahbhagavathar1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Muthiahbhagavathar1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Carnatic music TOC
Hi, I think moving Important musical treatises below before the References section would be appropriate as it seems to direct readers to resources related to Carnatic music. Keeping it at the start of the article may daunt some lay users. What do you think? Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 00:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
please see User talk:Srkris
please see User talk:Srkris
bye Pluto.2006 10:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions[1] made on December 18 2006 to Carnatic_music
Re your mail. If you want to report someone else for 3RR, please do it on the 3RR page. Meanwhile, please don't break the rule yourself: better still, use WP:1RR William M. Connolley 14:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Your notices on User talk:Venu62
Hi, I see that you left several templates on [2]. I believe that these templates may not be appropriate. Vandalism refers specifically to edits that are not made in good faith, or with the intent of harming the project. I think you should assume that User:Venu62 is making edits in good faith, believing them to be positive contributions. With regards to NPOV, it is not apparent to me that Venu62's edits violate NPOV. So, I will be removing the tags. Please feel free to discuss this with me further if you disagree. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 01:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Carnatic music discussion
Please try to answer the questions here and contribute to useful discussions. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 00:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Venu62
Usually complains to WP:AN/3RR work only if there are clearily 4 reverts. It was not the case that time. Looking into the history of Carnatic music I could see an edit war between you and Venu62. Since noone else participate in the discussion and since I know nothing about the carnatic music I could only block both of you. I am not sure it is the way to go.
Try to involve more people into the editing of the article. Maybe it is worth to start an article WP:RfC or apply for some sort of WP:DRV. I cannot see any other ways to settle your dispute. Alex Bakharev 07:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Muruganpamalai.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Muruganpamalai.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in Carnatic mustic
We desperately need some help in shaping up the article and providing it with verifiable and reliable citations. It seems that you have a good knowledge of the subject, so maybe you could help us out. We are seeking to make it a quality article as the subject matter deserves. Please contact me with any ideas you have. Thanking you in advance! Sincerely, --Mattisse 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry that I seem to have affronted you. I have spent considerable time trying to find reference sources for the article unsuccessfully. I do not engage in edit wars so you have no need to fear that. I will not touch the article again. My interest in the article was that I am working on a Feature Article candidate that has a link to this article, so I tried to fix up the article enough for us to emphasis the topic in our article. Now I see that is not possible so we simply deemphasised the topic in our article. We ended up putting what we needed about Carnatic music with proper references in our own article, so we do not need this one. Thanks for your reply and good luck with the Carnatic music article. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume II, Issue 1 - January 2007
|
|
|
WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume II, Issue 2 - March 2007
|
|
|
As mentioned in Wikiproject India newsletter of March 2007, the weekly collaboration of the Indian wikiproject has fallen from its once high feats. This message is to request the users to visit the collaboration page and help rejuvenate it.
The present collaboration of the week is Religion in India. Please go through the talk page of the article to see the proposed changes in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Your message on my talk page here.
- Thank you for your message on my talk page: I was honestly touched. Unfortunately, I will have extremely limited/no internet access from the fourth week of September onwards for an indefinite period, so I will probably not be able to get 2007 South Asian floods up to WP:GA status. I can revise the Bangladesh and Nepal maps to show more detail (in their present date they show all the areas as flooded which, while it's close to the truth, is uninformative) and start the peer-review process, but more than that I can't promise. I hope to be back on the internet late 2007/early 2008 but I can't guarantee it. Should I return, I will revisit the article then. Regards, Anameofmyveryown 01:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Carnatic Music
Can I ask you why you are repeatedly removing cited content about patronage for Carnatic music under Kingdom of Mysore? Gnanapiti 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I just saw that you are already discussing the removal in Talk page. You may ignore this message and continue discussions there. Gnanapiti 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I cant see why you're angry with me. I am as frustrated at the state of the article as you seem to be. I've always held the view that you're one of the sensible editors editing this article unlike some others like 'you know who'. And just so you know, you have violated 3rr on the article. I suggest that you revert yourself. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I stopped editing it because I intend to rewrite the whole article when I find the time. In the meanwhile, I only try to make sure that potentially useful edits dont get lost forever. Like I said, if you want to break it up and weave it into the article in a better way, feel free to do it. I'll be the last one to stop you. But dont just blank potentially useful and constructive content wholesale, just because it doesnt fit the 'flow'. Talking of 'flow', the article doesnt have any 'flow' worth mentioning. Sourcing for the most part, is below par. As for Muthutandavar etc., I've written reams about my views on it... and just to point out, Muthutandavar's, m pillai etc., compositions are not rendered by everybody. It is mostly done only by Tamil artists. As for the 'certain other things', well.. I was referring to the 'pann' part. Sources are being misrepresented and it still is being presented as if Carnatic music borrowed the concept of Ragas from panns - which is nonsense. There may be a 'resemblance' between panns and ragas, that doesnt mean ragas were born out of panns! There are other problems also.. but like I said, I'll deal with them when I rewrite the article. And I intend to rewrite it purely from scholarly sources and not from any random website that will pops up on the first page of a google search. And just fyi, you are still in violation of 3rr. You have atleast 5 reverts on the article and if i were to count that ip(thats you, I'm assuming) you probably have 6 reverts. And why were you removing a picture of the trinity from the article? They surely belong somewhere in the article. Dont they? Sarvagnya 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ayyaazhi article
Ok friend, I'll go through and let you know if any status gained by the article; and thanks for the informations. - white dot...!!! 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Your rv on 'Night Angle' M S Subbulakshmi
Cool work dude! Noticed the vandalism (?) but could not figure out how to revert the article alongwith the talk page of the article. Tnx for the good work. Antariki Vandanamu 10:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
BetacommandBot
Hi, could you please link to files that BCBot has incorrectly tagged please. I also note that the bot isn't operational at the moment, and you should be aware that the bot does not delete any images, it simply brings them to the attention of administrators who exercise their own judgement on whether an image should be deleted or not. Nick 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, firstly, I have to say, administrative action never counts as "edit warring", non free images that are unused must be deleted, there is a little leeway for images uploaded for use in an article currently being written, but there is no leeway for images uploaded for an article that already exists, but are unused. I would urge you to read our Non free content policy before making any further edits to images. I must also ask that you ensure your own images have a detailed fair use rationale that justifies every single instance of use, or these images are likely to be marked for deletion by BCBot. Nick 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
refernce to melodic
The first line of wiki page on "Melodic" music reads as follows: Melodic music is a term that covers various genres of non-classical music which are primarily characterised by the dominance of a single strong melody line.
In my opinion that does not cover carnatic music, and it would be incorrect to reference it in carnatic music page. I am sure the definitions and interpretations differ on some terms like "classical", "melodic", etc, and it is evolving. Hence someone wrote a book classifying carnatic music as melodic does not mean that we can conclude that every fellows definition of "melodic" applies to carnatic music.
