User talk:Srikeit/archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Srikeit. 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. |
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Why should I get the same punishment as a sockpuppeteer who denies he is a sockpuppeteer? BhaiSaab talk 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey Srikeit, here's a formal thanks for your nomination. Now I'll probably learn faster how to log onto IRC:) -- Lost(talk) 09:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Please un-delete "Barbara Brousal"
You deleted this page a couple of weeks ago and I cannot tell why. Can you restore the text, or is my work lost?
- 05:03, 25 October 2006 Srikeit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Barbara Brousal" (expired prod)
RfA thanks
Hi Srikeit, I am very thankful to you for supporting and comments on my succesful RfA. Shyam (T/C) 06:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Get Well Soon
I have my sources. :P — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the Soul Weaver page? It was all factual and NOT plagerized material. It presented information about a new religious movement. The best answer I received so far is "conflict of interest". With who? I don't get it. My first contribution to wiki was not a plesant one! Grant swm 21:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume 1, Issue 2 - November 2006
|
|
How embarassing...
=( India's not in the Southern Hemisphere? Lol...that was a very stupid mistake then. Thanks for pointing it out. Nishkid64 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 13th.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 46 | 13 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia | ArbCom elections: Information on Elections |
| Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic | News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the News | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Why was the article on Pbrain deleted? The comments said it was an expired product, but it is a recent extension to the Brainfuck programming language. 192.127.94.7
Konstable RfAr
Hi. I see you're doing some clerking for ArbCom now; hope you enjoy it. Quick suggestion: I think that wangi, who filed the case, should probably be listed as a party to the Konstable arbitration. Not that I am suugesting any action of any kind should be taken against wangi, but as a matter of form and to make sure he's getting the right notices, etc. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. I've done the needful. I am quite enjoying clerking for arbcom and am looking forward to continue. Cheers --Srikeit 06:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi :-) I saw your ping. Sorry I missed you. If you were asking about the above case you closed; it looks GREAT! It was a tricky one too. Take care, FloNight 17:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 20th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 47 | 20 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China | Military history dominates writing contest |
| News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:DYK
Namaskar, its backlogged, infact its been 7 hours since last refreshment.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Joshygeorge
Howdy! User_talk:Joshygeorge has requested unblock and claims not to be a sockpuppet, thought you'd want a heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward
I have opened an ArbComm case regarding my block
Please respond here Arsath 04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the vandalism revert on my talk page, I appreciate it. I've put it back, but that's just so that I can recognise him the next time he pops up. Have a pleasant day. yandman 08:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Why Tagetik has been deleted?
I don't understand why you deleted "Tagetik" page.
I look for the other Corporate performance management vendors pages and I can't find the reason why only Tagetik has been deleted.
Could you please explain me?
Many thanks
Science apologist
I looks like a number of statements of non -parties have disappeared; they need to be copied to the talk page of the main case page. Also you need to set the majority. Thanks. Thatcher131 00:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Note of interest
Namaskar Srikeit,
I hoped I would perhaps run into you at WP:DYK but the arbCom case has frankly gotten creepier day by day. Please look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop#Harassment_may_result_in_a_block_or_ban, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop#Wikistalking_by_BhaiSaab and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop#Ikonoblast. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Thanks
You are welcome. :) Jacek Kendysz 11:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of my statement is missing
Hello, Srikeit. RfAr ScienceApologist has changed since it was opened. Most of my statement is missing. The evidence space I reserved on the Evidence page is missing. Would you happen to know what's going on here? Asmodeus 14:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have restored the missing statement; just a goof. If you feel you must have the top section of the evidence page, you can make a space there. It's largely irrelevant, though. Thatcher131 14:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. (However, I do find it remarkable that almost all of the "goofs" appear to work in one particular direction around here.) Thanks. Asmodeus 14:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's not a particularly fair statement. The case was formally opened by Srikeit who has nothing to do with the ongoing dispute. I reviewed the open procedure and caught another error but not this one. As Srikeit explained on my talk page, he opened the case at 2am his local time. This being a wiki, your your full statement was preserved in the history and it was trivial to find and recopy it. Any suggestion that this was deliberate is totally uncalled for. Thatcher131 14:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- When I checked yesterday, the RfAr had been opened with my statement intact. That somehow changed. Since I don't know exactly how things work on your end, I won't be overly judgmental about it. But my experience with Wikipedia administrators and adminstrative procedures has thus far been skewed in a way that has not been satisfactorily explained. I hope you won't mind if I occasionally voice this observation. Thanks again, Asmodeus 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe you are mistaken. The history of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist shows only two edits; Srikeit's creation of the page and