User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Page move

Can Talk:G.S.B (Gaud Saraswat Brahmin) be moved over the redirect so that it aligns with the current article title, ie: Goud Saraswat Brahmin? I'm not sure what is going on but someone keeps moving the articles and categories around despite me explaining that we do indeed need to follow WP:RM, WP:COMMONNAME etc. There is at least one recent thread on that talk page regarding these moves, initiated by me. - Sitush (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved. --regentspark (comment) 19:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And, FYI on an unrelated matter, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AuthorRk#08_December_2015 might be of interest because you blocked one of the accounts I think might be socking. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. But I doubt if this is going to end in a hurry :) --regentspark (comment) 14:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Me neither, and I suspect that if the AfD is successful then they'll just recreate. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I just read the wikilove message left on your talk page. Wasn't there someone else who kept adding Prithviraj Chauhan as the last Hindu ruler of Delhi? Not related to the Arakh page but somewhere else. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think quite a few people have done it. It seems to be a point of honour. - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess you're right. As long as this lot confines itself to Arakh, it should be easy to deal with. --regentspark (comment) 15:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Arya987 (talk · contribs). Didn't take them long, did it? - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And gone. I'll protect the page as well. Less time wasting hopefully. --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You will probably need to protect Arakhs and Arkawanshi. And I suspect they will create Arkavanshi also. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, RegentsPark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 17:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC).

Merry Christmas, RegentsPark

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

May our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget arbcom (I didn't keep that on my talk), and celebrate Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, RegentsPark

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

May our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget arbcom (I didn't keep that on my talk), and celebrate Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Grewal

In February 2015, you fully-protected this page indefinitely.

The account pushing the restoration of the AFD-replaced content appears to be inactive.

Please consider reducing the protection to pending-changes or semi-protection (or both) and putting an expiration date on it (I would normally suggest no longer than 1 year but given the article's history I am suggesting 2 or 3 years - if there is no attempted abuse after 2 or 3 years then let it expire). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I've changed the protection to autoconfirmed only. Since it is a disamb page rather than an article page, that should be good enough. Thanks for monitoring it. --regentspark (comment) 23:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sikhism

@RP:, @SpacemanSpiff: Please keep an eye on the editwarring here. Invitation to discuss it on the talk page has elicited no replies so far. The one month protection expired few days ago. The new accounts and IPs are trying to editwar, insert OR, use plagiarized Gyan Publishing as source, etc. Happy new year, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks familiar :) Watching. --regentspark (comment) 17:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi

Any chance of some semi-protection at List of Telugu castes? I can ask at WP:RFPP if you'd prefer but I would rather not because the chances are that someone will settle for, say, a week and that simply isn't going to do the job given the history. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like slow motion burn. Semi-ed. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for the deed. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Taconic State Parkway

Okay. But the point of the two images in that box is to illustrate the accompanying text about how the landscaping and stonework along the road were meant to be part of an integrated experience. The way the sun looks (or doesn't look) over the road is really not something the designers of the road had any control over . Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. But the view of the Amvets bridge and the reservoir from the southbound TSP is amazing - even for a scenic parkway like the TSP. The view out west toward the reservoir at sunset is equally amazing but I figured this one is scenic and includes the bridge.--regentspark (comment) 03:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

But I'm probably biased since I took the picture. If you want to take it off, go ahead. --regentspark (comment) 03:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we can find a place for it somewhere else in the article. Yes, I've often that view was awesome under the right circumstances. Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mughal Empire flag

Wasn't File:Alam_of_the_Mughal_Empire.svg one of those that we stripped out of articles due to WP:OR? There is certainly no way that the source file for the image could actually give rise to the image. I'd ask Abecededare because they rather led that charge but, alas, they seem to be inactive at present. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was and any reference to it should be deleted on sight. Anyone adding it could be a sock of mughallohar. --regentspark (comment) 02:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, that name surfaces again. I am off to bed now but perhaps tomorrow I will remove the links again. I'm not good at spotting socks so I'll have to leave that to someone else. It would perhaps be easier if we could find some justification for deletion of the image ... but I won't hold my breath on that happening. - Sitush (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So why exactly do you have a fixation on removing the flag? I want to understand your problem first of all, before going to the talk page, because we all know there is no history book text saying this is how the Mughal flag looks like. The sun flag of Mughal Empire is based on a painting from Bhavanidas in early 18th century. So how is this original research. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

If we use an image of a flag, it should be well sourced. Provide sources that say this was the flag used by the Mughal Empire and no one will object. Note that a painting is not a reliable source. Rather, you need sources that refer to credible historians. Best if you start a discussion so that others can chime in as well rather than discussing it here. --regentspark (comment) 07:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

