User talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive 3

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.

Hi Ncmvocalist, Thanks for maintaining the assessment and peer review departments. Really appreciate it. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded at same time, moved-here.

Thank you for your warm welcome! Also, I appreciate your inputs on my assessment as and when suitable. I hope to gain on my quality of assessment as time goes on.

Now, I did some re-work on Anand. I wasn't sure if this is good enough for a B-class. I've added suitable references and re-designed the sections. Would there be any further words/comments/suggestions on this? Since, I've already put in so much effort, I'd like to take this further up on quality.

Mspraveen 07:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I've asked him already for the review. :) Regards Mspraveen 04:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Anand (2004)

Firstly, thank you very much for the detail in commenting on the article. I certainly do appreciate that. I've made a few changes here and there keeping your words in mind. Any further comments, please do let me know.

I feel some of your comments are a bit tough on the article. I mean, if one looks at so many other Start-class articles and this one, there will be a whale of difference between them. Wouldn't there be? :) However, I wish to contribute in quality as well. So, please feel free to critique it as much as you can! Mspraveen 14:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very prompt reply :) I've re-organized the structure of the Production section. I hope there is a sense of structure. If you think I'm asking for a lot from you by more comments, I'll just stop here.

When you speak of credible references, since it is a Tollywood movie, I'm afraid its going to pretty tough to get some credible references. I agree that Lage Raho Munna Bhai has got credible references because of its worldwide publicity. This can get it a whole load of references. But, it really demands the article (Anand) a lot if credible references are required. In fact, I was looking for a reference for the certification for the movie. IMDB happened to be the closest I could get to :) There were similar instances on other references too, but, over the past three days, the ones referenced were the closest I could get to.

Anyways, I thank you for your honest comments. You don't need to apologize. Now, I hope its evident to you why I wrote that your comments tough on the article. Thanks once again Mspraveen 16:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging assistance. I really appreciate you taking out time in critiquing the article.

With regards to your comments on the sequence, I followed the sequence that was there in A Beautiful Mind which is an FA in itself. I agreed with this sequencing because the movie starts with the production details and then the plot and the rest. Maybe you will reconsider this.

I've added references to the soundtrack and DVD. If there is anything else that needs to be addressed, just let me know. It is hard for me to notice any minor aspects because I've been working on it since like a week now. :) Thanks again for your co-operation. Mspraveen 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I missed out on that. It is/was a FA nominee. Anyways, I agree with your thoughts about the article you referred to as it is a part of Wikiproject India.

I just rearranged the sections accordingly, added a few more to some and ofcourse found a few more newspaper references which should be considered as credible. Any further thoughts on what it still needs to ascend in quality? :-? Mspraveen 14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassessment! I suppose you know the sense of satisfaction ones gets when they nurture an article up in quality, don't you? :) I guess, I'll go ahead with improving articles of similar nature now that I have a picture of how I should go about. It was better that I learnt the hard way. Just gives me an indication of how much is needed for a good encyclopedic article. Thanks!

Next task on this article is to go further up. I read someone that the article's importance will not hinder on its quality, isn't it? Hoping so, I'll keep my eyes open for more content on it.Mspraveen 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

About your further comments, here are my thoughts...

Regarding soundtrack, I found it really tough to get hold of a credible reference. However, I hope to find one e-store. Alternatively, IMDB should serve the purpose, I believe. I contributed to these missing details in IMDB. That review will be in a month or so. Maybe, I could use that as the reference. DVD details are shuffled to the top of the section.

In the awards section, the whole final para attempts to convey the essential elements of the film that contributed to its success. I felt, it will add on and support the success claims and awards. Thoughts?

About the critical acclaim, I felt the content was much lesser than in Lage Raho Munna Bhai. In that article, there are plenty of reviews given. I could have done the same here, but I felt it would over-do the essence. Your thoughts?

In the misc section, Anand is a movie title.... - Has been sorted out.

Some references re: cast would be good - imdb might help for names, while descriptions may need to be referenced from some other places. - Couldn't gather much on your intent. Can you rephrase this?

I'm sure parts of the story can also be sourced from summaries given elsewhere. I've summarized the article to about 766 words as against 1000+. This is to go as per the plot summary norms.

The introduction is excellent - but note to mention something about it being a release available as a dvd and soundtrack towards the end .... - Thanks! But, None of the featured articles I noticed contain any mention of the DVD and soundtrack in the lead section. Can you please clarify on this?

Once the above are sorted out, I shall get it peer reviewed. Thanks a ton again! :) Mspraveen 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sincerely amazed at your reviewing abilities and of course your tremendous patience to write!!! :) Many many thanks to you!!

I did consider most of your comments and suggestions and reworded some portions of the article. Thanks again from the beginning!!

On a personal note, did you watch the movie? Mspraveen 17:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bommarillu GA on Hold

Hello, thanks again for your kind assistance for this issue. I really appreciate it. I've made the necessary changes in the article as desired by the concerned user as well as you. Please find my comments here. Best regards, Mspraveen 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Maybe you should consider an awards page clearing up space for discussion here. What say?

I have addressed the points you raised about the issues I had with the article. Again, I will apologize here, as I was not threatening the article, but wanted it to be improved. If you disagree with the statements there, let me know, and I'll be happy to talk to you about it. Good job on helping with the article and keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 06:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, and I do agree with what you said for the most part. I still think the use of the word "rave" could be replaced with something more neutral, but I don't think it is enough to limit the article in any way, so if it remains, fine by me. For the FA consideration, I wouldn't be able to help that much since I'm still not too familiar with the FA process, although I'll be nominating an article of my own in the next few months. Again, thanks for the response and keep up the good work on Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 19:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Flower (awarded on 21 October 2007) moved-here.

Thank you very much for rating my article. :-) I have examined the list of necessary changes that you have mentioned and I promise to carry them out.

Do have a look at my views about the assessment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iyer/Comments

Sir, I would like to mention that the article had been previously rated 'B' on the Assessment scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=153396646&oldid=153376157

Since then, it has undergone dramatic changes and extensive modifications have been done.Thanks!! - Ravichandar84 08:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

thank You! :-) I've improved the article and added more references. - Ravichandar84 10:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear NCM,

How've you been doing? Hope I can call you NCM. I was hoping to hear about your comments on Parineeta. Would time elude you or is there comprehensive commenting expected from you? I was hoping to get it to GA status and I really believe that this can be worked into atleast an A-class if not FA.