my addition of the rest of your statement. The process of opening a case is somewhat complicated, involving, among other things, copying and pasting the statements from the main RFAR page into the main case subpage template. Although your statement in full was on the main RFAR page, it appears that Srikeit left out several sections while creating the case page. I assure you this was inadvertent. Thatcher131 15:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- When I checked yesterday, the RfAr had been opened with my statement intact. That somehow changed. Since I don't know exactly how things work on your end, I won't be overly judgmental about it. But my experience with Wikipedia administrators and adminstrative procedures has thus far been skewed in a way that has not been satisfactorily explained. I hope you won't mind if I occasionally voice this observation. Thanks again, Asmodeus 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly apologize for my error in opening the case. I assure you that this was completely unintentional and accidental. As I mentioned on Thatcher's talk page, it was very late in the night and I should have probably left the case opening for the morning when these slip-ups could have been avoided. Once again I apologize for any inconvenience caused. --Srikeit 16:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, Srikeit. I find it credible and satisfactory. (I know that some of you admins must be worked to the bone, and I greatly appreciate your willingness to serve the community under such adverse circumstances.) Best regards, Asmodeus 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Unblock request
A user named Joshygeorge, who you blocked, has put an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it. Eli Falk 12:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Konstable
You seem to have forgotten to remove the Konstable arbcom case from the list of cases in the evidence phase, now it's progressed (and been added) to voting phase. David Mestel(Talk) 16:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Only a proposed motion is in the voting phase, the rest of the case is still in evidence/workshop, so it is listed in both places. Thatcher131 16:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I had tried to do the exact same thing but Thatcher was kind enough to explain the above-mentioned reason that in this edit-summary. Hope that helps --Srikeit 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 27th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles | Steward elections begin |
| Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser | News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the News | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
XDForum Deletion
You recently deleted XDForum:
15:56, November 30, 2006 Srikeit (Talk | contribs) deleted "XDForum" (expired prod) [1]
I am requesting it be undeleted. Any reason why it was deleted, "expired prod" is not exactly a "informative deletion reason" (in fact it is asked not to use that)?
Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Procedure_for_admins
Zujik 12:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Zujik, expired prod means that someone used {{prod}} to suggest its deletion and nobody contested it within a reasonable period. If you'd like the deletion reversed, make your request at WP:DRV. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Really, a prod does not need to go to WP:DRV. If an admin disagrees they can re-create the article. That was the original thinking behind the prod process. Both less contentious deletion and re-creation. --FloNight 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You may take this matter to WP:DRV if you wish or re-create the article if you wish (I have emailed you the content). I would also like to point out that the article had been PRODded for seven days at the time of deletion (i.e two days overdue). Also it is the obligation of the editor proposing the deletion, to inform the creator of the article about the prod. Nevertheless I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Thanks --Srikeit 05:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Audio samples
Could you specify what language this is spoken in? Also consider uploading it to Commons. If you do, use the format xx-file_name.ogg where xx is the current language code. If possible, try to specify the age, sex and place of residence and/or birth of the speaker.
Peter Isotalo 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um... the file is a pronunciation clip. It is the way Kerala is pronounced in the voice of a native speaker (i.e me) and is not spoken in any particular language. I had uploaded the file along with quite sometime back along with many others and unfortunately did not know the benefits of uploading to commons at that time. Re-uploading nearly 500 files to commons will be a really onerous task (not to mention extremely time consuming and quite pointless). I'll do the needful when I upload media in the future. Thanks for the note --Srikeit 06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume I, Issue 3 - December 2006
|
|
|
Sex tourism case
The RFAr/Sex Tourism case now has 4 net votes. Are you still interested in opening it?? --FloNight 20:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Big checkuser clerk task
As you know, Essjay redid the main CU page so that pending cases are listed on RFCU/Pending rather than the main page. Unfortunately, the closed case header on all the old closed cases still points to the main CU page. I was hoping you could use AWB to fix all the old cases. The url in the case header
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&action=edit§ion=1 here]
needs to be changed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Pending&action=edit§ion=1 here]
on every subpage of RFCU/Case where it appears. Can you do it? Thatcher131 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Will be no problem, just a "find and replace" job using AWB. However what really ticks me off is that the dates are wikilinked which means I can't do a direct load from the links on the page without a lot of tedious omissions. Why are the dates linked anyway? Its completely useless AFAICS. Do you mind if I un-wikilink the dates so that my job gets easier? Cheers --Srikeit 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There's the list (sorry my IRC connection dropped) as a wikilinked list (just fixed it) it it helps? Glen 08:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Posted a Wikipedia article on Santa America a few weeks ago. It was deleted due to a {prod}. I'm not entirely sure why it was flagged for deletion. Can't see the discussion on it since it is now gone...