With that logic 80% of former Empires in Wikipedia need to remove their flags that are based on manuscripts, which is stupid as hell, on top of that you are putting heavy restriction because you know no Historian discusses about the flag of the Mughal Empire. And that panting is reliable, now you acting dumb on purpose, its straight from the metmusuem, I will not start discussion until I understand your problem of corrupting wikipedia. Dare you go and visit the Safavid Empire's article and remove the flag. Which on your standard is OR, how about the Umayyad Caliphate flag? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, I'm not the only one 'acting dumb'. Take it to the talk page. These things are not decided between two editors. --regentspark (comment) 00:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are acting smart, VERY SMART, I like that, now please answer my questions, because I don't care about the talk page of the flag or the Empire, I'm talking to you and your editing of Wikipedia, which in my eyes seem vandalism. Please I want to see you remove the Safavid Flag, which like the Mughal flag is based on a manuscript. As usual you will never do that, just corrupt the damn Wikipedia page of the Mughal article already Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Article talk page please. --regentspark (comment) 01:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking to you, what am I going to say in the article talk page, which deisnged for talking on ways to improve the article, I'm talking ways to improve your editing skills and your need for restricting the flag. Stop ducking and man up Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"man up"? Is this some sort of macho contest or a deliberative process of deciding on content. Content discussions should be on article talk pages. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Administrator note - For the record, I tried to offer advice to Alexis that this behavior is not the right way to go. Another admin blocked him for 2 weeks for harrassment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Not surprised! --regentspark (comment) 20:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ADMIN NOTICEBOARD and new Bose talk section

I have a raised a note in Admin notice board and left notes in the talk page in a new section.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 22:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--regentspark (comment) 23:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Subhas Bose

RP you raised a note earlier that some of the edits in the Bose page where introducing fringe and undue arguments. I have raised a neew section to discuss this. Your views would be very welcome.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your comment

Hello, I believe I do have citations that may satisfy the requirements. However I am having difficulty accurately creating them. There are two existing Wikipedia articles that site this author in their Bibliography. I tried to link my article to them using a hyperlink tool and did not do this correctly. I'm researching how best to manage this. My question is: How do I correctly cite a citation in a different Wikipedia article? I hope I have time to correct this so that the revised article can be reviewed again before the final decision to remove it. Thank you. Tjhouse23 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tjhouse23. You can't use wikipedia articles as citations. Ideally, you should look for reviews of her books in mainstream newspapers or magazines. Those would count as reliable citations. --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(tps) Hi Tjhouse23, you can copy the needed citations from the other page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Move request

Can you please move User:Anjana Larka/List of Pakistan Super League records and statistics to List of Pakistan Super League records and statistics over redirect? so more editors can contribute to this list and expand it. Redirect was also created by me -Anjana Larka^{SEND WIKILOVE💗} 12:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. --regentspark (comment) 15:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Thanks -Anjana Larka^{SEND WIKILOVE💗} 06:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for attention

Hello please note the recent changes and potential edit warring on Sikhism page. I would appreciate your involvement if things escalate. Pinsi281 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, here we go again? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice you keep mentioning this. Where are you going by the way ? Pinsi281 (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: you are now editwarring with multiple editors, you have now reverted @JJ, that makes it your 5th RR since yesterday: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. You were cautioned by @RegentsPark here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

They are edits based on evolving discussions, not blind reverts. You have actually made four yourself. And you are inserting new text on top of last consensus version. Please exercise restraint and care.Pinsi281 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: You accuse falsely. I reverted you twice, and my third edit deleted WP:Copyvio by you. Copyvio issues are exempt from WP:3RR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm watching the page. Note that 3RR includes revisions that may or may not contain overlapping text and that reverting copyvios is not included in the 3RR reversions. Pinis281, I suggest you consider proposing your edits on the talk page and getting consensus before you make them. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sikhism protection

Hello, I really appreciate your close involvement. As you suggested, I am glad to keep participating on the talk page debate during this period of page protection. One request : Like you pointed out "Please note that this is not a comment on which version is right or wrong". As per this, could you add some note/tag on the article page somehow notifying the common reader about this fact. Pinsi281 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not necessary. The current version seems to have been stable for a while and I doubt if it is gratuitously wrong. Another week of the current version will not cause any harm. --regentspark (comment) 18:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but just FYI, it is not a stable version "but maintained that he was a teacher, was not a reincarnation of God or in any way related to God.[12][13]" was added today. Pinsi281 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Propose a revised wording on talk page. If there is consensus, I'll change it. --regentspark (comment) 18:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

Hi RP, I need help with Kashmir conflict POV edits like this [1]. This page periodically gets attacked by LanguageXpert socks and everytime it blows up, wasting loads of time from everybody. I think it is better to nip in the bud and semi-protect it. NeilN knows the situation, but he seems offline. Can you do the honours? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it. That should keep the editing clean. --regentspark (comment) 20:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#WP:INDICSCRIPT