Regards, Mspraveen 09:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. However, I'd wait for your comments before going ahead with any further nomination for the article. With me in travel for a month, I wonder if I can contribute much during this period. So is the case with the assessment department as I might not be of assistance to you. Hope to be back soon. Regards, Mspraveen 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vocalist, How've you been doing? It has been a while since I was active on Wiki. Finally, I can get to some editing here. I was wondering if you had a chance to review Parineeta again and add some comments on it so that I can go on with an FA nomination. It'd be great if it gets grilled before the final surge. :) Thanks! Regards, Mspraveen 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vocalist, I was being impatient and hence I have nominated Parineeta for a GA first. I'm sure the present quality is good enough for a GA. Once this is through, I'm sure other comments useful for an A-class/FA will come across during the review. I can further improve on these after the GA. Mspraveen (talk • contribs) 04:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vocalist, thank you for the review. I've been editing the article till a while ago. I hope I've addressed most of the issues pointed out. Thanks once again. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your patient reviews and assessments. I appreciate your candid assessment that has helped me improve this article to a GA. Thank you, Ncmvocalist! With best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates are stored in a seperate namespace. To edit, access them with the Template tag, Template:carnatic and Template:Indian Music. For more info, see Wikipedia:Template namespace and Help:Template. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything more about this that would establish why this particular singer is notable/important. Thanks for creating the article, however I'm unable to see from reading it why its of any importance. Whatever the assertion of importance is, it ought to be cited to a reputable source. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll also ask about Priya Sisters - Shanmughapriya & Haripriya. Something to establish importance would be useful, otherwise I'm tempted to delete as lacking a demonstration of importance. Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the site is down. I'm asking what makes these singers notable? All these articles say is they are singers... so what? What have they done in the context of history or current times that makes them important? I as a casual reader don't know what these guys have done. I'm not trying to be annoying, if I were I'd just template you with one of those silly templates >.>, I'm just more or less curious. I mean you took the time to write up these one sentence articles... what makes these particular singers worth the effort? :) Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 09:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, might be a good idea to put some links and references to what you note, just so some trigger happy admin does not happen to delete them for being not important/notable. (WP:CSD#A7 I think :) ). I personally was just a tad confused as to what the heck they did! I can sing myself... but as I'm deaf, certainly not worth an article! (my singing is somewhere between horrible and I'll kill myself to make it stop! ;) ). Do carry on and help expand this great encyclopedia! :D —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 10:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My hands are tied for the this week with other work (outside of Wikipedia) so I can't work on it immediately, but will do it soon for sure. :D You're awfully hard on yourself about your singing, and though I haven't heard it, I'm sure it can't be half that bad ;)

I was annoyed to notice that Priya Sisters - Shanmughapriya & Haripriya page was deleted by User: Doc glasgow, not for notability, but for something else (CSD#R1) - which in this case doesn't seem relevant. To add insult to injury, there was no discussion whatsoever. With the exception of you :) , it's really very frustrating that there are admins who keep deleting pages like this without giving editors an opportunity to fix their stuff up - applying the speedy criterion inflexibly is just grossly careless on their part and more effective measures need to be put forward so pages aren't deleted so immediately and irreversibly like this for trivial reasons. If there is something that really needs to be deleted, chances are that it will be reported to the admins anyway. There was no dire need to delete this page, or several other pages in other cases. It's really off-putting that I can't do anything about it now. :( Hope I/we can push for some sort of change or modification to the guideline sometime later if you understand and agree with what I'm saying to some extent.

Anyway, cheers for hearing (i mean seeing) my rant of frustration, and again for the feedback. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that was what I was afraid of. What happened was someone moved that page to a shorter title, and following that someone deleted the moved page... which meant that the original title (now a redirect) was a redlink. That makes it a speedy criteria. What you need to keep in mind when creating articles is to assert why you spent the time to make it. What did those people do to merit the article? As there was not that much information on the one that got deleted, I'd just wait 'till you have the time to write 3-4 sentences on the topic. I really doubt that anyone has anything against these singers, but without adequate information, its very difficult to tell the difference between these singers and say... the latest garage band! If you would like me to undelete the article. (for the one sentence), just ping me a message, otherwise just wait till you have the time and do it then. As I said, when making articles, try to put in the article text somewhere why the article is important/notable/worthy of keeping. Why exactly did you take the time to make that article, what did this person do? If you have questions or need me to help you in any way, feel free to ask.

P.S. Don't expect convos like this for every article you create, sadly we use templates too often :(. Its a byproduct of how many crap articles we get per minute. (I think its upwards of 20 or 30 a minute, higher in peak times). Me personally, I do much more programming then new pages patrol, and I just simply did it one day to see what others were doing and also to see how we could miss so many articles on User:Eagle 101/potential crap 2‎. That list is basically a list of articles that folks on RC missed. So as aggressive as you think they are, they are still missing tons of pages. (that list is 5,000 pages long, and probably about 70% or so need to be cleaned up/deleted. Best of luck though! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i wanted to know how i can assess an article and suggest my ratings on any particular article. The instructions dont seem to help. sriks8 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for the review here. I took a quick look at your review, and it all seems OK and reasonable. When the stuff is done, it'll be a race to see who can pass the article first :P Also, if you haven't already, could you leave a note at GAC stating that you added the second opinion? Thanks, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Jacklee has tried to address your concerns. Could you check whether the article meets the GA criteria now? If so, the nomination should be passed; otherwise, please extend the hold and provide further comments. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it bad for an article to have multiple references from only one source, say Rediff.com? This is an issue I faced while developing the Lagaan article. Throwing some light on this will just be great! Maybe you have some thoughts to share after a cursory glance on the Developments section?

How are the last few days of the New Year coming along? Seasonal greetings! Best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! It has been a while since I last heard from you. You busy in real life? Hope all is well.

If you are around, I was hoping if you can have a cursory glance at the Sivaji article. I've been working on this since quite a while and now, I believe that it is good for a GA status. If there are any comments that you might have, please feel free to list them out.

With best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back! Hope all is well. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also worked on Lagaan as well, which is also with a GA nomination. I believe that this along with Parineeta have been my best pitched efforts. It'd be great if you can spare some time for this as well! Thanks much and best regards! Mspraveen (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, good to see you back with the review. Now, do I understand that you still are yet to complete the review? Because, additional notes on the review would help a great deal on its improvement.

Btw, Lagaan made it to a GA and I will work on it a bit more and with the wealth of reliable sources available for the article, I guess it would really mean more of breadth to it that is needed. Also, I just began with my first GA assessment and first DYK. Fresh waters for me :)

How's everything with you? You seem busy in real life? Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ncmvocalist! Been a while, isn't it? How've you been? Hope you are keeping well and relaxing in the weekend. Well, I have fully developed the Mr. and Mrs. Iyer article to my ability. If you can spare some time in having a look at it, I'd really appreciate it! Many thanks and regards, Mspraveen (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking out time in addressing! I've responded to your GA assessment. Thanks again. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not think that the article is FA (the BEST of WP) yet and may be a GA IMO. So i nominated it for GA. I noticed you are GA reviewer yourself. If you have any suggestions to improve the article, please leave a note on my/article talk page. Regards. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you know how I feel about it. The sheer number of complaints about him should be enough to block him but isn't. Nobody seems to be concerned about editors such as this which are making this site a misery for many people. Then you get the ususal group of editors turning up to support him. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like something is not right. I was looking around and I found this. Maybe the first few links are of use to you in your Rfc, if you already have not noticed this before? Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the rules at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users, there has to be evidence that at least two editors have contacted the editor to be discussed, in this case Sarvagnaya, and tried to resolve a dispute. I'm not sure myself whether that threshold has been met, because I haven't myself seen all the evidence, although the links to the previous AN/I case might be useful there. Also, I believe that at least one editor, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, has expressed similar qualms about that individual, and you might be interested in contacting him directly regarding the matter. If you can't produce the two required individuals, then requesting a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, which might be indicated here, or Wikipedia:Third opinion might be in order, if for no other reason than to establish the presence of a second editor who has tried to reason with the subject.

Regarding help filing a user RfC, if it ever comes to that, I'm not sure what help I could be. The two editors who had tried to contact the editor would be the ones to create such a request. However, I do think that much of what you had written earlier would probably be acceptable, with the additional input of the other editor. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ncmvocalist, I haven't heard from you in a while. I hope you are doing okay. Well, you know it, don't you? :) Yes, as again, I'm back with another article that I've significantly developed over the past two months, mainly the past few days.