Any information on why the article was deleted and what needs to be done for encyclopedic validity would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Signpost updated for December 4th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Arbitration Committee elections open | The Seigenthaler incident: One year later |
| Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser | Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another |
| News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the wishes! :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Curious about 'Expired Prod'
Hi, I've noticed the edit summary given for some deletions is listed as simply 'expired prod'. What exactly does this mean? Is it some kind of administrative cattle prod used to 'expire' articles? :) 80.47.187.120 11:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- *reads up* Ack, silly me. Umm... I guess I should be a little more observant, eh? Sorry to have bothered you. :) 80.47.187.120 11:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all silly of you to ask, guess you already know but I'll still give you an overview : "Expired prod" is used as a deletion reason for an article that has been proposed for deletion without objection for over five days. Please feel free to ask any other questions you may have. Cheers --Srikeit 11:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been posted above.
- BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year.
- Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing under any name or anonymous ip is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
- TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a year for personal attacks, disruptive comments, edit-warring and incivility.
- BhaiSaab is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
- Hkelkar and socks is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
- TerryJ-Ho is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
For the Arbitration committee, Cowman109Talk 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Merci
..for catching my typo, Bhadaniji. Hope you are fine :) --Srikeit 07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nice to see you working on a Sunday (as usual, perhaps!). I fixed the typo to rec ord that the bans have come to my notice :). I too hope that you are very fine. --Bhadani 07:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom Case
Please note that a group of parties were removed from the list by one of the parties. See: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris#Parties_removed.3F. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I had noticed that and was about to correct it when we had a power outage in our area and I was unable to access the internet for several hours. I have done the needful now. Thanks again --Srikeit 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Spelling
Evening Secret, just dropped by to say that if you had a normal username, I might be able to remember how to spell it... ;p Essjay (Talk) 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well you'd have to go back 19 years and stop my parents committing the horrible sin of naming me.... wait a minute, I LIKE MY NAME!! Anyway mistake pardoned, I'll share the "secret" of remembering my name: just remember "StrikeIt" (© sean_black) and later drop the initial "t". Too much trouble?? Screw it all and call me eww ;) Cheers --Srikeit 06:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
striking votes of banned users
Hi, I see that you have removed votes cast by users before they were banned. Surely these votes are valid and should stand? Abu ali 12:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes they were cast before they were banned, but they will be accounted for in the duration of the ban and banned users do not have suffrage in the elections. --Srikeit 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is this your interpretation, or is this an official policy? Abu ali 14:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- You know my opinions on this, so I won't bother repeating them :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is this your interpretation, or is this an official policy? Abu ali 14:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- A related discussion --Srikeit 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Page moves
Hello, I need assistance in how to report something, regarding the new ArbCom case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. Part of the conflict has to do with non-consensus page moves. However, one of the involved users Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing to engage in page moves of hundreds of pages, without consensus or any attempt at RM procedure. How do I request an injunction to get these moves to stop and/or be reverted, while the ArbCom case is in-process? Some of the evidence that I would like to present involves pointers to current categories, but if everything gets moved, I won't be able to provide clear examples. :/ Plus, this constant stream of moves is just escalating tension and exacerbating the situation. --Elonka 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- You have already proposed a temporary injunction at the /Workshop page though I believe the wording could be more precise. This injunction may however take a few days to be enacted so I suggest you contact an arbitrator directly (on their talk page or email) explaining the problem as you have here. Alternatively you could post this on the Incidents Noticeboard to attract some attention to the matter. --Srikeit 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 11th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 50 | 11 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: New feature | ||
| Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed | Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit | |
| Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available | Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire | |
| Trolling organization's article deleted | WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt" | |
| News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones | Wikipedia in the News | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sacha Baron Cohen Dispute
Dear. Srikeit I am writing to you regarding the Sacha Baron Cohen article. For the past few months there has been an argument regarding the Sacha Baron Cohen’s mother. There are four reputable sources that say she is a Persian Jew. However there are some users who believe this is not true. Their argument is that the sources have taken their information from Wikipedia. People who share this belief however fail to provide any evidence that the sources are quoting a vandalized wikipedia article. After much debate with one of the users who shared this belief it was decided to leave the Persian Jew in the article until they can prove that the sources were quoting wikipedia. Recently a user by the name of Abu Ali has been editing the Persian Jew out without providing any evidence that the sources were using wikipedia. I have tried to reason with him however he continues to edit the article without providing any evidence or logic for that matter. I have never talked to an admin regarding a dispute so I am not sure about the process. If you could take a look at this matter I would be grateful.
