Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lar (talk | contribs) at 01:43, 18 December 2008 (→Concern with some edits: placing collapseboxes is not universally helpful). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

Hi

Please see my most recent post to my own talk page. Then please see recent posts to Sarumio's. The guy is impossible. He just cannot stop himself making mass edits without bothering with consensus. He is clever enough to lie low when he needs and disruptive wherever he chooses to work. A topic ban would be inappropriate recourse now. I think this needs ArbCom. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

btw The Rambling Man is now on a very lengthy wikibreak. Although he's popping in from time to time, he's likely to be restricted by time and technology when he does so, so probably even more limited than I am! --Dweller (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ncmvocalist, just popping in from Varanasi. It's interesting to see a bunch of different editors in a different field of Misplaced Pages altogether condemning Sarumio's flippant behaviour through his mass edits. It's beyond football articles now - he moved onto rugby for a while before I caught him doing exactly the same thing he was told not to do with the football articles. Now it's a case of changing town for village or vice versa without any consensus to do so. I'd have had his ability to edit removed some months ago - we've wasted hundreds of Wiki-hours cleaning up after him, it's not good enough. Hope that makes my position crystal... Cheers. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Topic bans are pointless to consider. He's clearly disruptive everywhere he chooses to edit. He'd simply accept the ban and move on and disrupt a new area. Some editors are, sadly, incorrigable. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for defending my talkpage   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

re Abtract ArbCom

You may have seen this at one of the Admin noticeboards, but here is the notice I received at my talkpage; I would like to voice my appreciation for your past, current and whatever future input you have (had) in this and related matters. Thank you. Mark (LessHeard vanU) (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic music - info box

Hi. You have mentioned a Carnatic music info box would be better for Carnatic music. Can you share your thoughts on what will be covered in such a box? The {{Indian Music}} seems to cover the high level items in Indian classical music, which may be good enough, until the next big improvement on the info box, right? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba: Class A Application

I saw you changed the grade. I need suggestions for further improvement, lack of coherence was another issue. Can you please read the entire article once and point out where topic sentences or more context may be needed. To resolve the RS, i have approached the Misplaced Pages:RS/N#http:.2F.2Fwww.ambedkar.org.2FTirupati.2FChap4.ht and section below, please help to decide if the rationale provided by me is valid or should i search alternate sources. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i have replaced all disputed references. Please take a look.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look for class A rethink? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Adoption of C class in WP Aus

My view is that using C class has been an underwhelming yawn. At first I opposed the idea on it just complicating things for no good reason and I still feel this is true. At the same time I am slowly rating some articles with C class, especially when they don't have appropriate citations from reliable sources.

Using C class doesn't provide any quick fixes so it is difficult to discern any real benefits. At first there was a lot of confusion about criteria. There is still of lot of inconsistency between types and many articles rated start are probably C class. However other editors who do more assessing or work on specific sub projects that I am not familiar with, may find may find good reasons and have other opinions contrary to mine. So in summary, adopting C class might have some benefits and probably some confusion. You might want to look at WP:VG/A, who also adopted C class. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Workshop - Piotrus 2

Yes, I'm still working on it. I'm hoping to finish the workshop proposals by the end of the week; but, as I've mentioned, the evidence does not lend itself to easy drafting. Kirill 13:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm basically done at this point, and just waiting for further comments. Kirill 23:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Ncmvocalist! Thanks for the barnstar. I am very sorry that i could not respond to you earlier. I have become very inactive in Misplaced Pages these days. How are you?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

But really, I think it's just arbcom that need be aware. I suppose Jehochman, Moreschi or Chaser could be notified. I'll do that now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFArb page - Motion: Tobias case

Would like to request that you change your vote to oppose (from abstain) so this may be archived sooner, before the RFArb page gets too much longer. I make this request given that the active current case (Kuban) has similar proposals - I expect they can be tweaked in such a way that it will eliminate the need for amending the Tobias case, while providing any necessary clarification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary to oppose the motion to allow the section to be archived; if it doesn't pass in a reasonable time then it simply lapses. If no arbs have commented in a few more days then that can take place. What you really want to be bugging us about is moving those open cases to proposed decisions :) --bainer (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lol...cheers! :D I'd completely forgotten (think I'm in PD mindset still). Hehe, I've already begun bugging on one of the open cases last week - that should be on PD soon. Kuban will be the next target, once the wording re: userpages is satisfactory. Cheers again, :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Thanks for your attention to this. Considering that you have already condemned such behavior, User:Srkris continues to do the same thing, repeatedly, and this for more than ten days and for the past five days, ever since I brought it to the attention of WP:ANI. If you are an admin (even otherwise), I'd like to know what can be done to prevent this. I seriously cannot understand how someone with FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies. Any help appreciated. ] (] · ]) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. While I am happy that his behavior was punished, I find it ironic that all the aforesaid stuff went unnoticed but he got blocked for edit-warring. It is like being sent to judicial custody for petty theft when one is a murderer. ] (] · ]) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Any arb?