I was going to put it up for a GA nomination. I was hoping to know if you can have a quick glance at it before I put it up. I look forward to your response earnestly. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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? The previous peer review was archived without receiving any feedback. 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) 11:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nilakana Sastris book on Cholas (published in 1955) has section son their temple culture that was a precursor to Carnatic Music and Bharatanatyam. You should get it, if you already do not have it. Taprobanus (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

hey!

i was walking through the carnatic music (EQUALLY karnataka sangeetham, _never_ karnataka music!) talk pages and must say you were cool as a cucumber all through the discussions! remarkable feet, given the amount of POV pushed around there. for the same amount of bullcrap and apparent double standards, i would have spewed flames and brimstone like Mt. Versues herself, ruining my cause! congratulations again for being so totally levelheaded..

jikes, the amount of politics involved totally numbs me! Indian history is hardly indisputable even for the one century and nerve of certain wiki'ans to "claim" a clear line of development for something that is at least five/six times old. some of my favourites are the following: all that call Papanaasam Sivan as Papanasam Shiva wanting Carnatic music to be renamed as Karanataka music et al; calling MS the greatest singer orginating from TN is not POV: gimme a break; Karnataka music: for god sake, Karnataka as it is _now_ didn't even exist when it was named Karnataka sangeetham: it's like claiming that the then Madras presidency is exclusively TN 'cz Madras is _now_ in TN; finally, calling Purandara Dasa THE founder of Carnatic music?!! what one would claim next? panini, the creator of Sanskrit? Tholkappiar, the progenitor of Tamil? and each gharana masters as the sole orignator not of their respective gharanas but of the whole edicice of Hindustani music?! My granny will be in fits..

i seriously don't know, being a tam that spent 95% of her life outside India, the amount of anti-tam sentiment in the mainland totally eludes me. its like whole of India is _taught_ to hate tams. its totally awrite if some UP simpleton from Itawa says these things, but to hear it from B'loreans?! *sighs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You filed an Rfc against the above editor some time ago. Could you please let me know if this has been resolved as indicated by BigGabriel555 on the Rfc? If it has, then I can archive or remove it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for my delay in getting back to you. I'd been on somewhat of a mini wikibreak regarding that article. Looking over the edit history of late, I can agree that the edit pattern which I had objection to regarding that user has since improved greatly. As such, I am more than willing to call the issue resolved.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know whether you have realized or not, there is really no K gang. There is one very, very, very hard working member who represents 99% of real work out of the group (whom I have modeled myself after) and bunch of others who just simply exist. Most of these bunches of others are not even native. They are transplants from TN who due to various reasons including due to the corrosive politics of TN have a very critical mindset with respect to T related issues. This infact is an intra T squabble that is getting superimposed on a so called K vs T garb. It is such a pity that we allow the mirage to fool our selves and create a support structure for such squabbles when all what true contributors want is to be left alone to contribute. Once you understand the source of the conflict you have to respond with academic, peer reviewed RS sources to shut them up. If we don’t have such sources then we have no leg to stand on. This is my un-solicited 2 cents. Taprobanus (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree with Taprobanus, who is quite right as to the facts and also as to the way forward. -- Arvind (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

An FA quality Dance traditions of Tamils would a be a great way forward, because Bharatanatyam is not the sum total of Tamil peoples dance traditions. It si simply an elitist format that is popular now amongst middle class and upper middle class people. The varieties of Koothus that is the real life experience of millions of people who speak Tamil is totally missed in the shuffle.. Similarly for Music traditioans of Tamils because Carnatic music is not the sum total of all Tamil musical traditions. It is just one outlet. JMTTaprobanus (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

From what you say, the editor introducing these concepts is misrepresenting the facts. I think you know more about this subgenre than I do. Badagnani (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I agree with your points, but the way a group of editors is and has been interacting is too worrisome and unless some admin steps in, a fair and representative article can not be be written. If you see the section on Origin and develpment there is virtually no mention of Tamil Nadu (not that I want Tamil Nadu to figure in prominently, but because that is the truth; but completely blocked). Whether you know it or not Haridasa "movemement" is definitely not an important or influential thing and it is not any movement. This is precisely precisely called WP:UNDUE. I'm not at all against mentioning Haridass, but not at the exclusion of all the other. True some the Haridasa were there but that is true of every big city in TN, Kerala, Andhra and of course Karanataka too. Like Mysore darbar, there were so many other "centres of power/influence", Travancore an many other Zamins etc. There are too many personal, linguistic, caste-race, political issues which cloud the need to write something that is balanced, factual, interesting and informative. Unless some admin comes in to moderate it, it is going to be difficult to make any true impact. Not that some 10 editors can not come forward and keep reverting the actions of this group of editors, but that is not how we should work and such things would only lead to endless bickering and dissipation of energy. Sorry, I've taken some time to get back to you.--Aadal (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's being taken care of. Don't worry about it. — scetoaux (T/C) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering whether you would have any interest in maybe giving occasional opinions on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review section in addition to the Indian A-Class reviews. Right now, I'm about the only one who is working on that page. If you thought I would be of any use on the Indian A-Class reviews, I could add my own, often less-than-well informed, comments on at least article structure there as well in "trade", as it were. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Missing Barnstar
		This is, hereby, awarded to Ncmvocalist for his long-standing efforts in providing valuable reviews and assessments in the India project. Despite his low-profile, he has managed to maintain the assessment department as well help guide and motivate new assesseors like me in supporting the project tasks. You thoroughly deserve this, mister! Mspraveen (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure! You are very welcome, sir! And, yes, I don't quite mind emails. Here is my email address schumi [underscore] rules [underscore] forever [at] yahoo [dot] com. I've been a bit busy assessing and tagging WP:India and Andhra argument to the scores of Telugu films. Besides that, I've worked extensively on Rang De Basanti (now on GAN) and trying to guide Riya Sen (also in GAN through efforts by User:Aditya Kabir) into a GA. Thats about me. What about you? Mspraveen (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder whether you had looked at the last two paras of [[Kannada_literature#Vijayanagara period]]? Did Srinatha call his Telugu, Kannada? What is the story there? I can think of some possibilities. But I want to first get your view of what "kannada" mean in Telugu? Where exactly does Srinatha calls his Telugu, Kannada? I'm kind of assuming you know Telugu. If you don't, please forgive me or would you please give me a good pointer. Thanks --Aadal (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Srinatha called his language Karnata bhasha (or, more precisely, he called himself a poet of Karnata bhasha). The key is what "karnatabhasha" means. Vijayanagara as a whole was quite frequently called Karnata rajya, so the name literally means "the language of Vijayanagara". "Karnata bhasha" was also frequently used as a name for Kannada, and some early accounts of Telugu literature treat it as meaning "Kannada" in Srinatha's poem (an example is P.T. Raju's Telugu literature from 1944, of which I have a copy). Nilakanta Sastri implies something similar, and the same inference crops up in books about South India well into the 1970s. I'm not sure if all modern scholars agree, though. The poem itself is translated in David Shulman's Classical Telugu poetry: An anthology (published in 2002), where the word karnata-bhasha has the gloss "literally, the language of Karnata, the extended region that, for Srinatha, includes the area of Telugu speech." (footnote 5 on page 174). -- Arvind (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not resolved, but the editor in question has stopped with his attacks and disruption, so I see little need to keep it open at this time. Feel free to archive it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo. I haven't delved into whether the reason people are striking stuff through on the RfC is valid, but it's certainly not vandalism - after three separate editors managed to get themselves indefinitely banned, marking their posts to point out the resulting slight credibility problem was suggested.