What about infoboxes and the rest of the article? Per Sitush's comments at User:Sitush/Common#Scripts and other interpretations at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_53, I'm confused. I can't envisage a scenario where this is going to end well. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to read the discussion again - I thought the consensus applied only to the lead. I'd like to see less emphasis on indic scripts and more on content, most readers could care less about what a foreign script is actually saying, but Wikipedia is full of editors who come up with 'why is my page different from x country's page'. I'll read the discussion again and see what it says. --regentspark (comment) 18:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If I may butt in... I based it on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Singapore Tiger7253 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Tiger7253 Do you see the problem? Prime Minister of Singapore has two regional languages as of now. Soon each entry in List of Prime Ministers of India will end up having 20+ regional scripts as a result of arguments over national/official/regional/native importance of that particular script. The only way to avoid the constant script-warring is to get rid of Indic scripts altogether and point people to the corresponding indic wikipedia. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I wouldn't want to limit Indic scripts to the respective Indic Wikipedias alone is because it completely severs the biographical article or the religious concept (eg karma or yoga) from the native script that bore it in the first place. Getting rid of all Indic scripts altogether just feels too excessive - far too excessive a move. I can come to terms with leaving it off the lead sentence of the article, but this kind of takes it overboard.

You will notice that I only included the native names of the respective prime ministers in that list - instead of including Hindi for every single PM - because I knew it would spark off that kind of debate. I purposely left it at that, and some kind of notice can be included in the source to leave it at that so that it won't spark off an unnecessary debate. Problem averted. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see infoboxes included in the proscription against indic scripts. Tiger7253, there are no easy answers to the indic script issue and the choice of script is often colored by political and other idiosyncratic factors and it is best that we - Wikipedia editors - don't make these sorts of decisions. As an English language entity, we can, by choice, stay out of that sort of thing. The reality is, and one look at the List of Prime Ministers page makes it clear, these scripts add nothing except clutter to the article. (Just as an example, since our current prime minister represents a Hindi speaking constituency, shouldn't his name be rendered in Hindi? What about an ex-President from Assam, or the one from Hyderabad. Are we going to make the choice of native script for them? I haven't seen a single good reason for inclusion of these scripts but have seen dozens of good reasons for their exclusion. --regentspark (comment) 23:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your points are valid, and it is also why I would propose the creation of a policy where only their native names should be added to their infoboxes and strictly their native names alone. Their names should not be rendered in Hindi if they are not from the Hindi belt. The PM does represent a Hindi speaking constituency, but he literally signs his name in Gujarati - as his signature in the infobox shows. People from that Hindi speaking constituency also aren't likely to read his English wiki page - or, if they could - then they wouldn't need his Hindi name to be on the page as proficient English speakers in the first place. Therefore, Indic script on English biographical articles exist for the sole purpose of documenting their native name as opposed to appealing to Hindi speakers. In the case of ambiguity where no one knows what should be added, completely leave Indic script out.

I still think the subject's native name should be rendered for the sole reason being that it is their native name. I know it isn't a very cogent and factual point, but it is kind of hard to come up with cogent points in this scenario... other than the fact that the subject's native name does matter in a biographical article as it is what they were born with. That is the name that is rendered in their birth certificates, IDs, etc. that are unique to the state of their origin. It is a superficial, but nevertheless important part of the biographical documentation of their lives, and getting rid of it altogether because of a few drawbacks that can be weeded out by imposing a few more policies feels quite excessive. Tiger7253 (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the idea because we're making decisions based on ethnicity that may or may not be valid or the preference of the person for whom we are making that decision. But, at this point there doesn't seem to be any problem with adding native scripts to the infobox so, I guess, you can add them. If anyone has objections to the use of a specific script in an article, that can be addressed in the article talk page.--regentspark (comment) 14:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I will object to each and every such addition on the grounds of WP:OR and trivia. The RfC was intended to cover infoboxes but the closer omitted to mention it. They did, IIRC, subsequently acknowledge their omission. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not Original Research. It is not a factual addition. It is a mere Indic transcription added by Indians who are already proficient in various Indic languages and scripts (like me). I don't see how anyone could possibly 'research' a transcription of their names. Any Indian with a basic knowledge of Devanagari can surely spell Raja, unless there are 50 different ways to spell Raja in Devanagari.