I believe that it is highly inappropriate to classify "carnatic music" as "melodic" as described in the melodic wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maandookya (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Papanasamsivan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Papanasamsivan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not fail GAC articles that have been put on hold by other editors, particularly when those editors are actively involved in helping improve the article. Your review did not outline the problems with the article in any detail - icons do not help other editors understand the problems that they need to fix with their articles. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Papanasamsivankrithis.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Papanasamsivankrithis.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Muruganpamalai.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Muruganpamalai.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Knataka/Realindian
Yeah, they're the same. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
As an addition, I suggest that the names of the following famous Carnatic musicians of Karnataka be also added under a seperate heading since thier contribution to carnatic music has been immense
1. Royal court musician Belakvady Srinivsas Iyengar (1888-1936)of Belakavady 2. B.S.Raja Iyengar (1900-1980)of Arasikee 3. Thitte Krishna Iyengar (1902-1997) 4. Belakvady Srinivsas Iyengar (1911-2002)of Belakavady 5. Belakvady Varadaraja Iyengar (1912-1988)of Belakavady 6. M.S.Selvapillai Iyengar (1915-1993) of Melakote 7. M.S. Narasimhachar (1919-2004) of Mysore 8. Belakvady Rangasamy Iyengar (1928)of Belakavady 9. Mysore. S. Kishna Iyengar (20th century) 10. Dr. K.Vageesh (1954)of Mysore 11. Dr. K Varadarajan (1958), of Gorur 12. Dr. P.S.Muralidhar,(1956) of Mysore
A reference book to add to the text of your article would be "The Place of Srivaishnava Community in Karnatic Music" by Dr.V.S.Samapthkumaracharya of Mysore published by Vedantha Charities, 1397, 4th Cross, Krishnamurthy Puram, Mysore -570004, Karnataka, India.--Nvvchar (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Re-rating of article. The two terms in particular referred to, Poovandanthoppe and Vaikundar are both names. There is no getting around this even if they are non-English phrases. Poovandanthoppe is the name of a village now called Swamithoppe. Vaikundar is the name of a person who was born as Mudisoodum Perumal and later called Vaikundar. The other terms can be re-explained in English terms when necessary, but not the two specifically chosen. SriMesh | talk 01:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Carnatic music and ATM
The sentence in question is the most cited sentence in the whole of the Carnatic music article. Sarvagnya et al are simply doing what they have been doing for the past several months - using the Kannada tag teams to push their POV. This is quite frustrating and one of the reasons why so many good contributors of Tamil origin have left the project. - Parthi talk/contribs 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Flag of Singapore currently on peer review
In your most recent comment on Talk:Flag of Singapore, you mentioned that you would point out other issues with the article. However, you did not do so. Could you point out the issues at the article's ongoing peer review? By the way, the ArticleHistory template erroneously shows three failed GA nominations, instead of two. If you are familiar with the syntax, please remove the entry dated 20 January 2008. Thank you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please use discussions
Dear Ncmvocalist, in the future, please remember that discussions carry lot more meaning and content than templates. Your recent actions in throwing templates dont help in creating an atmosphere conducive to discussions. Also, keep the discussions preferably to the talk page of the article in concern. This way, you gain experience how to have discussions with established users. Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are missing the point. No user should throw a template because another user reverted a edit. Henceforth keep your discussions to article talk pages and I will do the same.thank youDineshkannambadi (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarvagnaya
Unfortunately, your warnings to Sarvagnaya were probably a long way from being necessarily acceptable themselves. Unless you are an uninvolved party who is thus able to issue such a block it is more than a bit presumptuous to say that the person will be blocked for further actions. Again, try to avoid making such "warnings" to others, as it hardly helps in creating reasonable discussion. I have reverted the reversions, and told the party in question that all that is required is that he indicate on the talk page why he believes the sources are sufficient. But, in your own interests, it really is far from being a good idea to continue to issue such "warnings" to people when you are not yourself in a position to act upon them. In the future, when you do such things, the best course of action would be to indicate in your edit summary why you are doing it, or, alternately, saying something like "see talk page" and go into greater detail there. Both of you in this case seem to be acting in some regard as if you WP:OWN parts of the content, and that is certain to annoy the other party. Try to discuss it reasonably first. Then, only if such discussion fails, is it a good idea to issue formal warnings. John Carter (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Nithyasree Mahadevan, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.lakshmansruthi.com/chennaiyil_thiruvaiyaru/nithyasree.asp. As a copyright violation, Nithyasree Mahadevan appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Nithyasree Mahadevan has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Nithyasree Mahadevan and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Nithyasree Mahadevan with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Nithyasree Mahadevan.
However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Specifically this edit on Roger Davies talk page "I am willing to take this to the courts if necessary." I would strongly suggest that you retract that statement. Woody (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is not what I got from the edit, it was vague, and I apologise if I misread it. I suggest you simply rephrase the statement to talk about courts against that website. You may also want to see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance for information on what to do if you feel a website is mirroring wikipedia. I am currently looking into the issue regarding who copied who. Woody (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea why people threaten to sue Wikipedia but they do and they get blocked for it! Anyway, you didn't and that has been cleared up. With regards to copyright, I have looked into it and it would seem that this website is an fork/mirror of wikipedia as of this diff (admin only). That diff is from December 2006, the website says copyright 2007 so it would seem the Wikipedia version came first. I am going to restore the content now. Regards Woody (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Restored. I will say that it is not really an assumption of bad faith on his part. Merely not looking into it a bit more. You would be surprised at the number of copyvios we get. I make no comment on any other past behaviour merely the mitigating circumstances around this. Any questions can be left on my talk page. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea why people threaten to sue Wikipedia but they do and they get blocked for it! Anyway, you didn't and that has been cleared up. With regards to copyright, I have looked into it and it would seem that this website is an fork/mirror of wikipedia as of this diff (admin only). That diff is from December 2006, the website says copyright 2007 so it would seem the Wikipedia version came first. I am going to restore the content now. Regards Woody (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- There was nothing to look for in the article. Show me a single citation or a reference in the article, that says that the article was written from different sources. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- E. Gayathri was a copyvio, an IP added copyrighted material on top of your stub so it was deleted. The best way to avoid speedy deletion is to add {{hangon}} onto the page whilst you try to find references, and state you are doing this on the talkpage of the article. Once refs are added an admin should not delete it. If they do, ask them on their talkpage why. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop maligning me
Did you write the Nithyasree Mahadevan article, didn't you? Where are the sources in the article that you are talking of here? You are lying, to put me in a bad spot. Not a single citation, not even a reference. If you cannot produce sources and write an article, that is your problem, not mine. And if there are websites that say the same thing, I am well within my rights to tag articles for copy-vio. If you cannot write well cited articles, dont blame others for tagging them as copy-vios. And by the way, stop maligning me and learn to write well-cited articles, so that you dont end up pleading admins to restore them -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 15:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Image source problem with Image:CarnaticTrinity.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CarnaticTrinity.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
There's nothing on the page that remotely says the idea is "compulsory", actually, and it is possible to assume good faith and still think that a particular piece of content doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines. Just a few observations. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reminding me that I shouldn't interact with a bunch of jokers -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be primarily a conflict dispute, and I can't find the link to the claimed sockpuppet. Editor in question seems to base much of his actions on a previous declared consensus. Suggest that a Request for comment on the subject be filed, and that the various Indian and Music WikiProjects be advised of the request. After all the appropriate input is received, then, if necessary, a request for mediation be filed. But the actions I can see to date seem to be at least marginally defensible. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Your threats