Just to let you know. Peace, Kizor 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking their posts this way is inappropriate (if there are such concerns of credibility, then this should be articulated on the talk page as per any other editor - there is no authority for other editors to strikethrough past views). Unless the banned editor(s) were involved in the dispute under another account, then there is no issue with the credibility - it is a view that can be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Being overcautious around the editor, I note again that I was explaining others' behaviour, not doing it. Anyway. That's fair enough, though I personally believe that this did significantly aid the discussion. Proven inexcusable malevolence is a bit of a credibility problem, clearly marking said problematic views is a non-trivial help, and and strikethroughs were specifically proposed as a way of pointing out the problem while keeping posts legible. --Kizor 10:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that I was not at all suggesting you were engaging in this behaviour - but stating the behaviour itself (done by whoever) is inappropriate, even with such an explanation. The talk page exists if any editor has an issue with another view or endorsement, and would like to make a comment of this sort. The only way the view is problematic is if there is a conflict of interest, or the editor was using the sock-puppet account as an additional endorsement of a view. Neither was the case here. Further, in the case an editor changes their mind about endorsement, they often strikethrough their original rather than remove it - this was not the case here either. This is why I don't consider the behavior, or the explanation, acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And I note that I noted that you did not note that, I only noted what I noted for the benefit of the onlooker(s). The conflicting interpretations of strikethrough are a good point. Want to copypaste this discussion into the RfC's talk page? --Kizor 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here, did you move it to the subpage? Which subpage are you referring to anyway? As of this writing, your contribs history doesn't show you moved it anywhere. Why not? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it. Sorry to bother you. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to join the peer review department in Project India. Can you tell me how to do that? Rohit Reddy™ (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Will get someone to help you out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I obviously don't completely agree with your preferred wording/approach, I wanted to make sure that you knew I truly appreciate your interest in my proposed principles and your efforts to improve their wording and clarify their intent. I believe the general approach is vital, both in the sense of reaffirming general wiki philosophy and as a step towards real solutions for many problematic topic areas. It is reassuring to have someone provide intelligent and considered feedback and alternatives to the proposed principles. Again, I may not exactly agree, but you are appreciated. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

		The India Star
		I hereby award this barnstar to User:Ncmvocalist for his contributions and maintaining the assessment dept of Wikiproject India -- ₮inucherian (Talk) - 07:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

.

Thanks for the clarification. The reason why i initiated the speedy delete was that i created an article on Tirumala Tourism quite a long time back and the article was speedy deleted (with the contents transfered to Wikitravel) and hence the reason why i issued a speedy delete. please clarify if tourism related pages can exist in Wikipedia (rather than Wikitravel). --Kalyan (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
		For being the only reviewer brave enough to offer a second and decisive opinion on an article long under review. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you post that I made meritless claims? What about them was meritless, if I may ask? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I was saying if you made claims that were meritless in other steps of DR (even after his misconduct ceased), then only would what he said be considered relevant. (My point was you so far haven't, so his theory about some sort of dual has no bearing). Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

YEs, it does, Thanks for clarifying. Btw, not for nuthin', but the spelling is 'duel' as in a battle between two folk. Dual refers to two sides of something, like the dual natures of good and evil, etc. I think you just picked up on MPerel's misuse of the word. No biggie, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I read somewhere that you belong to the team that rates articles for the WP:INDIA project. I also saw that you have strict standards with regards to prose when I saw you vote on the Kannada literature FACs. You may have missed it, but I recently came across the Priety Zinta article which is up at FAC. Would you be able to please take a look at the article and let me know if it is upto the standards you would approve of or upto the normal FA standards. I am asking you because if I remember correctly, you had said somewhere that you are the leader of the WP:INDIA article rating team or something like that. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Your input in the discussion would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, just to let you know Ncmvocalist, Sarvagnya is trying to canvass you with this message in order to see another oppose, other than his only one, on the FAC. As the only user who has opposed the nomination, he tries very hard to make it fail, and even if it means that he has to be a bit civil toward an editor, who he is not on very good terms with, he will do anything.

Amazing no? Well, you should not be surprised, this is the nature of some people.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand this remark, but I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for your level-headed input. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

RE Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard#Arbitrator_announcements, where is the notice by jpgordon, I want to read it myself. Post a link at AC/N please. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RE "After discussion with ArbCom, I've updated the template created by AGK to reflect all of the threads that are stale" WT:RFAR...what discussion? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been providing good inputs, but here, only arb clerks can open, close cases/clarifications, archive RFARs, etc. If you're interested in being a clerk, drop a note on the clerk noticeboard. FYI, you start out as a clerk helper and it takes many months to get to official clerkship. Coren and Jayvdb are still helpers. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

hi, i found your name on the assessment team of law articles. I have been looking forward to review a number of articles of specific importance to the Indian legal system. In fact just to list a few of them, I have worked on editing the following pages

1. National Law University, Jodhpur
2. Common Law Admission Test
3. Legal Education in India, LLB in India
4. Advocates in India
5. Chief Justice of India
6. Autonomous law schools in India

I was wondering if you could help me out with how to rate the articles by placing appropriate class template on them and also in terms of importance they carry. Cheers, Tarun2k (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought that thing was over already because another editor have urged him to stop [1]. And from this WQA, I am speculating that he's willing to go to ArbCom for such a minor thing.