Unless your whole objection on the basis of OR is because dubious ethnolinguistic backgrounds of the subjects in question - but in many cases that is already explicitly stated and linked to various and multiple references in biographical articles. I already stated that in the event of ambiguity, it should be left out because in that case it would be an assumption that could potentially violate the OR rules. Tiger7253 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It is because we do not know which transcription they prefer, which is in many cases likely to be a BLP violation also. In addition, the points raised in the RfC regarding vandalism etc hold true for infoboxes as much as for lead paragraphs etc. Do you honestly anticipate that, say, the transcriptions of controversial politicians' names will not be attacked, or that people won't get into prolonged disputes on linguistic nationalist lines? Just drop it, please: it isn't important on the English WP and I'll fight this tooth-and-nail. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to fight it 'tooth and nail', fight it up at a higher level and call for a blanket ban of all non-Latin scripts on English Wikipedia. Until that is accomplished, people will continue using Indic scripts on English Wiki. There is simply no way anyone will get rid of it, especially in cases where they actually matter to the article - like in the case of Hindu/Buddhist articles where documenting the Indic script forms a factual part of the article. People will see it as a move to minimise the importance of Indic Scripts, and will see it as the act of someone who has an anti-Indian, pro-Western agenda. Of course, that isn't what I think of the people who want Indic scripts gone, but that's just how people will take it.

The points you listed above were based on pure speculation. I doubt anyone will have an issue with Gujarati on Narendra Modi's page - no one seems to have an issue with it so far - or with Tamil on Abdul Kalam's page - but if they do, they could always choose to discuss it in the Talk section of the respective articles and then come to a consensus. This is not such a big issue on the larger scale of things - for example any potential dispute about the script that should be included in Modi's article is nothing compared to the disputes currently raging in his Talk page that pertain to his involvement in the 2002 riots.

A blanket ban is never the answer for anything. A lot of things will slip through the cracks because of the blanket ban you intend to impose, and any consensus that is made will never able to be applied uniformly across every single article. A blanket ban will ironically lead to far more prolonged disputes because people will always argue for the inclusion of their native script in their article and will start multiple threads asking for the consensus to be repealed. The standards that have been set in the wider English wiki will eventually overpower any consensus that is made here.

The best thing to do would be to compromise, forget about Indic scripts in the lead (like the previous consensus said), and allow for them to remain in the infobox after a unique consensus has been reached on each individual page. Surely that cannot be such a bad compromise to make. As for your claim that it 'isn't important', I'm sorry, but that is an entirely subjective statement. Importance varies from person to person. It may not be important to you, but it could be important to an English-speaking member of the Indian diaspora for many reasons. It is a subtle form of representation that is otherwise rare in the English realm. Tiger7253 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And if I am to be entirely honest, re: importance - I am proficient in English, but the inclusion of Indic scripts in biographies makes it easier for me to learn how to pronounce the subject's names if I haven't seen them before. I, like many other Indians, cannot read the IPA pronunciations, but when it comes to names like 'Jawaharlal' and 'Haradanahalli Doddegowda', Indic scripts do really help us with the pronunciation. That is a valid point. I only recently realised that I pronounced 'Vajpayee' the wrong way until I saw how it was spelled in Devanagari (वाजपेयी). English wikis don't solely cater to the white, western english-speaking world. They cater to us too since Indian English is one of our official languages. Tiger7253 (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

'No' wasn't a valid reason for you to revert my edit. Wikipedia doesn't operate on people's whims and fancies and likes and dislikes. I am merely operating within the set framework that bans Indic Scripts from the lead, but not from anywhere else. Feel free to start a thread about it if you want to reach a second consensus that takes it even further - no one is stopping you from doing that. Is there anything you can say to refute the fact that it aids pronunciation for Indian readers? I legitimately had no idea I was pronouncing Vajpayee wrong until I found out the Dev. spelling of his name, and I suppose it can act like an IPA of sorts for Indian readers who are used to seeing Indian names in their own scripts - not in the Latin script. Until some cogent points can be raised, this all feels very agenda-driven. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It is agenda-driven. The agenda is called experience of what happens here, which is something you lack. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You claim you're an experienced editor, yet you're going against one of Wikipedia's central pillars: never berate anyone for being less experienced than you are. That does not distinguish you from me in any shape or form. The fact remains that I never violated any rule or consensus, while you are reverting my edits on the basis of you having more experience than me. That violates Wikipedia's rules. Feel free to create a new consensus then, which I guarantee you will be very unpopular - especially if you tried getting rid of Indic text in an article like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi Tiger7253 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

An exception already exists for placenames. I was not berating you, merely pointing out that your enthusiasm as a relative newcomer (although one surprisingly cognisant of our policies etc) may be getting in the way of the common sense which derives from experience. I've been there and done it but you are not even addressing my objections, which are neither whims nor fancies. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Since we're all being honest here I might as well go ahead and say that the prime reason for me pushing this issue is because I am concerned with representation in a world that continues to become more and more Anglicised. The last thing I, or many Indians would like to see, is our native names being cut off from our prominent personalities on the most prominent encyclopaedic platform that exists - especially when other 'ethnic' people have their native names listed. Yes, I know India is the most diverse country on the planet, but my point still stands. You did have valid points about ambiguity sparking off arguments, but I see no reason to otherwise completely banish Indic scripts because Talk pages exist for a reason and a consensus can be reached everywhere. The lines get even more blurred with Urdu and Sindhi speakers - their languages do not employ Indic scripts, so I technically wouldn't be going against a (non-established) consensus if I were to include their native names. Would those edits be reverted too?