I dont care a damn for your petty threats as you did here. I have been here in Wikipedia since long and know what I can and cannot do, so keep your empty threats to your self. And moreover stop your hatred on Rajkumar. If there is something you dont like, you cannot act whimsical and do haphazard changes like you did to Raj Kumar. I have opened up a discussion thread in the talk page here: Talk:Raj Kumar. Stop edit-warring and discuss why you want to do the change before doing it. Again stop threatening and running to User:John Carter for petty content disputes, you are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself while doing so -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Raj Kumar 3RR - no block, but a warning
Following the recent 3RR case regarding Raj Kumar, I have not blocked you. But take this as a 'warning: disputes must be resolved on the talk page first. Also, when in an argument, you should not become uncivil just because the other person is. - 52 Pickup (deal) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours
Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|1=This block is inappropriate, and was unreasonably/unnecessarily enforced as a punishment rather than in the spirit of the blocking policy. One admin clearly noted here-at-the-3RR-report, "Under the circumstances, it isn't necessarily sufficient cause for any real action, as most people invovled in a heated debate wind up using language they might later regret, and that should be and generally is taken into account, but it is something which all editors should try to avoid whenever possible." Admin User:52_Pickup found it sufficient that a formal warning be given because I had changed my approach - I took positive steps against edit-warring in my most recent revert at Raj Kumar and lack of editing at Carnatic music after a certain time. I also approached an uninvolved admin (here about stopping the edit-warring, among other matters prior to this warning or block being given. The edit-warring involved the same group of disruptive editors, who were already requested and warned by several editors and admins in the last 2 months for their multiple policy violations, but the blocking admin merely warned 1 of them instead. The blocking admin deliberately refused to look into this very relevant matter further and ignored the fact I had not made any policy violations after the warning. Out of pure bias and bad faith, he voluntarily (and unreasonably) enforced this block as a punishment rather than in the spirit of the blocking policy, and overruled Admin User:52_Pickup's reasonable decision of a warning rather than a block, without taking into account the circumstances surrounding this case. I request that the block be reversed for the record, as such a block, is both unreasonable and unnecessary given the circumstances of this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)}}
--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussions with Nishkid64
- What are the "several issues" with my editing history that you are referring to? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Primarily, your failure to comply with the blocking policy and relevant administrator policies. There may be other 'issues' that are raised to by other parties, as I have already been contacted by one. The purpose of this mention was to alert you of the fact that I intend on making such an appeal as soon as my editing privilleges have not been unreasonably confined to my talk page as a punishment. Following this, and your failure to take appropriate action against the other involved editors, I will proceed to continue with the report I was making against certain editors of the Karnataka workgroup who have made persistently disruptive edits to articles that fall under the WP:WikiProject India banner. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, go ahead. I never had any issue with the block on Amarrg. He engaged in edit warring and incivility. You had also done the same, yet you weren't blocked. I felt that 52 Pickup overlooked this fact. Afterwards, I did some research and found that you had engaged in incivility and edit warred on other articles, as well. I fail to see why you need to be warned or reminded to follow some of the basic principles of Wikipedia policy -- don't edit war and be civil. If this edit warring had ceased days ago, then a block against this would be considered "punitive". However, the incivility and edit warring was ongoing, so I issued a preventative block. It was only after that 52 Pickup decided to unblock Amarrg. Also, I'm not preferential against the other editors you are referring to. I too warned Sarvagnya to stop overreacting about Amarrg's block (I felt he had become incivil at one point), and I added that he could be blocked if he kept it up. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- How convenient, given the editor you supposedly 'warned' (not even formally), has been requested and formally warned by several editors and an administrator in the last couple of months alone (let alone the whole year) not to be incivil, not to make personal attacks, and not to edit war (all of which the editor has continued to do, yet a blind eye has been cast). You had clearly not done enough 'research' to overrule this decision and were completely biassed. I stopped edit warring upon my last revert, and a formal warning would have been sufficient. Furthermore, there was no urgency to make such an overrule if you wanted further evidence that it had stopped. This is entirely 'punitive' as a result. 52 Pickup had made a solid and reasonable decision given the circumstances, even with just a formal warning given to both parties. 52 Pickup reviewed the decision and changed it accordingly and kept it as a warning for both to stop it - not as a block. You had no authority or business overrulling another administrator's decision, that too, so unreasonably. I will of course go ahead after your gross misuse of admin powers - I have no idea what would make you think I needed your permission. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- There were several articles that you were edit warring on. If your editing warring and incivility was localized to Raj Kumar, then I would have unblocked you (had I even chosen to block you in the first place). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- How convenient, given the editor you supposedly 'warned' (not even formally), has been requested and formally warned by several editors and an administrator in the last couple of months alone (let alone the whole year) not to be incivil, not to make personal attacks, and not to edit war (all of which the editor has continued to do, yet a blind eye has been cast). You had clearly not done enough 'research' to overrule this decision and were completely biassed. I stopped edit warring upon my last revert, and a formal warning would have been sufficient. Furthermore, there was no urgency to make such an overrule if you wanted further evidence that it had stopped. This is entirely 'punitive' as a result. 52 Pickup had made a solid and reasonable decision given the circumstances, even with just a formal warning given to both parties. 52 Pickup reviewed the decision and changed it accordingly and kept it as a warning for both to stop it - not as a block. You had no authority or business overrulling another administrator's decision, that too, so unreasonably. I will of course go ahead after your gross misuse of admin powers - I have no idea what would make you think I needed your permission. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, go ahead. I never had any issue with the block on Amarrg. He engaged in edit warring and incivility. You had also done the same, yet you weren't blocked. I felt that 52 Pickup overlooked this fact. Afterwards, I did some research and found that you had engaged in incivility and edit warred on other articles, as well. I fail to see why you need to be warned or reminded to follow some of the basic principles of Wikipedia policy -- don't edit war and be civil. If this edit warring had ceased days ago, then a block against this would be considered "punitive". However, the incivility and edit warring was ongoing, so I issued a preventative block. It was only after that 52 Pickup decided to unblock Amarrg. Also, I'm not preferential against the other editors you are referring to. I too warned Sarvagnya to stop overreacting about Amarrg's block (I felt he had become incivil at one point), and I added that he could be blocked if he kept it up. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Primarily, your failure to comply with the blocking policy and relevant administrator policies. There may be other 'issues' that are raised to by other parties, as I have already been contacted by one. The purpose of this mention was to alert you of the fact that I intend on making such an appeal as soon as my editing privilleges have not been unreasonably confined to my talk page as a punishment. Following this, and your failure to take appropriate action against the other involved editors, I will proceed to continue with the report I was making against certain editors of the Karnataka workgroup who have made persistently disruptive edits to articles that fall under the WP:WikiProject India banner. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The administrator dealing with this was 52 Pickup - NOT you. 52 Pickup reviewed the decision in light of the information given - but still chose to keep it as a warning. You had no authority or business overruling the decision to keep it as a warning. I was awaiting a reply from another administrator for the multiple article edit-warring but your bias or lack of research obviously meant you missed this detail. My edit-warring had stopped after my most recent revert. Such a block should be to prevent edit-warring and incivility - NOT as a punitive measure after it has clearly stopped. Your research was not enough to make such a decision, especially when you had no authority in overruling the decision, and you were unreasonable in enforcing such a block against me (particularly in the absence of a block against the disruptive editors who were involved - an issue which you again, conveniently avoid in your reply). Ironically, I still haven't received an apology. It seems you leave me no choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no ownership on administrative dealings. Anyone can intervene. That's how the system works. Also, I did see your self-revert. However, your edits were reverted on other articles, and I knew that you were going to continue reverting them (judging from your recent editing history).