I'll just summarize what happened between me and him quickly (so your talk page doesn't become the WQA itself). He was trying to demote a featured picture (FP) and replace it with another because they're the same subject and he believes that only one picture per subject can be FP. I told him that's not the case. Later, he trusted my comments and got opposed in Commons' FP [2] for the potential of having 2 FPs of the same subject. Because he's upset that his nomination didn't get through and he thought he trusted the wrong person (aka me), he decided to start lunging at me. Even User:MER-C, the user who closes 99% of FP nominations, came and told everyone that "We do not explictly forbid more than one featured picture per subject" [3] I still don't know why he won't drop it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like he decided to harass and attack you too. I hope you don't get into trouble just for letting me know a case was filed against me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. My internet connection went down. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, if this sort of bigotry continues i will inform you, at which point a topic ban might be appropriate. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The editer has now decided to run around to various admins pretending he is the victim of some plot, vendetta or even the "Gay Agenda". Seen here. Really im tired of this. Can you resolve it, clearly hes trying to cause as much drama as possible. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think these comments made by an administrater best sum up how tired we are with his behaviour.--Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am looking into your request. I have asked Kirill how he had done it for MILHIST and await his response. We can do this using a combination of AWB/OpenOfficeCalc; if there is a program available that can speed things up, we can use that instead. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Kirill, the worklists are ready. The headers template needs to be created though. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I sneak in before it begins?! ;) Mspraveen (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Just curious to know - I noticed that even though you say that you're through 61 articles in the drive, you have not actually tagged and assessed most or all of those struck off. Am I mistaken here or was that your oversight? Thoughts? Mspraveen (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Geez! Thanks for the clarification. I thought that I went nuts after spending eons on Wikipedia! LOL! I noticed the timely mention on the Tag & Assess page. Now that lends a lot of clarification! :) Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, I see an editor from CA joining the Tag & Assess. I thought it can be made clear that the project is for those under WP:India. Thoughts? One more question I had is that this drive is definitely going to improve the assessments, but what about the quality of assessments. I really wonder how it was ensured at the WP:MILHIST. Hmm..something to ponder about. Mspraveen (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the service award :) One thing, I feel, that will be quite useful during the drive/towards the end of it is the assessment stats. Sort of how much articles were unassessed and by how much the backlog was reduced. What say? Mspraveen (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On the hindsight, I think the numbers will not give a correct picture. That's because each passing day, there shall be new article creations and that shall not represent the contributions of the drive. Mspraveen (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here it is from the page. But, the intermediate revisions on June 7 will show that the articles increased by a thousand or so. However, I still feel that if we know that the number of new unaccessed articles added to WP:India, then we can estimate the number. However, you are mistaken my friend, when you say that all the articles in the worklists were unassessed at the beginning of the drive. In my first adopted worklist, I found several assessed articles. I just checked if the assessment was consistent with the present status of the article. Mspraveen (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you dear Ncmvocalist! I knew that we would do that! :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I apologize if I've gotten out of line during the ANI on Rob. I'll restate that I'm willing to step away from the debate as soon as you tell me my presence there is becoming a problem, or my conduct is deteriorating. I am, however, extremely concerned about Future Perfect, specifically this. He's personally threatened me, and stated that he is going to overrule the entire process - is he allowed to do so? McJeff (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there..Yes, I will manage the Assessment department while you are away. Look forward to seeing you back with some nice plans. Btw, I replied to your email. Ciao! Mspraveen (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help with the whole attack situation. Can't say I'm thrilled about the whole mess, but I felt that I had little choice except to try. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the alert and for your opinion there! Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI . Your comments are requested -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the recent edit war/3RR violation by User:Gregbard, which as you may know is only the latest installment in a long-running conflict. Here's hoping this will de-fuse things. Zero sharp (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't go too in depth - just noticed the flimsy rationale for wanting the discussion deleted, and then edit-warring over it which is just not on. In any case, hope it helps resolve the dispute(s). Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Vassyana#User:QuackGuru. Vassyana (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at the page and there are a couple of that need changing to personalise this for India. First, the one, two and three stripes may not appropriate for India. It would be easy to make them India specific though by perhaps replacing the star in the middle with the roundel from the centre of the Indian flag? Second, the Chevrons is a milhist specific award and should perhaps be replaced with the Indian Star? Third, do you want to make importance part of the drive? If so, perhaps mention it in the opening paragraph and instructions. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started playing with some images. On reflection, I don't think just replacing the start with a circle is sufficient. The stripes are a bit odd. I'll post some stuff later for you to look at. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How about these?

Indian service award (200 articles) Indian service award (400 articles) Indian service award (600 articles)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

They are cool! We should use them. Ganeshk (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I figured that out, but the use of the word 'founder' in this article doesn't appear right to me. --Madhu (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Per User:B's suggestion and Cool Hand Luke's and my agreement, I've boldly added version 1.2) Hope you don't mind my meddling... dorftrottel (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well,I can see that you've decided to jump in without a full understanding of the argument being made by Geogre and others with respect to wikiproject ratings of articles. That argument is, boiled down, that people uninformed of the subject matter of the article are rating those articles based on criteria that have no relation to the article. Why is the lack of an image (for a person who died 300 years ago) or an (often-pointless) infobox relevant? Without being familiar with other possible sources of information about the specific subject, how can one say that the sources used are insufficient? And why does one editor's assessment override another's? Why is it that the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the subject is considered more relevant than that of someone who has actively researched it? And what value is there in assessing the article in the first place? Can anyone demonstrate a link between a drive-by assessment of an article and its improvement? Did you read my entry on Geogre's page about the demoralising effects of uninformed, ritualistic assessment on the people who actually write content?

In other words, I think you've proved his point. Risker (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems both SirFozzie and B brought up good points (RfC requested by ArbCom vs. RfC does not meet requirements). I'm not familiarized with these user issues, nor do I, unfortunately, have the time to handle this matter. I suggest you contact another administrator. Best, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... I completely lost track of that thread hours ago. A finite duration would be logical as they would circumvent anything with socks if it were indefinite. Perhaps a few weeks to a month would suffice? Going up in increments if they break it (after subsequent blocks, of course). What'd you think? Would be difficult to enforce. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[4] - Is this proposal too weak, do you think? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Better? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ncmvocalist. It took me a little while to notice that the issue has moved to a subpage at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil. I suspect I'll wind up supporting whatever deal you and Scarian will both support. However Scarian is now asking for a two-week article ban for all the specially-designated editors and you are proposing customized bans that range from 1 week up to 3 months. I looked at the last 20 reverts on the article. It seems to me that reverts account for over 80% of all edits at the moment, so a 1RR per day rule would be extremely beneficial. A 1RR rule would reduce the total amount of reverting on the article, and it might increase non-reverts from a current 20% of the total up to 50% or more. So try to get the 1RR approved regardless of what you decide to do on banning. Getting a 1RR accepted plus article probation might be the easiest to agree on, though I'd consider any sufficiently strong proposal that had a chance of getting consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd probably give my support to your proposal, but would prefer that you issue an updated version. (a) Are you including a 1RR/day restriction on everyone, in addition to the two-week ban on the named editors, and (b) who exactly are the named editors? EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I signed on for 200 articles but will be without internet connectivity till July 1st. Will complete my list then. I don't expect the drive to be over by then but if my remaining 100 is holding up completion, feel free to drop me from the list! Thanks. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'll keep an eye on the article. They have violated 3RR but I don't wanna go over Jaysweet's head and block straight away. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Hopefully Jaysweet's warnings will keep them in check. Cheers again, friend :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look over these edits. I think Scjessey was disruptive (and turning up the heat) on Talk:Barack Obama by putting a WP:CRYSTAL notice around my comment (here), contrary to WP:TALK. I reverted the edit, informed him of this here, and his response here (on my talk page) and here (on TalkL:Barack Obama) indicated to me that he might do it again. I'm now taking time out from the active discussion on the talk page to leave this note, and it's annoying and distracting. Since he's not going to listen to me and he insists that what he did is just fine, I think there are potential problems here for the future. I'd appreciate any help you can give, and if I've done something wrong here, please tell me. Noroton (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have escalated. Thanks for looking at it. Noroton (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For your comments here. Hopefully that's a step in the right direction. And I will strive to try to take the high road and resist being pulling in by other people's incivility. I think that's a portion of the problem that occurred. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding enabling of a disruptive sock here. Because I have to put up with these attacks, I generally get a bit cranky. When I read comments like yours, I know that civility trumps things like oh, you know, reliable sources, NPOV, other rather unimportant facets of our project. But please, attack me. It helps my street cred with the ID cabal. Oh, in case you're wondering, there's sarcasm in my tone, and I believe when I took psychiatry in Med school, sarcasm was considered, in a sense, an anti-social (read uncivil) personality trait. So you may, at your pleasure, utilize this diff to block me and enable the sock behavior of others. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mcmvocalist, can you explain what you meant when you said I had implemented "a block for incivility directed at yourself"? Which incivility directed at myself were you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and assigned Toibb v. Radloff a grade of "C" as a law article, and "start" as a business and economics article. I have also replied to your comments on the talk page, highlighting the parts that are most likely to benefit from a collaborative effort. Bwrs (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for raising it to "B." Actually if it's "B" class, though, then I'll leave it for somebody else to fix, lol (:-). Anyhow what do you think of the idea of rating the same article differently for different wikiprojects? I think that what I have written is better as a legal article than as a business and economics article. (A legally inclined audience would at least be able to assess its accuracy and up-to-date-ness, whereas the only "interesting" business and economics content is a verbatim quote from the New York Times.) Bwrs (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