Regard, Klymen 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Srikeit, The issue has been discussed at length in the talk pages of Klymen, Mad Jack and on the article itself. Unfortunately Klymen insists on repeatedly reverting the edits of various people who dispute "Persian mother" claim. Abu ali 12:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Abu Ali who disputes the "Persian Mother" claim has no evidence against the four sources. He has based his logic and argument on Ad Populum, personal belief and assumptions. Jack has no problem with the Persian Mother staying in the article at this point because he understands that the argument he has presented lacks evidence. Klymen 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Jack does present evidence on the article talk page which is in my opinion very convincing. The statement that "Jack has no problem with the Persian Mother staying in the article at this point because he understands that the argument he has presented lacks evidence." is in my opinion not totally honest. In [2]. He says he will leave the "Persian mother" claim in the article, because he knows that any attempt to remove it will be immediately reverted by our good friend Klyman. Abu ali 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is no place for opinions. It is a place for verifiable facts. Abu ali is also wrong about Jack. Jack included the Persian Mother in his last edit regarding this matter. If Jack had a sound argument that was verifiable he could have easily stopped me from reverting. The different between Jack and Abu ali is that Jack understands the flaw in his argument and is working to fix it, Abu ali on the other hand uses the flawed argument to push his own beliefs.Klymen 14:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Brahma Kumaris case. Timescales
Hi Srikeit. You posted a notificatoin on my talk page regarding the Brahma Kumaris Arbitration case [[3]]. I am in the process of preparing evidence now but would like to know how long I have to submit it. The Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy suggests that the time is one week. Have I understood that right? Would that be one week from me receiving the invite? I ask since I, along with other editors, were brought into the case later.
Also I am curious to know if me and the other late-comers should make "statements" in the same way that User:195.82.106.244 and User:Riveros11 did. Or was that just for the case to be accepted?
I have also asked a question about timescales on the talk page [4] but have sofar received no reply. Was that the right place to ask?
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 17:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise for the delay (bit busy in RL). There is no deadline per se for submitting evidence The official grace period for submitting evidence is one week, however this is often extended to 2-3 weeks if there is a steady flow of evidence being submitted and proposals on its basis are still being made. None of these time limits are followed rigidly however you would do well to submit whatever evidence you have as early as possible so the arbitrators can consider it for making proposals. You may also make a statement explaining your position and arguments in the case however this is completely optional (evidence in lieu of this is sufficient). If you have any more questions regarding the process please feel free to ask on the case's talk page. --Srikeit 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to request you to put your thoughts into the Sindhi-language talkpage. A Wikipedian switched the order of Sindhi and Devanagari on the article page. This was minor, but I thought is was a type of POV-pushing and an unjustified edit. Sindhi is a language that has been written in many scripts over the course of its history. The Sindhi-Arabic script is the only one used in Pakistan, where the vast majority of Sindhi speakers are located (around 19 million). Even in India, where 2 million Sindhi speakers live, Sindhi-Arabic script is actually more popular than Devanagari because the latter was introduced by the Gov't in 1948. So despite the fact that Sindhi-Arabic script is the most popular and commonly-used script for the Sindhi language, users are pushing for Devanagari to precede Sindhi-Arabic on the Sindhi language page. And although this is a very very minor issue, I think it should be address to the benefit of a major language's article page to be accurate and encyclopedic. Thank you, and best wishes-- Mar de Sin Speak up! 01:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
Hi
with regards the arbitration for the BKWSU topic page, here; [5] may I request that Sethie is co-joined as they are having equal or greater influence onto the page than many of the other users named making entire article reversions and influencing discussion?
Thanks. 195.82.106.244 11:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- After discussion with an arbitrator it has been concluded that since Sethie has made only one reversion in the last 500 edits to the BKWSU article, he may not be named as a party to the case if he does not wish to. --Srikeit 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 18th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 51 | 18 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Holiday publication | ||
| Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen | Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens | |
| WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss" | News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)