I am of the opinion that a blanket ban causes far more problems than a compromise ever will. People on Wikipedia have problems with everything. They have problems with pictures. They have problems with the neutrality of certain articles. This is way down low on the list and isn't as big an issue as we are making it seem, and calling for a blanket ban feels like the most excessive thing ever. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I thought, your concern is one of a sort of linguistic nationalism. That never works well on Wikipedia. I agree that multiculturalism is a desirable thing but Wikipedia addresses that primarily through multilanguage projects, ie: you can edit at the Hindi WP, the Tamil WP etc and those articles at least in theory can be accessed in a cross-language manner via Wikidata. Your believe that a blanket ban would cause more problems than local compromises/consensus is plain wrong: it is easy to enforce a blanket ban but much more difficult to do so at article level simply because of the sheer number of articles that are affected.

This issue has been raised time and again at WT:INB by relative newcomers and every single time they have found themselves in the minority. It pretty much has the status of being a "perennial question", and those are not generally appreciated anywhere on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it linguistic nationalism (never heard of that term before). Doesn't linguistic nationalism refer to people who believe in linguistic supremacy over all other languages? That isn't what I'm doing here. I'm not sparking off debates and tussles about which language should be given priority in an article and what shouldn't. I'm just for including the mothertongue - the language that relates to the legally listed ethnolinguistic background of the person in question. I'd simply call it representation and preservation. I keep pushing for a compromise because there are some biographical articles that completely lack ethnolinguistic ambiguity, and under no circumstances should those articles be unfairly penalised. All I'm asking for is for a clause that will allow for the inclusion of the necessary script in such articles.

Another thing - In cases concerning biographical articles of prominent people of Indian descent from non-Indian countries that have an Indic language as an official language - Fiji and Singapore come to mind - will this policy be applied? Say, to this article - Tharman Shanmugaratnam? Tiger7253 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I am saying no more here. This is becoming tedious after having dealt with the issue so many times in the past. I'll just revert on sight. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no "legally listed ethnolinguistic background" of an Indian citizen. Language does not appear in the Indian birth certificate, passport, or biometric ID card. Tiger7253 please make your excellent ideological queries on the pages of countries that give legal status to ethno-linguistic backgrounds. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru

I actually added Indic script to the infobox, not the lead sentence, as I thought that doesn't fall under the consensus reached. I used the native_name parameter. Not sure if that is prohibited by the consensus either? Tiger7253 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted my edit. Need to look again at the consensus. --regentspark (comment) 18:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the Devanagari script for reasons I give in my post on WT:INDIA. Tiger7253 (talk · contribs) has added native scripts en mass to the office holder infoboxes of Indian biography names, adding most after your reply here, which does not grant him the permission to do so, only states that you, RP, will study the language of the consensus. Could they be reverted until there is consensus on the issues? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no legal recognition of ethnolinguistic background in India, unless it occurs as an aspect of caste and renders an Indian citizen disadvantaged. That I believe is enough reason to remove native names from Indian office holder infoboxes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I hope the consensus will be studied by whoever's studying it so that we can all know if I have a legitimate reason to include Indic script in infoboxes. Also, FYI, what I included in Narendra Modi's infobox wasn't Devanagari. It was Gujarati. An exact carbon copy of the image of his signature attached to the bottom of the infobox. This is exactly what I mean by 'clear cut situation' where there is no ambiguity or confusion as to the type of Indic text that should be included, so I am kind of surprised my edit on Modi's page got reverted as well.

There may be no legal recognition of ethnolingustic backgrounds in India, but that doesn't make him any less Gujarati, or Manmohan Singh any less Punjabi. You may then argue that "I have no right to decide this as this is OR" etc. etc. but they were born in states that have those exact two languages as the official languages. If Modi was born in, say, Tamil Nadu, then it would be more ambiguous, but in this case it is clear-cut. Tiger7253 (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many more levels of complexity than you are granting. There is the vernacular (standard Gujarati) in contrast to the lingua franca (Bazaar Hindi, Hinglish), in the vernacular there is the mother tongue (the non-standard regional dialect, which of Gujarati include Gamadia (Ahmedabad, Vadodari), Kakari, Kathiyawadi (Saurastra), Kharwa, Parsi, Standard Gujarati, Tarimuki, Surati) in contrast to standard regional language; then there is the national or official language (Standard Hindi, Standard Indian English) in contrast to the lingua franca. Which one are we to write here? A simple name written in a script incomprehensible to an average reader has no encyclopedic value, especially when the article on Nehru or Modi makes little or no mention of their native languages. The diversity that Wikipedia strives for is much more furthered by a reliably sourced sentence of the sort: Narendra Modi grew up speaking the Gamadia dialect of Gujarati at home; in middle school, the medium of instruction was Gujarati, whereas in high school it was Indian English (if this is indeed the case). You are taking the easy way out. It is much harder to write a reliably sourced sentence of text which tells the average reader something of encyclopedic value. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Fowler makes an excellent point. Our job on Wikipedia is to write articles that contain properly sourced and verifiable information. Since, in the vast majority of cases, we can't verify the entho-linguistic preferences of an individual, we should avoid including native scripts. Using heuristics such as place of birth or the name of the person is no substitute for proper sourcing. --regentspark (comment) 13:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User posting messages on the other's userpages