When I said "the only 'interesting' business and economics content is a verbatim quote from the New York Times" I was simply providing an explanation of why I rated my article lower for Business and Economics than for law. Bwrs (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't see where it says that WP:SCOTUS has a C-class but WP:BUSINESS and WP:LAW do not. Can you please point this out to me? Thanks. (See also this discussion). Bwrs (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have the time, could you give me some advice about something totally unrelated to the Obama article? Several editors have established a consensus at the talk page of Controversies about the word "niggardly" not to include the name of a woman who was a college student when she became involved in one of the controversies. This is at least the second time it's come up. The latest editor who insists on using her name is User:Sennen goroshi. After a couple of reverts, he was invited to discuss the matter on the talk page in the section where it had already come up. The consensus didn't go his way (three or four editors want to keep the name out, no one agrees with him), and now he's adding it back against consensus. What should I do next? Incidentally, he's got some odd statements at the bottom of his user page. His talk page is also interesting, and it led me to this, which mentions a block for edit warring. Any advice? Noroton (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would really rather not touch this with a ten foot pole... but it looks like you are thinking the same thing..? :( I was going to just leave it, but then I don't think anybody will respond. Just wanted to get your thoughts, if you were of the same mindset, maybe I'll test the (very creepy) waters of that discussion... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah.... I'm thinking if the focus continues to drift away from Wikiquette issues, I will slap a NWQA tag on it and tell them to try an RfC or something -- to which nobody will respond, but at least then it won't be my problem. :D I hate to have such a passing-the-buck attitude, but sheesh... Often if I perceive that a WQA is part of an ongoing content dispute, I'll try to jump in and mediate on the Talk page, even though WQA is technically the wrong noticeboard. But this one is too acrimonious and too weird for me! And not to mention, even if I did want to help mediate the conflict dispute, I can't exactly have someone catch me at work with "Talk:Pederasty" in huge letters on my monitor! ha ha ha ha... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for the next round of replies before I close it. If I can get Haduic to at least agree that putting "homophobic propaganda" in an edit summary is not a good idea, I'll consider it somewhat of a success and feel better about washing my hands of the rest of it. I'm not too optimistic, but people have surprised me before :) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made significant changes to "Foreign relations of India" Assess it and again rate it. Vijay Sai (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note: [5], [6], and [7]. In other words, I wholeheartedly agree and hope that that will be that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I went to AN/I and the page there suggested (or so I thought) that I go to WQA to help resolve the problem. I guess I don't now this part of the bureaucracy yet.

Protonk (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have any particular Qs in mind, you could just go pick a few random ones from the other current RFAs. I'd rather not pick myself, since I'm likely to pick ones that will make me look good... besides, I like a challenge. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, although I'm not sure it will necessarily clarify it for me, I'll try - I'm rather surprised that such a small number of questions were asked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Dhangar -- Unsigned1 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC).

I was thinking about archiving it myself, but decided I was too involved. Probably I should not call people "retarded" on WP:WQA, heh, but I just couldn't believe how sad his attempts at retaliation were... If you want to engage in Wikilawyering, at least do your homework first! heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that you were one of the few people talking sense in that discussion. I'd encourage you to remain involved; what you posted was all of it sensible. Thank God someone's had the sense now to bud it off into a separate discussion. As a vaguely involved participant, the real focus of the discussion ought to be Giano's enthusiasm to create drama to further his personal vendettas. --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if you saw the Kirill/FT2 bombshell that has everybody up in a huff (here), but incidentally, it led me this section, which you may find of no little interest.

I am mildly disturbed that my name is mentioned (albeit only once, and in passing) in the Evidence for an RfArb, and I didn't find out about it until the final (and controversial) ruling was made and the entire community simultaneously went into fits. Strange things are afoot today, indeed... :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more bothered I am by it... The Evidence mentions that "Jaysweet and Ludwigs2" noted problems with OrangeMarlin's behavior, and while that is true, it ignores the fact that Ludwigs2 had filed a spurious WQA against OrangeMarlin literally like a day or two before the thread with Jinxmchue. In fact, in my mind, Ludwigs2 piling on was at least as responsible for the WQA resulting in no action as was Odd Nature's snow job. I recused myself because I felt I could not be neutral, despite the fact that OM had clearly made some errors -- but then when I saw Ludwigs2 leading the pile-on, I was like, "Oh, this is just another case of the ID/homeopathy/alternative medicine crowd beating up on poor OM for no good reason."

Since Ludwigs2 had responded before Odd Nature, I feel it is completely unfair to consider Odd Nature's remarks (and the lack of action against OrangeMarlin) in isolation to Ludwigs2's previous spurious WQA. The decision to stonewall the process, while still clearly a lapse in judgment, is a lot more understandable in the context of a full-on attack by one's enemies, IMO.

I am trying to figure out the appropriate venue to bring up these concerns... :( --Jaysweet (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay, IMO, regardless of where else you might want to mention this, you should probably post on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence. It is the Evidence which is causing your concern; therefore that seems to me to be a logical location. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with the sub-heading of "Smoke? or Context. . ." ;-) R. Baley (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post there. I hope this small beef does not muddy the waters. --Jaysweet (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not an attack on you, or sarcasm at your expense; but I really, honestly, think your pro-Rockpocket posts on ANI would have a better effect if you phrased them differently. For instance, didn't use "screaming" as a synonym for "disagreeing with me". I suppose you don't need a moderate word choice to please Major Bonkers, but I'm convinced you do need it if you're going to have a chance to make converts out of neutral people. Sincerely, Bishonen | talk 12:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would like a unbiased opinion on the article Kulpahar. It was rated as start class and mid importance on the quality and importance scale respectively. I think this article has enough and proper information to be upgraded it to B-class article. If not so kindly inform me the weak areas of this article I would like to improve it further so that it reaches upto the B-class standard. --Rohit Saxena (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please clarify or specify what instances you were referring to in the 'heckling' part of your comment here? Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nearly every oppose "vote" was commented on or argued with. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've seen that you responded to my friend Supaman here [8]. I hope that you can help us to finally end the uncivil, disrupting and some times vandalic behaviour of Corticopia. He's a user from Toronto, Canada that has had several accounts.

I've been trying to get the attention of an admin but all of them seem to be really busy to get involved in such a complex case. Please read my talk page. I have all the evidence I've gathered in the past months against this user.

Please, help. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you're not a clerk yet? You seem perfectly suited for the job. Kirill ^(prof) 12:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why have you and other admins decided to ignore any personal attacks on Orangemarlin? Why do you think it's an issue for his mentor to handle? Is OM barred from requesting any admin assistance at all? I'm confused. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You state on JPGs talk page: "Those frustrations aside, you may also want to see what became of that WQA, and the gaming of the system against Kelly by a couple of users there, even though Kelly was bold enough to deal with the complaint. It justifies my assertion that there are other users (directly involved) who are engaging in the same cycle of problematic conduct, unlike what this tries to suggest."

