User talk:Nichalp/Archive58

A look at Sikkim and Kalimpong

Saw your edits in improving the Gangtok article. As you are the chief content writer ofSikkim and Kalimpong I would like you to give a look at both of them. If you find time try to improve both the articles. Editing Sikkim and Gangtok side by side is not a tought job. Kindly try to improve those articles. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 02:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a message put up that I am not so free these days. Could you also help us out? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Census India

I came across the new site of census while updating Gangtok, and found that the provisional table of population that GR India template uses is now outdated. Unfortunately, I could not dig out any such updated table, which would provide us with the population of cities.

Please see this and comment. As the provisional data is replaced by updated data, somehow we should change that, too. But how? This is very fundamental, and needs to be addressed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God forbid!!!

No way was it me who commented "This is a nutty question. Please be more specific with quizzes. so many companies keep touching alltime highs and lows on a daily basis. This is not a quiz, this is trivia, get on page 3". I have clarified my position on the Quiz page! To be honest I really respect you and your contributions towards Wikipedia. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burma

Hello Nichalp, I've noticed you moved Burma back to Myanmar. Your decision is overrunning process. Please consider undoing your action, as Burma should only be moved back to Myanmar following a consensual move proposal listed at WP:RM, or a consensual community decision that the closure of October's move proposal to Burma was inadequate. Thank you. Regards, Hús ö nd 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply on my talk page, Nichalp. Here are my comments to your expressed views:

WP:IAR is a policy created to bypass other policies IF the result of its application would provide a better result than the strict application of those policies. It pretty much sums up to allowing Wikipedians to use their common sense in providing the best solution to problems, if necessary by not adhering too strictly to policies or even bypassing them. This you know well. BUT WP:IAR doesn't certainly mean that one user may do whatever he thinks it's better for the project. Particularly, if other users disagree with his or her application of WP:IAR. You are of course allowed to use WP:IAR like everyone else but, just like everyone else, you are even more allowed to listen to concerns and ponder your decisions.
There is no established way of determining consensus on Wikipedia. Move proposals, just like any other poll-like discussions, are closed according to the closer admin's discretion. That doesn't mean that the closing admin's discretion to determine consensus was adequate, but by Wikipedia tradition we are generally required to trust his or her judgment (that's why we have RfA's to determine if a user's judgment is approved by the community). WHEN we do not agree with a closing admin's judgment, we should request feedback about his decision, e.g. at WP:ANI. None of this was done, therefore his closure remains valid and totally within process.
No, of course it's not fair, but there's no way to be completely fair on disputed article titles because we may only have one title despite the validity of the arguments provided by the disputing sides. There's always one side who feels is in disadvantage because no consensus on a new move proposal will default to keeping the title as it is. Still, this works a thousand times better than going out of process and enforce a move through WP:IAR, resulting in controversy, drama, and likely new WP:IAR being cited to revert everything back. A Pandora box that should really be avoided.