@Feuerman: created the user page and another user's userpage. --Captain Spark (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think they just don't know what they are doing. Hopefully some of the advice will sink in sooner or later. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

INCOTM revival and lead

Following the discussion, I have started this section, could you do initial works before we ask the larger team to participate? Or if you have any suggestions, please let me know. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I missed the discussion :( I can't do a lot on Wikipedia because of RL issues but this is a great idea (the collaboration as well as the idea of recognizing Indic wikipedians). If I may make a suggestion, try to get a core set of Wikipedians who commit to making x edits to the COTM each month. COTM has fizzled out in the past because of a lack of participation and a prior commitment may help avoid that. Even a commitment to a small number of edits will help and I'm happy to make a small commitment of my own. Then, we can give barnstars for meeting a commitment, barnstars for x edits each week to the COTM, barnstars for 'at least one edit a day' to the COTM, etc. Of course, this adds to the administrative overhead so we'll need someone who agrees to be the person keeping track of commitments and handing out barnstars. Perhaps you or Capankajsmilyo?--regentspark (comment) 15:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Although I do not want to act like a jerk by posting this here again, I did want to make sure you read it.

Says Socrates — 'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.' While I did not expect anything better from others, I must confess I am deeply disappointed and hurt by the your approach, in your capacity as the arbiter. Without responding to any of my several requests to intervene (following on your own suggestion that I participate in this debate), you have been prompt in responding to and adding fire to misleading allegations and ad hominem attacks. I cannot emphasize enough how disappointing that is for an editor like me who expects admins of impeccable integrity such as yourself to remain neutral. Sarah Welch is unnecessarily reverting to some January version, when Feb 17 is the last stable version (arrived at in consensus with the sources added by Jujhar Pannu). How can this be allowed ? Pinsi281 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinsi281, the way Wikipedia works, you have to get consensus for edits that are contested. What you need to do is to present sources and convince other editors that your edits are legitimate (I have no idea whether they are or are not). That may not happen on the article talk page, even if you're right, and that's why we have a dispute resolution process where other editors, people with no a priori biases, can evaluate the legitimacy of your content. I suggest that's your best option at this point. About the SPI. the Sikhism page has been the target of socks for a while and, since the socks apparently have similar edits to yours, it makes sense to file an SPI. I While this may be unfortunate and may appear unfair to you, this is really in the best interests of Wikipedia and in the best interests of all editors out here. f you're not a sock, then no one can accuse you of being one and everyone can focus on content without being distracted by those sorts of issues. If it helps, I'll drop a message on MSW's talk page asking them to either file an SPI or stop talking about socks. --regentspark (comment) 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@RP: I have never filed an SPI before, and it seems like a time consuming process. We already know @Js82 used at least the following five IPs 50.156.*.*, 209.49.*.*, 86.167.*.*, 67.164.*.*, and 172.56.*.* (see this harassment too). The comments and edits of @Pinsi281 somewhat mirror what Sikhism article has seen in the last 6 months, and it is appropriate to mention those @Js82 discussions, instead of typing everything all over again. I feel @Pinsi281 needs to be warned about calling fellow wikipedia contributors as liars, etc which is what Joshua Jonathan noted earlier. But it hasn't helped, and this latest snide remarks and personal attacks of @Pinsi281 is inappropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Filing an SPI is fairly straightforward. Go to WP:SPI, click show on the How to section and enter Js82 in the box. Then add Pinsi281 at sock1, any other IPs or accounts you suspect at sock2, sock3 or ip1, ip2, etc. Cut and paste the material above into the evidence section and that's about it. I could do this for you if you like but it's worth trying it on your own.--regentspark (comment) 00:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I really do not have to prove my identity to anyone. Wikipedia cannot operate on the whims and fancies of a couple of editors who are hell bent on destroying it. I have nothing to do with any prior editors. I started participating when I saw some constructive edits from Jujhar Pannu and wanted to extend my support to those. As simple as that. Such SPIs cannot be justified at all. Pinsi281 (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're not a sock then only good will come out of an SPI. I've filed it for MSW. --regentspark (comment) 01:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@RP: I guess we filed SPI in parallel. I took longer, as I was busy presenting more evidence and details. I notice @Pinsi281's last edit reverted @JJ with a strange, inappropriate edit comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinsi281 is blocked as a sock so that's done with. Don't wait 3 months the next time :) Actually, I think we can block on sight if anyone with similar edits shows up and begins to edit war.--regentspark (comment) 14:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Explanation added to "Yongon"