- If you're referring to the reply you were expecting from Moreschi, I did look into this. His response to your comments reaffirms what I could have told you, if you had asked me. Don't edit war or incivil and you'll be fine. It seems you engaged in both edit warring and incivility, and this is why I blocked you. As for the disruptive editors you are talking about, I only see one (Naadapriya) who engaged in serious edit warring. I'll defer judgment to another administrator on how that situation should be handled. Most probably, the page will be protected, as multiple editors are involved in the content dispute. Also, if there was serious misconduct going on at Carnatic music, then I'm sure Moreschi would have intervened. His response gives me the impression that he didn't feel people were misbehaving there. And why do I need to apologize? I didn't act with bad intentions. I enforced policy. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The administrator dealing with this was 52 Pickup - NOT you. 52 Pickup reviewed the decision in light of the information given - but still chose to keep it as a warning. You had no authority or business overruling the decision to keep it as a warning. I was awaiting a reply from another administrator for the multiple article edit-warring but your bias or lack of research obviously meant you missed this detail. My edit-warring had stopped after my most recent revert. Such a block should be to prevent edit-warring and incivility - NOT as a punitive measure after it has clearly stopped. Your research was not enough to make such a decision, especially when you had no authority in overruling the decision, and you were unreasonable in enforcing such a block against me (particularly in the absence of a block against the disruptive editors who were involved - an issue which you again, conveniently avoid in your reply). Ironically, I still haven't received an apology. It seems you leave me no choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your "intervention" as you like to call it, was uncalled for - that's the point. You already indicated your blatant assumption of bad faith in enforcing a block directly after the firm warning was given. Moreschi's reply was given well after you even enforced the block, so you clearly did not look into this - if you did, you didn't bother leaving an appropriate reply despite knowing that anyone can reply - "that's how the system works". You did not enforce policy in good faith as you should have - the process starts with a warning as you are well aware. Blocks are a final resort, and was absolutely unnecessary in this case. I had stopped reverting after my final edit on the Rajkumar, and the other pages did not have any reverts after this, and in some cases, even before this revert. You clearly continue to overlook Sarvagnya's behaviour and edits within the last year, let alone the last 2 months. You admitted to the fact there are other editors involved in the edit-warring and say you are deferring judgement to another administrator, which is what you should've done in my case. You had no business or authority to overrule the decision of 52 Pickup. Given your privilleged position at Wikipedia, you handled the situation extremely poorly, and being in denial of this fact is the only thing preventing you from apologizing for enforcing an unnecessary bad-faith block. I am confident the arbitration committee (after scrutinising your bad-faith decisions) in this case will find the same. I won't comment on other cases here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I enforced the block because I felt the warning was not appropriate. We shouldn't give people a slide when they clearly violate policies on multiple articles. If you had just engaged in edit warring and incivility on Raj Kumar, then a warning would suffice. Blocks do not need to follow warnings. You should have been well aware of core policies like WP:EDITWAR and WP:CIVILITY. It's your responsibility, not ours, to edit properly. As for Moreschi, I didn't need to provide a reply. I know Moreschi is capable of providing a sufficient reply to your comments. As for Sarvagnya, I can just say that I was looking into the actions between you and Amargg only. I could look into his edits, but it seems some sort of judgment regarding his edits would need to be made by a panel of admins, not just a single one (an RfC would be appropriate). On the other hand, your case is pretty straightforward. Incivility and edit warring on a number of articles in the last few days. In your time on Wikipedia, you should have learned about policies. Therefore, it is your responsibility to act appropriately, or else you will be subjected to a block.
- Your comments about my involvement in the matter don't make any sense. Why would I need to defer judgment? I have no biases on the matter. I came here as an uninvolved administrator. That's all. Also, I only said I would defer judgment regarding Naadapriya because I don't want to handle that matter at the moment. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The warning was appropriate, as I am sure the arbitration committee will find. If the same policy and guideline has been violated on multiple articles, then any competent administrator would give a firm formal warning or reminder not to because in the heat of the moment, things happens. Blocks are not intended as a punishment. I think I have to restate what another administrator said in the matter: "Under the circumstances, it isn't necessarily sufficient cause for any real action, as most people invovled in a heated debate wind up using language they might later regret, and that should be and generally is taken into account, but it is something which all editors should try to avoid whenever possible." It happens. That doesn't give you the right to enforce blocks to punish editors. Every editor involved in any of the articles cited could by the same token be expected to not violate these policies, but they persistently have, and no action was taken because you "don't want to handle that matter at the moment." - blatant nonsense and a clear demo of your preferential treatment of certain editors from the Karnataka workgroup. You have been involved with some of these editors before, even if they are disputes, so you are not entirely uninvolved. It was not your calling to enforce such an unnecessary bad-faith block. Your actions as an administrator will be scrutinised at the appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Preferential treatment for the Karnataka workgroup? I don't even know enough about Karnataka to have opinions about those matters. To be honest, I only know where Karnataka is on the map of India because it's next to my birth state of Andhra Pradesh. I was raised in the US. My knowledge of India is limited to certain areas. Matters relating to Karnataka is not one of these areas of knowledge, I'm afraid. I do admit that I have talked to some of these editors in the past, but only when they've brought up matters to my attention on my user talk page. This was not the case for the Raj Kumar dispute. I saw that through my watchlist. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, preferential treatment for certain editors of the Karnataka workgroup. And puh-lease! You have interacted with these editors even on occasions where I have not left you a comment, such as in various ANIs, so you were not a totally uninvolved administrator and should not have enforced such a bad-faith block, and given my concerns clearly articulated at User:Moreschi - where clearly, I deliberately left these concerns at an entirely uninvolved administrator's talk page. Your bad-faith block as a form of punishment against myself was entirely uncalled for as far as this case goes, given the fact you did not even bother taking the same line of action against editors who made the same policy violations. Again, you avoid the issues that I have pointed out in my previous replies, perhaps because there is no valid justification for not lifting this block (which forms the basis of this dispute over your adminship, and will no doubt, lead directly to a decision before the arbitration committee). It seems that either way, your actions as an administrator will be scrutinised at the appeal.Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Preferential treatment for the Karnataka workgroup? I don't even know enough about Karnataka to have opinions about those matters. To be honest, I only know where Karnataka is on the map of India because it's next to my birth state of Andhra Pradesh. I was raised in the US. My knowledge of India is limited to certain areas. Matters relating to Karnataka is not one of these areas of knowledge, I'm afraid. I do admit that I have talked to some of these editors in the past, but only when they've brought up matters to my attention on my user talk page. This was not the case for the Raj Kumar dispute. I saw that through my watchlist. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The warning was appropriate, as I am sure the arbitration committee will find. If the same policy and guideline has been violated on multiple articles, then any competent administrator would give a firm formal warning or reminder not to because in the heat of the moment, things happens. Blocks are not intended as a punishment. I think I have to restate what another administrator said in the matter: "Under the circumstances, it isn't necessarily sufficient cause for any real action, as most people invovled in a heated debate wind up using language they might later regret, and that should be and generally is taken into account, but it is something which all editors should try to avoid whenever possible." It happens. That doesn't give you the right to enforce blocks to punish editors. Every editor involved in any of the articles cited could by the same token be expected to not violate these policies, but they persistently have, and no action was taken because you "don't want to handle that matter at the moment." - blatant nonsense and a clear demo of your preferential treatment of certain editors from the Karnataka workgroup. You have been involved with some of these editors before, even if they are disputes, so you are not entirely uninvolved. It was not your calling to enforce such an unnecessary bad-faith block. Your actions as an administrator will be scrutinised at the appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your "intervention" as you like to call it, was uncalled for - that's the point. You already indicated your blatant assumption of bad faith in enforcing a block directly after the firm warning was given. Moreschi's reply was given well after you even enforced the block, so you clearly did not look into this - if you did, you didn't bother leaving an appropriate reply despite knowing that anyone can reply - "that's how the system works". You did not enforce policy in good faith as you should have - the process starts with a warning as you are well aware. Blocks are a final resort, and was absolutely unnecessary in this case. I had stopped reverting after my final edit on the Rajkumar, and the other pages did not have any reverts after this, and in some cases, even before this revert. You clearly continue to overlook Sarvagnya's behaviour and edits within the last year, let alone the last 2 months. You admitted to the fact there are other editors involved in the edit-warring and say you are deferring judgement to another administrator, which is what you should've done in my case. You had no business or authority to overrule the decision of 52 Pickup. Given your privilleged position at Wikipedia, you handled the situation extremely poorly, and being in denial of this fact is the only thing preventing you from apologizing for enforcing an unnecessary bad-faith block. I am confident the arbitration committee (after scrutinising your bad-faith decisions) in this case will find the same. I won't comment on other cases here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Clarification to reviewing administrator: I only reviewed the Ncmvocalist-Amarrg situation at Raj Kumar. I found that Ncmvocalist was edit warring and being incivil on other articles, so I felt the block was appropriate. I did not unblock the user even after 52 Pickup unblocked Amarrg, because their situations were different. Amarrg engaged in incivility and edit warring on one particular article, while Ncmvocalist had been doing so on multiple articles. I treated them as separate situations, and as a result, I upheld the block. I did not look into the group of editors Ncmvocalist refers to as the "Karnataka workgroup", who are currently engaged in a content dispute with this user. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The block was highly inappropriate and made in bad faith as a punishment for the 'separate situations' - a formal firm warning/reminder would have been enough for any reasonable editor to stop violating the policy. The administrator User:52_Pickup therefore made the appropriate and reasonable decision expected of an admin in issuing such a warning so that it stopped, but this biassed blocking admin overruled this with the block that is being disputed now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The group of editors are not just currently engaged in a content dispute - they are edit-warring, being incivil, and making personal attacks, despite being warned by several editors and administrators. Yet, this biassed administrator didn't block them or even look into their policy violations. If he voluntarily involves himself in this case, he should have gathered all the facts - he clearly didn't, and should not have overruled the original decision, or involved himself in this case to begin with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clear things up, I did not have any bias towards the Karnataka editors. I do know some of them, but I don't even know what content disputes they get involved with. I'm not the type to take sides just because someone I know happens to be on that side. I come to Wikipedia with a straight face and evaluate matters from both perspectives. I did not familiarize myself with the dispute at Carnatic music and I did not take anyone's side. I saw the 3RR report and found that you had engaged in edit warring and incivility just like Amarrg, but you weren't blocked for 24 hours like he was. I wasn't sure if 52 Pickup was going to keep Amarrg blocked or unblock you. I was planning on waiting to see what he had to say. However, I investigated further and found some recent edit warring and incivility in your 50 latest edits. I treated this situation independent of the dispute on Raj Kumar. That's why I kept you blocked, despite the fact that 52 Pickup had chosen to unblock Amarrg. Had you been repentant for your actions and vowed to tone the edit warring and incivility down, then I would have surely unblocked you. However, it is quite difficult to assume good faith when someone starts accusing of abusing the admin tools and claims that he will bring an ArbCom case against you. As Jayron32 mentioned, your incivility and accusations that you made against me on your usertalk could have been grounds for a block reset. I understood your predicament (I have witnessed a number of people lose their cool after being blocked), and I chose to continue discussion with you.
- The only thing I apologize for is my comment on your talkpage after Jayron's re-block. Now that I look back, it looks as if I was "taunting" you. That was not my intention. You had previously commended Jayron for being levelheaded, yet when he chose to re-block you, you claimed that he was abusing his admin tools. I found your comments to be unacceptable and made in poor taste. Proclaiming to people that you will report them to ArbCom does not help your case. This isn't 1950 Germany and ArbCom isn't the Stasi. People are not going to be frightened if you report them to ArbCom when they were clearly acting in good faith. In my emails to 52 Pickup, I mentioned that I had a favorable view toward your contributions in the past (particularly your work with FA maintainance for WikiProject India). Given my recent dialogue with you, I feel differently. However, if we run into each other in the future, I will leave this incident alone and pretend as if I had just met you.
- I hope that you will keep editing Wikipedia in the future in accordance with our edit warring and civility policies. Remember that future offenses of these policies will lead to blocks. Please tread softly, and remember to contact an administrator if you ever feel that the opposing party in a content dispute is violating policies. Don't take matters in your own hands, as that will lead you down the road towards a block. Best, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was this fact you didn't familiarize yourself with the history-log of the Carnatic music article that was most frustrating - even if you didn't wish to take sides on a content dispute, it still is very clear (especially after I pointed this out, even if this was not on the AN/I) that there are multiple users engaging in edit-warring on the article (where Naadapriya didn't even receive so much as a final warning or block). While admins may not care for, or find it relevant, some similar to equity theory does often creep its way into such disputes, particularly when things get heated.
- Unfortunately, the only memory I had of you was in relation to the Sikhism article, and while I thought your contributions/proposals were fine, there was one thing that I was not at all impressed with (and this opinion has also taken quite a fall given the recent events). After having some doubts over whether it met the FA standard, I thought to check the talk page, where sure enough, I did find some personal attacks directed at you. I removed them (and this prompted me to ask for a cool-down on the article's talk page), and went to make a note on the editor's talk page. I found it very inappropriate that you gave a final warning to Ajjay for his personal attacks right after his first real outburst. Template warnings (for personal attacks for example) have a progressive scheme, and this scheme exists for a reason, and is often very effective. I felt it necessary to modify your final warning about personal attacks to a 2nd level personal attack warning, which is considerably different in both what is said in the request/warning, and more importantly, how it is said - so-I-did-as-you-can-see-here. And if you see his talk page here-now, his response was naturally much more positive and appeared to cool down on the matter much quicker. It was beyond me why you would not follow the progressive scheme, even if you are not required by policy to do so (as it is still effective). I assumed perhaps this was because you were an involved editor and didn't think of it again until for the second time, instead of trying something lower in the scheme of things, you enforced an immediate block, and I'm afraid I still don't think that the initial block by you was appropriate, instead of a warning. I am however glad that you decided not to personally try a reblock yourself, as this whole case might not have taken a turn for the positive as it has now.