I see only two users conversing with Kelly. I am one of them. Are you accusing me of "gaming the system?" Do you consider my conduct "problematic?" Please let me know your opinion here. These are not light accusations. Aunt Entropy (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I will strike my edits. It was not something that needed to be said on the WQA page. Aunt Entropy (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What in the world is WQA??? I am me93 (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I object to having my comment closed off in an archive box just 28 minutes after I made it. Why are you trying to prevent further discussion? Everyking (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite familiar. My opinion is not invalidated because I failed to chime in during a certain, narrow timeframe. Please allow the discussion to run its course. Everyking (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted a comment outside of the archive box, along with other people. You then expanded the archive box to include my comment, thereby preventing people from responding and discussing my concerns about hasty judgement (in other words, you hastily prevented people from responding to my concerns about people being hasty). I then complained to you about this, and now you are suggesting that I claim to represent everyone else and am not respecting process? What? I simply disagree with your decision to archive my comment after mere minutes, and I'd like you to undo it so discussion can continue. Everyking (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this? It's a concern that was raised earlier this year, which is why later cases omitted the term. I'm not sure why you didn't respond or change it accordingly.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did see that, and I was just looking into it. The wording with "trolling" included is quite an old one, it's the version that appears in our library of standard wordings. It seems Footnoted quotes was the first case not to use it (among recent cases CAMERA lobbying and Prem Rawat, for example, both used it). I do tend to agree that it is probably better without it. Strider12 was the case where this was first discussed? --bainer (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so - I didn't see it expressed in earlier cases. I was surprised it was still being used in ArbCom-decision-drafting, given that the number of times it's been brandished inappropriately is quite large. This isn't helped by the WP:Troll page stating Note that some behavior listed here has been taken as disruption of Wikipedia in Arbitration Committee decisions - a point that I don't doubt will be wikilawyered in only a matter of time. Given it's really just a more narrow term for disruption, I think it's something worth changing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sticking this comment here, as I think it is the same case - could you link to "Catalonia", which I presume is a reference to a previous case? Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Will try to get a hold of it later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

§hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for closing my RfC. [9]

In the summary, you have written: Editor blocked. As you can see, I am not blocked. I was blocked for a short while, but not because that was the outcome of the RfC. Blocking admin merely happened to mention it on the RfC page. The RfC itself died without consensus. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be alerting ArbCom to User:Ilkali's ongoing slander at some point when I have time.

I have tried many approaches to this being dealt with and all have failed.

As for the RfC on me, since I'm not aware of ever having done anything unreasonable at Wiki, I'm not at all worried what others may say, I won't even be watching the page.

I do appreciate being told about this, that's a good protocol. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I only just saw you'd replied to me.

I've been following the DR page to the letter for two months.

Ilkali has a peculiar style, I'm still not precisely sure how best to manage it, but indulging it is definitely not helpful.

We'll see what we will see.

Thanks for your advice, it's spot on, so spot on it was already taken two months ago. ;)

Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I had thought the "teclontz" id was automatic until I saw you did it :-). I have no idea how all of this process stuff works. I appreciate the format help.Tim (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alastair has been unbanned, so I figure the closure of the RfC should be re-evaluated. -Rushyo (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, sounds like a conspiracy to me. How delicious. Do your worst! LOL.

With the intemperate language and unfounded actions people have launched in my direction, it's extraordinary people would think of attracting more attention to their unfortunate errors.

Anyway, as you were, carry on.

<User:AH unwatches this page> Alastair Haines (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of the Wikiquette alert on me, I am afraid that I have made comments to User:Fercho85 which shouldn't have been made (Although, to be honest they weren't all that terrible). This user has repeatedly waged an edit war on my sourced edits becuase it challenges his thinking on the poulation of Argentina. I have done nothing but try to let all sides shown in these articles. I have mostly put (with a source) that 56% of Argentines have Amerindian ancestry. He says that I'm trying to make Argentina seem non-white and that I make them look like Mestizos... I haven't used that wording and now that he knows I won't give up, he wants to get me in trouble with administrators. Everything having to do with Amerindians in Argentina is obscured and deleted mostly by this user. What can I do? Cali567 (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ncmvocalist. I have seen the questions you asked at my RfA, but unfortunately work has gotten in the way of me answering them today. Its midnight here and I just finished a double-shift and I have to be back at 9am. All being well I will answer them tomorrow night. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I answered your four questions. I'm sure some people won't like my answer to Q9, and I don't think I fully understood Q11, sorry. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
		Awarded to Ncmvocalist for his wonderful initiative for WP:INDIA - , Tag & Assess 2008 -- TinuCherian (Chat?) - 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

.

- 10:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

With thanks for archiving my old talk page messages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - & thanks for the kitten. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not mark edits like this as minor, and please do not remove comments added by others in good faith. You may see those as "battle" comments, but that doesn't give you the right to remove them. Please restore the comments or at least have the courtesy to go to the talk pages of the editors concerned and tell them you removed their comments. Though I see one of them blocked themselves as a violation of WP:POINT. Has everyone gone insane round here? Carcharoth (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is slightly out of sequence, but I'm following up this edit (you asked me to take it to your talk page), despite my post above on your talk page having been made earlier in our exchange on ANI. I've recently become a big fan of taking discussions to user talk pages, as it takes a lot of the heat out of a discussion. So now I'm here, can I ask you again what your reasoning was behind removing those two posts from the ANI thread? In the larger context, it was little better or worse than other edits, removals and reverts in that thread, but it only takes one person to start removing posts made by others and the whole structure of noticeboard discussion breaks down into edit wars. I accept you removed those comments with the best of intentions, but if there is a next time could you please not remove such comments? Regarding the other stuff, I know there is an awful lot of other things to follow up around that discussion, but I won't have enough time over the next few days, and then I'm away for a few weeks. I'd be happy to discuss things in August if that would help. Carcharoth (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hate to be such a pedant, but WP:IPA still doesn't direct to WP:Ignore personal attacks ;) [10] Rockpocket 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

All good now! Rockpocket 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Was removing this comment and closing the discussion deliberate, or was the comment meant to be included in the archive? D.M.N. (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that - cheers for the note. I've reinserted it now. If I'd logged off, Giano would be screaming for my bones and blood, rather than just 1 of the 2 - thanks again for the prompt note. And for the record, I deliberately removed Giano's message on my talk page just now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, removing comments from your own talkpage is fine, but I think removing someone's comment from the AN board may cause a bit more drama. Thanks for clarifying. D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Have some tea. Go for a jog. Whatever you do to enjoy yourself. Afterwards, reconsider the wisdom of this. Antelan 18:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I get your point on going over to suspected sock puppets, but, frankly, considering that about three of the anon IP's have been from Comcast accounts, and you can renew your IP with comcast, so as to change what you show up as, it's not likely to help. The wording of the user showed familiarity with POV, and an automatic attack on me for POV, when I have not edited any portion of the VMI article, except for typos and a coordinates error, since april. We have had what seemed to be similar editors getting very disrespectful of information being added that was reliably sourced, and then making claims based on law, which were not supported by the laws they cited. Their comments were always about watering down VMI, and accusation of POV against me and User:Rillian, so, to see a new IP editor start that in his second edit, how am I to assume good faith? I almost took it to mediation, but, because it didn't rise to that level, nor the specifics that mediation requires, I decided to bring it to wikiquette. I think it will start again, either with the same IP, or another comcast account, sometime around noon EDT today, as that was the edit pattern before.--Vidkun (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am handling those reports; please do not unarchive them again. El_C 03:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert again, or you may be facing censure for disruption. El_C 03:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been an admin for years; I have closed tens of reports. I am more than qualified to handle those. El_C 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Final note (hopefully) (Note: initially created as a separate section; moved back here as it's to do with the same thing) Since you have now manually archived the ANI thread which you initiated against me, where you went on to describe me as a "so-called admin" and asked that "a sysop please sanction this one for being disruptive" (which I feel was way out of line), I think a final note is due.