Any objection for my added content plz... Nimrainayat6290 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It isn't really necessary to say where Rangoon is or what its new name is. Too much detail is not good and that's the point of wikilinking. Rangoon is wikilinked and the interested reader can click on it and figure things out (if they don't already know it).--regentspark (comment) 20:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Racist IP

Sigh. Looks like Mikemikev, see my talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks likely. Also saw JamesBWatson's comment. --regentspark (comment) 16:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Another @Js82?

@RP: A new account @Kigman fs, quite familiar with wikipedia policies, now on Bhakti movement page, edit warring on Sikhism section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Watching. Nothing extreme at this point. --regentspark (comment) 01:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@RP: There is the same behavior in Bhakti movement Sikhism article, that we keep seeing in Sikhism, where new accounts suddenly open up and start edit warring whenever there is a difficult topic, or content dispute begins. The edit warring and snide remarks, you see in Bhakti movement recent edit history, is the type of behavior that drains time and effort of editors like Joshua Jonathan, Apuldram, Chrisw80, me and others. You can help by at least semi protecting, for 3-5 days, wherever you see "edit warring by new accounts in the middle of on-going content dispute and discussion", while the various seasoned sides can discuss the sources, and help improve Sikhism-related/Ravidassia-related sections or articles. Is there another better way to address this? There is clearly repeated WP:MEAT behavior in Sikhism-wiki-articles, this is disruptive, and needs a response. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-d and will extend it if the SPI throws something up. --regentspark (comment) 13:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, RegentsPark! Chrisw80 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

So, edit-warring is allowed now, as long as you have consensus on your side? I just wanted to make sure, because recently I was told different. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 22:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Still reverting

here. Protection required, I think. Cassianto^Talk 22:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Done by Bencherlite. --regentspark (comment) 23:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Sun Warrior

I'll be adding 3 socks to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika/Archive tomorrow. This guy[2] was the most prolific. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Kanyakubja Brahmin

Kanyakubja Brahmin is one of several articles that are repeatedly disrupted by people who appear to be pushing the alleged Brahmin status of the Bhumihar. That status has been rejected time and again on Wikipedia. This anon is among those who return to reinstate the stuff. It becomes very tedious having to go round umpteen articles reverting them. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

NB: they can't actually fiddle with their primary target: the Bhumihar article itself is now under 30/500 restrictions, and numerous attempted pov forks have been salted. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's on my watch list. I don't really understand all this stuff but will protect the article if the IP returns. This obsession with caste ... ! --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything to do with Bhumihars is a constant problem, although I suspect it is mostly one person who keep switching accounts. The IP did return to Kanyakubja and related articles today, and another named account has also been pushing the Bhumihar thing there. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I sem-protected it. That should help. --regentspark (comment) 18:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It should indeed. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi

Could you and other page watchers keep track of the criticism section being added to Rahul Gandhi? [3] Surely the BLP policy exists to prevent statements like "he speaks lies and try to divert the attention" and such. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Added to watch list. --regentspark (comment) 00:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sock attack

Hi RegentsPark, A LanguageXpert sock is on the prowl again [4]. Can you semi-protect Indo-Pakistani War of 1965? You had protected Kashmir conflict earlier, but he is attacking the talk page. I don't know if it is possible to semi-protect the talk page as well? Thanks, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Done. Blocked. --regentspark (comment) 18:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@RegentsPark: IP range 39 is an A class range, it's a huge block of IPs, not all of them can be sock of LanguageXpert. We should not call anyone a sock and block them because we guess that they could be sock of LanguageXpert. There should be some behavioral evidence. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Incidentally the IP who was bothering Sheriff appears to be from UK, unlikely to be MBlaze. MBlaze has been in touch with me for the last few days, and he promised to be good. Apparently the first few accounts he created got blocked within a few weeks, and he didn't know enough about the policies at that time. But now he knows. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Kautilya3: Are you saying that you knew that he had accounts previously blocked and you have been in contact with him through email all the while when he was causing disruption knowing that he is a sock-puppet or i misunderstood it? Also, you are saying that he knows about policies which means he knew about WP:SPA but he still continued editing using a sock-puppet account instead waiting to apply from his original account. Does that make him a good editor? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really. That is why I said specifically "in the last few days," especially after you started the SPI. He told that me that he thought he was going to get blocked, and he didn't know what to do. I advised him as I should. He also asked for my support for his unblock request, which I declined. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