- While you may well disagree, I think you too have some more 'things' to learn, particularly in relation to human behaviour, and how to deal with it (even here on Wikipedia), and this is the sole reason why I am even replying, despite my relatively unchanged opinion (which can only probably be changed with time). More than that, having read your final para, this para in place of the initial block was what I thought was reasonable. This shows that you are clearly capable of demonstrating a more positive attitude in dealing with certain types of behaviour that are discouraged, or not allowed here at Wikipedia, in your position as an admin - I can only hope you will keep this in mind, and if necessary, make the appropriate change to your approach of such a situation in the future. You might be thinking 'who does he think he is to come off saying things like that', or your opinion of me may again take a drop, and though I can say I'm sorry if it does, given my still relatively indifferent feeling today, such an opinion would have no effect on me. Have a think about it, because it isn't intended for anything else.
- The most valuable discussions/comments I have read or had in relation to this incident were from the 3 editors I thanked in the above section, and as far as I'm concerned, the incident ended there. So, similarly, I too would pretend I had just met you in case we run into each other again. Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked again
--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously. Did you learn nothing from the last block? People object to these edits you are making. There is no consensus for you to make them. And you go straight back and reinstate them after the block expires? This has GOT to stop! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Deliberate factual errors were inserted by User:Naadapriya who made edits in the article, and there were no citations for these (at most) exceptional claims. Compromising the quality of Wikipedia with such a blatant disregard for factual accuracy has never been allowed, and I'd left the templates explaining why this is so on Naadapriya's talk page. In the entire history of Wikipedia, consensus has never been determined by no comment. The blocking admin didn't even allow time to transpire for such discussions to take place. I've been very reasonable in my edits following the previous unreasonable block - I introduced an etymology section (per consensus on the talk page), and leaving the lead section with the information the editor wanted to add, where there was actually consensus, which the admin didn't even bother investigating. Furthermore, the images have been left as is too. Please look into the history of this article Carnatic music over the last 2 years and its discussions - the exceptional claims were reverted to the original version of the article, prior to deliberate factual errors and vandalism being introduced. This admin clearly failed to investigate the article or my case in sufficient detail, and this block need not have been enforced. I request the block be undone.
Decline reason:
You have been blocked for edit warring and disruption. That's not how we work here. If you want to be unblocked you need to give us some assurances about how you will approach editing disputes in future. If you can't work with editors whose views you disagree with without edit warring then your wikipedia career is going to be exceedingly short. See the most esc excellent advice from Arvind at the bottom of your page. Defiant demands to be unblocked because you were right are exactly the wrong way to go about this. — Spartaz Humbug! 13:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Maybe you forgot about this edit, in which you thanked Jayron32 for assuming good faith and unblocking you. So, now when he decides to re-block you, you accuse him of abusing his power? Interesting... Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't forget. When he clearly indicated otherwise in this message, it meant my trust in the system was misplaced. I'm sure any findings that are made by the arbitration committee, in relation to this matter, would be interesting too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they would be. I'd like to see what else they would say besides just dismissing your complaint in its entirety as pure rubbish. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure you both would (have such hopes). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they would be. I'd like to see what else they would say besides just dismissing your complaint in its entirety as pure rubbish. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't forget. When he clearly indicated otherwise in this message, it meant my trust in the system was misplaced. I'm sure any findings that are made by the arbitration committee, in relation to this matter, would be interesting too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, for your own sake!
Just a few words of friendly advice, since I think I understand how you're feeling (having been in a not-too-dissimilar situation myself).
It's a huge weakness of Wikipedia that it doesn't have a mechanism to deal with content disputes. And when the content dispute has its roots in a clash of sub-nationalisms, it all too often simply becomes an issue of who has more numbers on their side (and hence more bites at reverting without violating 3rr). This is a problem, everyone knows it's a problem, and the arbitration committee is even trying to do something about it. But if you think Arbcom will in the meantime take your side against the admins who've blocked you, you should take a look at what happened to User:Unre4L, who wasn't in a very different position.
My advice is, forget about this article for the moment. Spend a couple of weeks doing the research you need, and come back armed with a forestful of citations to scholarly works bearing out your points, place them in the article, and then re-add your points. Things will assume a very different colour then. Wikipedia is a project that's going to take decades to complete so, in the long view, if the article on Carnatic music is riddled with errors for a few weeks more, it really doesn't matter. And, in the meantime, there are literally dozens of other articles about Carnatic music, composers and artistes that are crying out to be written or improved.
And relax. Remember, at the end of the day, all we're talking about is an article on a website, which is vastly unimportant in the greater scheme of things. It's certainly not worth getting upset or worked up about, not by any means. -- Arvind (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- In addition to what I have said to you privately, I can only echo Arvind's suggestions. Please follow them. WP:The world will not end tomorrow, so just step back for a while. You are clearly a talented editor - just by looking at the awards you have here - but the way you are responding now is only going to make your situation worse. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. 52 Pickup (deal) 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was having a think about it over the course of the day, and I suddenly lost complete interest in this, considering for the second time in a couple of days whether to leave Wikipedia completely. These comments are by far the most constructive I've received to-date (regardless of block or unblock) - of course, User:52_Pickup's comments are always in this manner, while I thoroughly endorse the recent barnstar that was awarded to Arvind as a result of the above comment - it really is inspiring to know that there are nice editors, and admins here, despite interacting with some who were more of an unfortunately unpleasant experience. And you are right - it's not worth getting upset over.
- I am completely over the Carnatic music article, and no longer wish to be part of it. I am sure you will find this understandable, that it is irritating that it has come to this, and it is hard not to think that it has been a waste of time. If Wikipedia could undo every edit I have ever made on the Carnatic music article, then only could the value be found in the significant amount of time, effort and work I had put into this article. Still, this isn't going to reduce my knowledge, experience or ability in the subject matter, and those who are looking for extra citations (scholarly journals, or online), or preferrably uncited information so that they can do their own research are welcome to ask me here. But, with the exception when reviewing the article's grade/class, I will not make any other comments on this article, or the contents of the article.
- As for articles that are related to Carnatic music, or any other articles, it is very likely that the same trollistic editors are going to try to come back and make editing a misery as they already have. It's a pity we couldn't have online restraining orders huh? :P Just kidding! If they do, then all I can do is appeal to an admin, but hopefully they will be unnecessary when they stop with the harassment. If it's a completely uninvolved editor who is involved in a dispute (such as a content dispute), then after 2 of the same reverts by myself, if no consensus is found, I will request an admin to take a look. Unfortunately, many won't look into it properly for some reason or another, and if this is the case, or even if the reasoning by is completely nonsensical, then I will leave the article as is. It is perhaps fortunate that reviewing articles doesn't ordinarily face these sort of problems. This approach, I think, would resolve such editing disputes.