1. I have been an editor for almost four years and an admin for over three years (top ~50 by number of blocks/protections/deletions).

2. I have closed more threads at AN3 and AE than almost any other admin, and those involve more serious escalation of disputes than ones reported at WQA. So, I feel I'm more than competent enough to deal with those disputes (or "alerts") reported on WQA that I choose attend to.

3. Thus, effectively undermining my efforts, by re-opening reports I archived ^{([11] [12])} without trying to clear it with me first —especially seeing you were already hostile toward me and ought to have tried limiting interaction with myself, not over-righting my edits— was problematic.

4. I'm not sure that you have internalized the input provided by other uninvolved admins in that ANI thread, especially, Fut.'s, who wrote that:

The main problem here seems indeed to be WP:OWNership of WQA by Ncmvocalist. I've briefly looked at a few cases and find the closings by El_C entirely reasonable, and the source of the revert-warring clearly on Ncmvocalist's side. ^{(See: "ownership by Ncmvocalist")}

5. WQA is meant to be "run by regular editors" not run by regulars "and needs more [not less] editors to help with the alerts." That means those regularly attending to reports there, especially, should try to be mindful of that. And, it should be a given that one ought to avoid tempering with the closing of reports handled by editors that one exhibits a priori hostility toward (you failed to acknowledge this last point).

Now, if you wish to move past this, I believe it would be best to leave this note unrefactored and to avoid a defensive response regarding the details. And seeing as we have a preexisting tense relationship, in the future, next time you see me handling a report at WQA (or anywhere, for that matter), do what you ought to have done the 1st time: anything other than overrighting my edits. Thanks. El_C 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm saddened that my view of you had changed so rapidly within the past few days, but that's besides the point. Please take this as info/suggestions/criticisms, (or if not, this will be an active record of it, and will be used as evidence, in the case this ever did go through every step of DR).

1. Yes, I understand in your mind, my reversion might be seen as something else due to the previous day's hostility. That does not preclude the following.
2. 1 view is not assigned to 1 report, which is why I called it ownership. I agree that multiple users helping out is good. WQA reports (or many other for that matter) are not closed to disallow responses on your or my or every whim - except if it's escalating too far, or there are some circumstances that show the need for it (eg; parties decided to drag out their content dispute there instead of on the article talk page). This was not the case here, and sysop or non-sysop, there was no authority to do so here - particularly if I wished to add my view in due course. I chose not to on those 2 disputes for now. Just as you remember how long you've been here, don't forget that as a sysop of 3 years, you're expected to have the maturity to avoid edit-warring, especially in that venue, and especially when it's not exceptional material like BLP stuff.
3. If you think you have resolved a WQA report, please do use the tag {{resolved}} as indicated at the top of the WQA page and sign. Don’t lock threads unnecessarily. Other views, whomever they may be from, may still be included. Please also leave a summary of what happened - if a dispute escalates, whether it's involved or outside parties, they don't want to have to see the full dragged out incident on an article talk page. If the user was advised then that, or if the filing party was warned, then that. If it's being discussed over a while, then adding updates won't hurt either. In case you don't know all this, please consider it as info for you, otherwise if you have read it before, please consider it a humble reminder. If I genuinely think it's been locked inappropriately, then yes, I will override an edit, whomever it is made by - and I hope you have the ability to AGF likewise and do the same if you wished to add your view in a thread I locked so no one else can contribute.
4. I acknowledged 2 or 3 outside opinions in the ANI - much of the remainder were disregarded due to several reservations I have/had – but the Committee will have an idea of what these are if it escalates.
5. I see the causal link of this rift resulting from your first and second edit on the WP:AN topic that I opened. The facts and diffs speak for themselves. My request for sanctions against you was ill-considered, as was opening the AN topic– but I’m very confident my identification of your posts at the AN thread as ‘trolling’ (to narrow down the disruption) was not ill-considered. Several members of ArbCom were aware of Kirill’s question, and my reply/reasons to the clerking question.
6. If you want to choose to hold that grudge, and refuse to cooperate in the interests of the encyclopedia and its contributors (but would rather keep the apparently personal vendetta against me), then that's your choice. I want to try to AGF with you, even if you're not going to give me the courtesy of extending the branch back. Perhaps it's a sign that I haven't lost 100% confidence in your abilities just yet, or perhaps it's a sign that I'm being too naiive – whatever it is, oh well. In any case, thanks, and I hope it ends here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please give me leeway —and space— in reports I choose to attend to (and the manner in which as they are closed). That's all I'm asking. I'm not really interested in entering into a debate beyond that at this time. Thx in advance. El_C 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"[O]r if not, this will be an active record of it, and will be used as evidence, in the case this ever did go through every step of DR". I'm not sure whether you're looking to escalate this, but I'm hoping to disengage. I don't think asking for space is unreasonable. El_C 18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First is covered in my reply...while to the second, AGF all around, and we shouldn't have any problems. I hope that's where the matter ends; thanks in advance - Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that response purposefully phrased so indirectly? I guess the future will tell if you will give me the space I requested. El_C 19:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And we're off to a bad start. El_C 19:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the past couple of days that you seem to be really touchy and maybe a bit stressed out here at en.wikipedia. I hope that it's nothing serious IRL. Have a great day. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not strike/retract instead of remove the section? user:Everyme 10:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's one of many of my proposals in this case I've removed and replaced over time (although this one is probably most recent - the last time I did it was in...early-mid June?), and frankly, the page is too clogged up as it is. But unlike those times, I do intend on leaving a diff showing the proposal and comments as they appear now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You could also put it inside a collapsible box, so that it's still there but people don't have to look it up in history. Plus, it'd be marked as 'archived'. user:Everyme 10:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this about? See the thread on the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated this. It is an item of record and discussion has occurred. Do not remove it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Strike out the proposal (but not commentary) if you like, but don't remove it. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)...I see you used a collapsible box. That's okay too. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

At the time it looked like you were intent on a revert war or something. Sorry I misread the situation. I'll post to Nish and clarify that all is well. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion on my talkpage. I have left messages at both S and C's talkpages. I have suggested that they liaise with you if there are any questions/clarifications with regard to A's proposal, since I am extremely disinclined to communicate with the editor any further (although I am available to you, S and C). I see that I have also un-necessarily smeared you with the title of admin, for which I blame a lack of attention... Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that one more part of the agreement be added: "# User:Sesshomaru and User:Collectonian are not to edit User talk:Abtract (or any of his user sub pages)." I was going to just add it myself, but I'm not sure if that'd be bad process. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah no problem. I'll add it in right away. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there's already been 1 agreement to the current terms so I don't want to change it - it means any future agreements can be made without complication on his talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one who considers the AN/I report "resolved" so please stop trying to stop discussion just because it has turned into a question of your part in this. It isn't appropriate at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)