LanguageXpert socks have been attacking me for ages and I can recognize them pretty easily by now. Blocking an IP doesn't do anything to him, because he swaps IPs routinely. I know that blocking the entire IP range is impractical. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Events of 1971

The wording of your closure is apt. At some point the use of ARBIPA sanctions might be considered. I'm wondering if the next step could be topic bans from specific India-Pakistan conflicts for three months. That is less severe than a complete ban from all of ARBIPA. From a review of WP:DSLOG/2016, It looks like some 1RRs have been handed out, but people are not following them. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@EdJohnston: The disruption and edit-warring on those articles was due to that sock-puppet of KnightWarrior25 who returned just to cause this disruption so you should consider that when making these determinations, when socks such as these will start disrupting the encyclopedia, someone will need to step in to maintain the integrity. We cannot stop people from improving encyclopedia just because some sock-puppets of blocked users do not like it. Also, that report which you are referring to was a fallacious report filed by that same sock-puppet. He was just fooling around everyone. They just come and cause disruption and everyone else wastes their time to defend the values of Wikipedia. This report should have no value, it should be stricken in the archives as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at what's going on with the various Bangladesh war related articles, I think some action is definitely necessary. I'm too busy in RL to figure out who is the more disruptive and was just hoping that @Bishonen: steps in and blocks everyone who is disruptive :) but yes, topic bans and/or some sort of page level restriction (1 RR on any material on any page connected to the Bangladesh war would force a BRD type discussion) is probably necessary.--regentspark (comment) 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 1RR isn't helping enough because there is a meatfarm over there [5]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Kautilya3: That is an accusation i take an exception to, there is no meatfarm there, the page is in my watchlist and i have edited that before. I did not step in anywhere. I just did not have enough time to contribute. I contribute whenever i have time. So i basically stepped in when i had time. Stop exaggerating! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Did I get it wrong? It's kind of hard following the reverts and rereverts but the article should be where it was before the current edit wars started. Actually, if you or someone else could make a list of all the affected articles for me, that would be great. I'll protect some - or all - of them. This edit warring is getting out of hand. --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@RegentsPark: When we take out that sock which got blocked today, there is no edit-warring but if we protect the pages now after the block of that disruptive user that would not favor Wikipedia because by the time the pages will get unprotected, he will be back with another sock to start edit-warring and disruption. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, on Bangladesh Liberation War, it was Ghatus that did the big revert. I undid him, but RP agreed with Ghatus and reverted it back. There the matter should have ended and the discussion moved to the talk page. But about 13 reverts and re-reverts took place after RP drew the line. Sheriff, what I wrote on your talk page is factual. No accusations. All the debates are about NPOV, but very few of the involved editors know what that means. When one editor says it is UNDUE, the other editor says it is "sourced." So it goes on. It cannot all be blamed on MBlaze.

RP, the 1971 pages that are affected are 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and possibly other related pages. Some piece of contested content is produced and then inserted into all the 1971 pages. Thus the fire spreads. There were also problems with Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No sir, you are not right about your meatfarm accusation. I am not talking about your comment on my talk page. I am objecting to your accusation of meatfarm while showing your comment in which you say that you were disappointed to see me show up on that page. That is like accusing me of meat-puppetry and that is not true. You clearly know how to check page history. You should know for how long I have been contributing to that page.

Also, why is that, that every sock-puppet I get blocked have been in contact with you. Start with Akbar the Great about whom you asked me to be gentle with him because he is fragile, he comes out to be sock of Bazaan then Greek Legend was regular visitor of your talk page and he comes out to be sock of CosmicEmperor, now this guy MBlaze regularly contacts you via email and you go assist him on all pages he edits, comes out to be sock of KnightWarrior25. While doing all this yourself, you accuse others of meatfarm? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean "meat farm" in the sense you are taking. My point was that TZB has plenty of people who are ready to reinstate his edits. So, his 1RR restriction serves no purpose.

As to why people write to me, I have no idea. I give welcome messages and help out when they start, and they probably think of me as a friend. You will also find plenty of people writing to me on my talk page, including people who want me to review their books on Amazon! What can I say? In the case of Akbar the Great (about whose socking I had no idea until you just told me), I wrote to him myself because he declared that he was retiring because of something I said to him.

I myself don't spend any time trying to identify and chase after socks. I rather spend my time reading and writing, which is what I am here to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sikhism-related edit summary by 59.177.67.239

Is there a way to hide the uncivil/racist edit summary for this and caution the IP? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@GSS-1987: I have not undone that edit, as that IP's edit summary probably needs hide/other fix. FYI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. --regentspark (comment) 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done --regentspark (comment) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! Ms Sarah Welch – GSS (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)