- I would like to especially thank Spartaz, Arvind and User:52_Pickup for not just your advice and good faith considerations, but for voluntarily approaching this situation in the manner in which you have. It is ideal from wherever one is standing as it is entirely constructive, and it is a pity that certain other editors and admins deliberately choose not to approach situations in this manner (their approach often ends up deterring editors from wanting to have any part in the Wikipedia community entirely. But still, it is indeed a blessing that I was one of the lucky ones who did not end up falling into that category). Particularly what and how (and why) the above was said under this section, touched me. Thank you once again. I hope I am back on track now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request
Copy of block:
--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|1=As per the comments in this section (above): If there is an editing dispute (such as a content dispute), then after 2 of the same reverts by myself, if no consensus is found, I will request an admin to take a look. Unfortunately, many won't look into it properly for some reason or another, and if this is the case, or even if the reasoning by the other party is completely nonsensical, then I will leave the article as is because WP:The world will not end tomorrow. This is how I intend on changing my approach when editing disputes arise. The block has served its purpose I think, and I therefore request to be unblocked.}}
--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- One thing, you state that admins are reluctant to get involved in content disputes. That is mostly true, since admins primary focus, when acting as administrators, is to deal with behavior and not content itself. Admins usually try to remain uninvolved in the dispute itself, and don't want to act as judges and deciding who's particular version of an article is "right". However, there are some good mechanisms to get this done. requests for comment and requests for third opinions are places you can go where other editors WILL comment on content and are interested in help solve a deadlocked content dispute. Additionally, several other options are listed in the dispute resolution page that you can try to get uninvolved editors who wish to help reduce friction at Wikipedia. Good luck, and please keep to your agreement to avoid using reverts to push a certain "version" of any article. You may also want to read the page on the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle which is an excellent perspective on how to be bold, and yet still maintain civility in editing articles. Good luck. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Your FAC edits
Please stop removing other editor's FAC comments; if you want to remove a previous comment you made, you can do so by striking it, but do not remove comments made by other people. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- In re: to your comment, it was removed purely as it would seem senseless without my comments. These cannot be striked out when they have not been addressed as such - they've just been withdrawn temporarily until an occasion arises where more substantial focus can be given by the reviewer - myself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, do not remove other people's comments under any circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- In re: to your comment, it was removed purely as it would seem senseless without my comments. These cannot be striked out when they have not been addressed as such - they've just been withdrawn temporarily until an occasion arises where more substantial focus can be given by the reviewer - myself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Templating the Regulars
In the light of your recent encounter with User:Dineshkannambadi, and your placement of tags in other established users' talk page, I suggest you to read this guideline: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Thanks - KNM Talk 02:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that the page linked to is not in fact a "guideline", as that party had erroneously indicated, but simply an "essay", which specifically states "editors are not obliged to follow it" and thus has no particular "weight" behind it per se. Having said that, the other party in this dispute has indicated that you may have earlier given him a warning which may not have necessarily been completely justified, when you said that a website which did not have a bad reputation should be considered a reliable source, or words to that effect. Unfortunately, that isn't necessarily sufficient to establish that it is a reliable source. I have advised that party to stop templating you himself, and I think under the circumstances it might be appropriate if you try to not template him in the future as well. I did advise that editor that it would probably be best for both of you, and potentially any other involved parties, to discuss on the talk page of the article in question whether the sources provided can be established to meet WP:RS standards. I have myself put the page on my watchlist, and I would be happy to offer any input regarding the matter, although I do not in any way cast myself as being an expert or even knowledgable about the matter in question. The two of you, and, based on the edit above, possibly a few others, do not seem to have established a particularly good relationship. Calmly and rationally discussing the dispute, without any more "templating" from either side than is probably the best way to go. John Carter (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it isn't official, but it's generally better to not template the regulars. Among the community in general most people consider it a little discourteous and not in the best taste to give an establisher contributor a machine warning. (however, for image problems, it is considered ok). From my experience using a template on an established contributor usually generates a bad reaction so it is better to take an extra minute to write a personal message. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Aruna Sairam
A tag has been placed on Aruna Sairam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Vijay Siva
A tag has been placed on Vijay Siva requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability of T. R. Mahalingam (flautist)
A tag has been placed on T. R. Mahalingam (flautist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation in E. Gayathri
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on E. Gayathri, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because E. Gayathri is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting E. Gayathri, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Assessment
Hi Ncmvocalist!
I left you a message in a comments page last October and realised that I haven't heard back. Can you leave your reply there please. Especially because it would be nice to get feed backs on to improving the article. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also have concerns on your assessment on the Dravidian Parties entry. As you can see from the examples quoted in assessment Jammu and Kashmir article of October version which is a B-class and also Real analysis which was a start-class, it can be pretty obvious that the Dravidian Parties entry is not a start class, at least as far as I can see. Hope you dont think that I am being rude. If I'm giving such an impression, I really do appologise. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I was raising my concern on your assessment on Dravidian Parties article! Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted you
Hi Ncmvocalist. I've revered your edit of my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Proposed decision, where you changed "All" to "Both". I believe "All" is correct since the majority required for passing is six and since each of the 4 remedies have at least 6 votes in support (you may not have noticed that the majority had recently changed from 7 to 6). In any case, I know you meant well, but please don't edit my comments. If you think I've made a factual error, just point it out, and if it needs correcting I'll do it myself. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 06:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
TheNautilus RfC
In response to your comments, I've added some diffs showing revert warring. I'd only concentrated on his inability to understand policy as I thought this was the most serious problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I've updated the RfC with examples of similar behavior in other articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, just a note to say that I've moved the order of the sections in this RfC, to try to focus discussion on the user rather than details of the articles. This means that the section numbers you refer to in your comment are now shifted down one. Sorry for any inconvenience. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop that
That is your view of administrator scope, and I cannot believe that any view that requires ignoring core policies is valid. Please stop removing my section. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry if in the process of restoring your complete removal of my view, I accidentally removed an edit to yours. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Greast. So there's different views on the topic. We can discuss them.
- I did not misrepresent policy, and the changes to your view was unintentional. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not misrepresenting policy, have a read of WP:BLOCK "persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive." WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are policies. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, edit warring is SPECIFICALLY covered in a different bullet point. Have you read WP:BLOCK? In any case, all I'm saying is that it's perfectly reasonable to discuss gross and repeated violations of policy at RfC. I don't see how th e community gains a jot by saying that such issues can never be discussed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to politely decline, as I feel that they are relevant points in this case, and that policy backs me. It is, perhaps, possible that I was unclear, though, so I've clarified my view. However, threatening someone with sanctions for stating opinions as opinion, and objecting to your misconduct in deleting it on a relevant page, when others had supported the view, is really not the best way to deal with a situation, or to try and get a view clarified. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Show me one place, in policy, where it is specifically said that repeated and gross violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are not sanctionable. Otherwise, stop flinging about accusations of bad faith on my part. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to politely decline, as I feel that they are relevant points in this case, and that policy backs me. It is, perhaps, possible that I was unclear, though, so I've clarified my view. However, threatening someone with sanctions for stating opinions as opinion, and objecting to your misconduct in deleting it on a relevant page, when others had supported the view, is really not the best way to deal with a situation, or to try and get a view clarified. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, edit warring is SPECIFICALLY covered in a different bullet point. Have you read WP:BLOCK? In any case, all I'm saying is that it's perfectly reasonable to discuss gross and repeated violations of policy at RfC. I don't see how th e community gains a jot by saying that such issues can never be discussed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Greast. So there's different views on the topic. We can discuss them.