I must add that I was quite surprised and mildly disappointed at your decision to move this article. Your good judgment is well known, but I'm afraid this is a case where it was not at its best. I once again ask you to reflect on your action. Best regards, Hús ö nd 16:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've lowered your credibility, I just think you made a bad decision like everyone else does every now and then. Have you considered that you are actually wheel-warring with User:Duja by reverting his decision to move the article to Burma following a move proposal that was discussed by tens of users? There is no current move proposal for moving this article, therefore none can even attempt to establish a consensus in the arguments provided by both sides, because users aren't even aware of any ongoing discussion. You effectively trampled the entire process and made an unilateral decision through WP:IAR. There is no justification for that. Your judgment was not good because you made a decision out of no concrete grounds, bypassing a regular process that involved many users through many days, and bypassing the decision of a fellow admin. As for the arguments provided, there's bad arguments on both sides, that's not the point. The point is, you made an unilateral decision for which there was no procedural discussion and no consensus. Undoing it is the only wise thing to do. Because if you don't realize your mistake, then yes you will be lowering your credibility. Regards, Hús ö nd 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that WP:CBB is a better place for advertising a move proposal than WP:RM?! I even feel the need to confess that despite being on Wikipedia for two years this is the first time I learn about the very existence of WP:CBB. Did you read my concerns on any discussion about the name of the article? Probably not, because I didn't even know of any proposal. And just like me, many others didn't. Nichalp, you are not being sound. Please reconsider your action instead of finding grounds that do not exist. I will be regrettably forced to request further community feedback on your action if you do not realize your, in my view, mistake. Regards, Hús ö nd 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp, after waiting for hours I have reverted your move. Many users both on and off wiki agree that the arguments you invoked to justify your action were unreasonable, against process/consensus, and your move should therefore be reverted. Please don't take this personally. I except a reaction from you which I will be open to discuss. Regards, Hús ö nd 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, I've reverted myself as some users expressed deep concerns on my reversion. The last thing I want is to put more wood in the fire. Regards, Hús ö nd 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unhappy with the way this matter has spiraled out of control tonight. We've had two admins who have expressed views before in this discussion moving it back to their preferred title. No one in this matter seems to have given much thought to the protected status of the page. Whilst you made rational arguments in support of your assessment of the strength of arguments for each name [1], I find it usually better if the person who starts a discussion does not assess it's outcome. There is an inference that someone who starts a poll "There seems to be a greater number of comments on this page by wikipedians favouring Myanmar to Burma" [2] does not favour the status quo. You also expressly said that the poll was not to be the basis of renaming the article, with makes participation by those happy with the status quo less likely. The discussion also took place on a subpage of the article's talkpage rather than on the talkpage itself, which may also have skewed participation - it certainly is likely to be a less watched page. If you were going to base a page move on the discussion, it would have been appropriate to (a) declare this upfront at the beginning, (b) list it as a requested move, (b) note on the article's talkpage that the poll was taking place and (d) ask at the outset whether there were objections to you determining the consensus of the discussion. With respect, this was bound to be a controversial move and I think you could have handled it in a manner that would have avoided the disruption that occurred due to people being unhappy with the move. WjBscribe 04:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming and server load

Re: your question about "the resources needed to effect such a rollback" in the discussion about User:Serein on the noticeboard, just to let you know from a conversation I had with Voice of All that the developers have recently changed the way the database deals with renames. They are now much less heavy work on the server and should no longer cause database locks. Eventually we should be able to rename an account with up to 2,000,000 edits with minimal consequences on performance. I'm definitely not advocating that we suddenly start renaming everyone whenever they get bored of there names (frequent username changes cause other problems), but thought I'd give you a heads up that database performance will be much less of an issue from now on. WjBscribe 16:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think repeated username changes are a problem:

People remember their interactions with other users based on usernames: frequent changes are going to make it hard for users to keep track of who is who.
Creation of double redirects: especially where someone has many user subpages, frequent renaming is going to create a tangle of redirects that put a burden on others to cleanup.
Waste of bureaucrat time: we are already looking at over 300 renames being performed every month, I don't think we should be required to indulge the whim of every kid (I don't think it unfair to say that frequent rename requests come from some of our younger users). We run the risk of people wanting to change their usernames as often as they change their signatures.
Exhaustion of usernames: I don't like the idea of a new user using a name that was used for some time by another user, which causes confusion, especially with regards to old signatures. Every time someone is renamed, they effectively take away yet another name a new user might want to use.

So in my opinion, there are still plenty of good reasons not to allow regular renames of the same account. My instinct would be that unless there is a good reason (i.e. just realised my new name is actually quite similar to User:X and is causing confusion, may I be renamed again) we should insist on at least 6 months if not a year between requests. Oh, another thing that I realise you may not be aware of - block logs now move when we rename a user. WjBscribe 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I give you this award for your boldness in neutralising the Myanmar issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-Changing username

I agree with that statement.--I am sooooo cool! 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)--I am sooooo cool! 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burma/Myanmar

Hi Nichalp. I tend to believe that your primary motivation in the move was to resolve the issue rather than to impose your view on the process. I do think you went about it the wrong way (as I've explained in various forums) but hope that we can all work this out together. I've put together a survey on the Burma talk page and hope that you will support this as a way of finding what an acceptable solution is. It may not work, but it is worth a try. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this to AN/I as multiple admins are now involved with moving the page. Your comments would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Anthony de Mello priest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anthony de Mello priest.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangtok

Please try to have a go at the lead of Gangtok. And if possible, general copyediting, too. But, at least, the lead. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Neutrality on your move

Hello Nichalp and thank you for contacting me directly. Yes I have accused you of being partisan. Not at the beginning of this controversy when I thought that you were a neutral admin making a bad decision, but information that surfaced during the discussions have sort of convinced me that you already had a formed opinion on the matter and therefore were not neutral. Besides, closing a poll that we start (especially when the outcome was a clear division among users who took their time to provide feedback) is hardly an indicator of neutrality. Yes I reverted you even though I was involved in the October move, thus implying a bias. But I separate things very clearly. One thing is to have a bias and refrain from attempting to enforce that bias (as I have always done), and other very different thing is to undo unilateral, anti-consensus, anti-process actions in the same manner I would if I had never been involved or had any bias. Yes, I probably did wrong in reverting you anyway for the sake of WP:UNINVOLVED. But I think I know fairly well the interested apathy Wikipedians often reserve for this kind of situation, and I thought action was needed because you were absent while your action started to have expected repercussions to the article and all articles about Burma. Like I told WjBscribe, I don't think you abused the tools, I think you misused them in good faith. Even if you had a bias, or especially if you hadn't, you did what you thought was best and that's quite acceptable. However, the action per se was not. You say in ANI that you were not aware that the page was move protected. Also perfectly acceptable, can happen to anyone. But it's one more reason to acknowledge a mistake. Instead, you check the exact wording at WP:RM to justify your act as not being totally against process. Why find justifications for a mistake instead of simply saying whoops? Or worse, why following WjBscribe with arguments focusing on my bias for reverting your move, when the most biased user ever would still have legitimate grounds for doing it? Or even worse, why do you say that "the closing admin arbitrates on fact, logic and Wikipedia policies, and not just numbers and emotion", when WP:Consensus is still one of our strongest policies which nonetheless you have totally bypassed? I was not disappointed before, but must confess I am now. I truly expected you to have a different attitude after returning from your absence and realizing all the trouble your move has caused. You have taken steps to nip the controversy, but you've fallen short of mending the trust I used to have in you. By the way, you stated at ANI that "since this has spiraled to such an ugly issue, I think that the best way forward is to revert the move (done already)". What move are you referring to? Last October's? Because that's the only move currently reverted. And if the article continues to have "Myanmar" as its title, then I'm afraid that new solutions and processes for determining the final name cannot be taken seriously. You killed process. If you want a solution, then consider resurrecting it first. Regards, Hús ö nd 10:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Burma

As I said on AN/I, the best first step to resolution is undoing the damage that has been done, by reverting your initial move. Rightly or wrongly it will undermine the consensus process if the move appears to be a fait accompli pushed through by a handful of individual admins, which I think is a reasonable way to read the current situation. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I think it's perfectly reasonable that you didn't notice the page was protected, I have made the same mistake myself. However, when that happens and your action is disputed, as it is here, you should revert yourself back to the protected version. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar/Burma

Hi Nichalp. Thanks for coming back! I think it is definitely possible to seek a consensus on the talk page itself, we just need to be more organized in how we go about soliciting opinions - once things calm down a little. Oddly enough, the article itself is a quality one and, if we can get the naming issue out of the way, it is possible to take it to WP:FAC. Something I will definitely pursue, whatever the article's name ends up being. --Regents Park (Chase my ducks) 14:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should say on ANI that you're seeing it as Burma and if that is not the case then any admin can go ahead and move it back to Burma for you. (I'm still seeing it at Myanmar.)That would be the same as your having moved it back. I agree about the FAC and the naming issue and promise that I'll work toward resolving it, whatever the outcome! But, the article is a good one, is well cited, and has a lot of content. The work required is mostly reorganizing, rewriting, editing, and reducing the length of some of the subtopics, and some work on the early history and most recent history. But my bookshelf has almost every book ever published on Burma, so that is not a tall order. However, as you say, we need to get the name issue behind us, otherwise nothing constructive will get done. --Regents Park (Chase my ducks) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]