RegentsPark

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocking Nawab of Atrauli

Personally I would have given him another chance. The draft he wrote is actually pretty good and (with some copyediting) would be a decent addition to Wikipedia, but he hasn't learned about proper sourcing. It looks like he had removed the wall-of-text sources from the draft with intent to add them back as inlline citations, before he was blocked. At first I thought he had a COI based on the username, but the name turns out to be historical. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I haven't seen any reasonable source for the nawab and, according to google maps, Atrauli is a small town in India. Add the repeated submission of the draft and this looks dubious. Still, if you think differently then let's see what the user says.RegentsPark (comment) 20:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Move Protected Page Parshurama.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Move Protected Page Parshurama. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I originally wrote this for the ANI thread and only bothered to re-write the intro so it's worded a little generally but hopefully that's okay. I'm posting this to you directly as it occurred to me there's no point saying this there since as I understand it, nothing can happen unless you either agree or I open a discussion at AN (rather than leave it at ANI). It sounds like you're busy so if can't deal with it but agree for any admin to reduce it if they feel it's justified, I'll go back to posting it there.

In my opinion, it's worth assessing if the ECP is still needed at Parashurama. While I don't disagree with the protection at the time, the focus of the article isn't something that would normally come under WP:CASTE community authorised discretionary sanctions. From what I see, the only reason it did is because of the long standing claims of living descendant [1] [2] [3]. That section was IMO rightfully excised just before protection [4]. (IMO it's rare we should have anything about living descendants of a mythology figure and when we do, it definitely needs careful attention to the wording.)

AFAICT, no one has tried to descent stuff back during the 30 months ECP AFAICT which might just be because of ECP. But while there does seem to have been a fair amount of silliness over that section over the years, I wonder if its removal might be enough to stop such nonsense at least from confirmed editors. In other words the presence of the section was the catalyst for much of the silliness around it.

If we don't expect that to reoccur, as far as I see, ECP under CASTE community sanctions cannot be justified. And I'm not convinced there was enough generally silliness from confirmed editors to justify long term ECP under our normal protection policy. Since the article also comes under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan it could be moved to that where it would be easier to justify it. However it's quite difficult now, and probably not worth assessing how much of the non descent disruption came from confirmed editors. I will note that that extended confirmed protection at the end of 2021 seems to have been the first time the article was ever protected so semi-protection was never tried.

So I wonder if it might be better to at least try moving it to semi-protection. I'd note that AFAICT, while Vishnu is extended confirmed, currently the only other of the commonly recognised 10 avatars of Vishnu that seem to be protected are Krishna, Rama and Kalki and they're all semi-protected. And Vishnu's protection is recent [5] and seems to relate to a problematic sock but I think Prashurama might be far removed enough from what the sock is trying to do to avoid too much focus just like the other avatars of Vishnu. I know very little about this so perhaps there's something about Parashurama which makes such disruption much more likely here, especially perhaps stuff relating to the claims of descent. (I do see people claiming to be descendants of Rama but this might be at more of an individual level.) But wonder if this is just an unfortunate case where some nonsense was added back in 2007 and then became the focus of disruption which wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarity as I didn't mention it for WP:DENY reasons, the sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vinayvinyill/Archive seems to be focused on asserting the superiority of Vishnu over Shiva hence why I'm hoping they won't target Prashurama anymore than they would the other avatars of Vishnu. It doesn't seem to be caste related. Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow everything you've written but you're right about the caste related. I think I used WP:CASTE because the last edit was social group related but, looking back further, the bulk of the disruption is, for want of a better phrasing, "god related". Regardless, 3 years is a long time and I'm happy to unprotect. I'll comment on ANI as well. Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful follow-up! RegentsPark (comment) 15:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Change of my account name

Hi, I want to change the name of my account from Admantine123 to Adamantine123.-Admantine123 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Admantine123: You can apply for a username change. See Wikipedia:Changing_username. WP:CHUS is the easiest for changing on en.wiki, but you might want to use [6] if you're editing on other language wikis as well.

I don't Understand what I did wrong things?

Hey Probably 3 days before I change some of the line of Indian independence movement wikipedia page where credit of Drafting constitution is given to B N Rau. Well it's highly inaccurate. So I change it and made it absolutely accurate for anyone who read will be understood without any doubt.

But what's the issue here i don't get that ?

Is it the way I write those lines is wrong or is it the article which generally not accepted or reliable as a valid source of real information ?

Please let me know what the mistakes i did during the changes?

Because the changes I made is highly aligned with historical accuracy.

So if according to you the source should be more acceptable than 'factly.in' then i will definitely provide another valid article of reputable websites like The Hindu or The Indian Express which supports my changes. Callmehelper (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I've moved this to Talk:Indian independence movement and replied there. RegentsPark (comment) 14:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Oct 26: Wikidata Day NYC

October 26: Wikidata Day in New York City

2024 Wikidata Day NYC flyer You are invited to Wikidata Day in New York City at Pratt Institute School of Information in Manhattan, in celebration of Wikidata's 12th birthday. This event, held by our chapter in collaboration with Pratt and Girls Who Code, will be our third annual celebration of Wikidata Day. It will feature spotlight sessions, lightning talks, and the customary Wiki-cake, while those unable to attend in person will be able to watch a livestream. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. Saturday, October 26, 2024 Wikidata Day in New York City (Eventbrite RSVP is required and also optionally on-wiki). 11:00 am – 5:00 pm Pratt Manhattan (rooms 201 and 214), 144 W 14th Street RSVP off-wiki is required for building entry!

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Non neutral language

RP, could you take a look at these edits-[7]. The user SoloKnowHow83 has added this to the Khalistan movement page 3 times despite not having consensus to do so. He claims that I'm the one who's violating Wikipedia's rules and guidelines even though it's glaringly obvious that these edits undermine the neutrality of the page-notably by removing "militant" to describe the Punjab insurgency, and by labelling the movement as a "struggle" which imo, is clearly intended to elicit sympathy for the movement to readers. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your revert on my talk page. Regards,

Maliner (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)