Do not edit my talk page again.
I consider your behaviour harassment, and have opened a thread on it. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bullying_and_threats_by_User:Ncmvocalist Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove other people's comments
As you did here. Friday (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to remove the comments and signature of an editor in good standing from an RFC. [7].
--Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Moving a comment to a talk page was borderline, but also removing an endorsement from an RFC was over the line. The editor was in good standing and had every right to endorse a statement if he chose. DurovaCharge! 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Even to openly misrepresent policy and what an arbitrator said? Look at the quotes for yourself:
Despite the fact Kirill confines the comments to discretionary sanctions, Holiday misrepresents it as absolute for all admin decisions. Those who endorsed it were unaware of the misrepresentation. I moved the view (for the second and last time to the talk page) and and showed him this:
He moved it back in WP:POINT making minimal attempts to make his statement accurate (and the other endorsers misinterpretation is clear on the talk page of the RFC). Misrepresenting policy or what an arbitrator has said is unacceptable anywhere in Wikipedia, including in the dispute resolution process.
I emphasized again and again he can make an endorsement or view, as long as he indicated he was involved (as there was evidence he was but he kept calling himself outside), and as long as he did not misrepresent policy, or what was said by an arbitrator, and as long as it was concerning the Rfc (not made in WP:POINT to an outside view). He refused to at least correct the misrepresentation, so I said I'd take it directly to the ArbCom as it involvese their statements, and so I did. And then I'm blocked for trying to ensure he is not sanctioned at a later date for misrepresenting arbitrator's views? Do I need to pull up the case to demonstrate this occurring? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I moved it twice (even then, to avoid a dysfunctional case like with the requests for arbitration page) - and no more after that. If I moved it again, particularly after I was left a note/comment to the effect that I should not move them (whether it is misrepresentation or not), then the block would be warranted. [[WP:CB|Cool-down blocks are not allowed, and this is clearly punitive. FloNight hhad not responded yet, and I continued giving opportunities for him to modify his misrepresentation. Had Holiday left a comment not to visit his talk page again, then it would've ended there. Instead, he says "I consider your behaviour harassment. I've launched a threat at ANI (see above) and his threat has been taken in full now. Thanks a lot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- If someone removes a thread from their talkpage, you can assume they don't particularly want you to immediately restore it. If they remove it a second time, then you can be absolutely sure they don't want you to immediately restore it again, even without an explicit note saying so. Likewise, one would hope you'd review the RfC guidelines and standard practice before removing a view endorsed by 2 experienced editors, particularly before edit-warring over it. Agreed, this should not have been phrased as a "cool-down block", but that's a secondary issue. Do you understand how these actions were problematic? If so, I'll unblock you right now. If you're going to continue arguing the letter of policy to an increasing number of experienced editors, then I'll move on. MastCell Talk 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- If someone removes a thread from their talkpage, you can assume they don't particularly want you to immediately restore it. If they remove it a second time, then you can be absolutely sure they don't want you to immediately restore it again, even without an explicit note saying so. Likewise, one would hope you'd review the RfC guidelines and standard practice before removing a view endorsed by 2 experienced editors, particularly before edit-warring over it. Agreed, this should not have been phrased as a "cool-down block", but that's a secondary issue. Do you understand how these actions were problematic? If so, I'll unblock you right now. If you're going to continue arguing the letter of policy to an increasing number of experienced editors, then I'll move on. MastCell Talk 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks says "Brief blocks for the sole purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." Without opinion as to whether or not Ncmvocalist's original edits were correct or whether a block was justified in general, a "cool down block" is never appropriate. My unsolicited advice as a not at all uninvolved admin is that the blocking admin consider either removing the block or at least modifying the block text to better express what behaviors the block was designed to prevent. --B (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly encourage you to listen to MastCell's advice and, despite the unfortunate phrasing of the block, "cool down". --B (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I also would like to see you unblocked if you agree to stop editing disruptively. Please agree to make your thoughts known through your own comments and not through altering or removing others, okay? I said I would look into the situation, and I will. We can discuss the key issue that has you concerned, alright. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. I agree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I also would like to see you unblocked if you agree to stop editing disruptively. Please agree to make your thoughts known through your own comments and not through altering or removing others, okay? I said I would look into the situation, and I will. We can discuss the key issue that has you concerned, alright. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You're unblocked. (I went to do it and Hiding did it already after you agreed). FloNight♥♥♥ 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hiding beat me to it as well! I've noted and supported this unblock at AN/I. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sarvagnya
Holding me responsible? I closed the RfC based on the rules we have WP:RFC/U. I know Sarvagnya has issues, but there are certain rules and expectations at RfC, and I am not going to ignore these. It's his own fault if his behavior worsens. Not mine. Also, I have no responsibility or obligation to investigate a user's conduct when closing an RfC. Furthermore, if someone had contacted me about Sarvagnya's behavior on the article talk page a week ago, I would have surely blocked him. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, Nishkid is not at fault here. We didn't have it filed completely appropriately. Having said that, like he said, some of us might be a little, maybe a lot, less lenient regarding that person's behavior from this point forward, if it continues. By all means, let me also know if you see any evidence of it ever again. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am fully aware of Sarvagnya's behavior. I did do a bit of digging on the article talk page. Most of the incivility and such took place a week ago, not now. Blocks aren't punitive, so what could I have done? That's why I just left a message on his talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- If he goes on an incivility streak in the future, let me know. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sarvagnya knows what I will do if he continues to make uncivil remarks. As for the canvassing, a block is only appropriate if the person continues to canvass after being warned not to do so. I don't think he canvassed on user talk pages after Karanacs' warning. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I am acknowledging that. I only became aware of some of his actions after the fact. There's nothing (besides issuing a warning) that I can do there. As for 59.182.75.210, that looks like Kuntan (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kuntan operates from a dynamic IP. Blocking this IP address won't do anything now, because he's probably already operating under a different IP from that range. We can't do a range block because there are a number of Indian editors who have the same ISP as Kuntan. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I am acknowledging that. I only became aware of some of his actions after the fact. There's nothing (besides issuing a warning) that I can do there. As for 59.182.75.210, that looks like Kuntan (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sarvagnya knows what I will do if he continues to make uncivil remarks. As for the canvassing, a block is only appropriate if the person continues to canvass after being warned not to do so. I don't think he canvassed on user talk pages after Karanacs' warning. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- If he goes on an incivility streak in the future, let me know. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am fully aware of Sarvagnya's behavior. I did do a bit of digging on the article talk page. Most of the incivility and such took place a week ago, not now. Blocks aren't punitive, so what could I have done? That's why I just left a message on his talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since when has Kuntan started taking up the case of the Hindu editors? It is notorious that he is anti-Hindu. The IP in question was arguing for Sarvagnya, not other way round. Uzhuthiran (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there
Hey Ncm, it has been a while, isn't it? I hope things are fine with you. I'd been busy in real life for the past month and this has kept me away from active editing. However, I'm back now. I'm helping Rang De Basanti towards a GA and slowing pacing myself up in editing. Whats keeping you busy? I didn't hear more from you regarding your ideas about WP:India. Busy, I believe. Gimme a heads-up whenever you can. Cheers mate! Mspraveen (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)