What makes you think you can rv changes on the RFAR templates 3 times and then say on each summary "(any arb. who prefers..."? You're not an arb, not even a clerk. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because 1/ it was an undiscussed bold edit and 2/ I've reverted on the basis that the previous long-standing version was better. If an arb prefers the bold edit, then they rightfully have the authority to restore it rather than let it become a venue for edit-warring between a variety of other uninvolved editors. Clear? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You fail to realize the paradox. You edit these all the time on the grounds non arbs/clerks can do so and yet you say someone else can't? Yet you then say only an arb can change your changes? Oy the hypocrisy! Clear? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I wasn't clear, or you wouldn't mis-state my position. I edit on the grounds that any uninvolved editor may make bold edits; if either the clerks or arbitrators disagreed with an edit, they're always welcome to revert on the grounds that the edit was inaccurate (eg; a case was active with new motions when I'd edited the template to mark it as stale). I am not aware of this happening to date for the edits I've made. In this case, there was long-standing content (or format) that was substantially changed without any discussion. Ms2ger was welcome to make the bold edit, but I reverted in the same manner. If Ms2ger's new undiscussed version was preferred, then it'd be restored by an arbitrator. Perhaps you feel there is a hypocrisy because you failed to gather the facts before commenting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll intervene here as a Clerk: please refrain from making unapproved changes to Committee pages, but moreover, refrain from reverting through your preferred version of the template—such behaviour is wholly inappropriate. I wish to note that Ncmvocalist is here perfectly correct in his actions, and speculation over his suitability to revert changes made to ArbCom pages without any prior discussion is unhelpful: the changes still do not belong. Thanks, AGK 16:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So he can make changes but only arbs can change that? What contradiction.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What...? That's not what I said at all, Sumoeagle. My comment was noting that changes should only be made by an Arbitrator (or a Clerk), or with the agreement of one or both; if a change is made contrary to that, any editor is permitted to revert. Therefore, changes to the status quo can only be made under those conditions; anybody, however, is permitted to take action to ensure the status quo is retained until such a time as agreement is sought from the Committee or its Clerks. AGK 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting on my clerk hat here, anyone can make changes, but a major change should be discussed first. Honestly, the difference in the two verions isn't that big a deal to me. As to this rv'ing with no discussion (and note Sumo did start a discussion of sorts), one more rv and I'll full protect the templates and I don't care which version is in place at the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Coren already protected one of them, so I'll protect the other two also. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I had no intention of editing the templates on that matter after the 2nd revert on each at 15:46-15:47. This 2nd revert made at 16:04 would've been made at 15:48, but I clicked show preview instead of send and was replying here in another window. If I'd seen the clerks already discussing this on the talk page at 15:49, would not have made the 16:04 edit. In any case, apologies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's all just figure out which is better. I'd especially like to know which is better technically. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Ncmvocalist, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Possibly unfree Image:MLV1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:MLV1.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ­ Kris (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported

Your stalking behaviour has been reported at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist. ­ Kris (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply requested

It appears that you do not wish to proceed re , nor do you respond to email. Please clarify William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded at talk page.

3RR on M. L. Vasanthakumari

Be easy. This is a bit delayed, but the request for full protection over the edit war just came in. I'm declining in favor of warning. Also, the website you're warring over is not a reliable source and should not be in the article. Regards, لennavecia 05:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I've used some other sources for parts of the affected content, and left the 'citation needed' tags for the rest. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My arbcom candidacy

I've replied to your question: I'm sorry about the delay. I've had a stinking cold for the past few days. --ROGER DAVIES  13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Thanks for the message on my talk page but can I ask you not to do the same in future. Such a message could be misconstrued as canvassing. The AN/I thread is on my watch list and I would have commented anyway. I'm sure you realise that your post wouldn't have influenced me. Nevertheless a more jaundiced eye could read more into it and I have to emphasise that i wish to remain a non-involved editor. The only reason I commented was when I looked at it on the WQA page it seemed an obviously frivolous request and digging further I found a disturbing pattern of behaviour. Regards. Justin talk 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help in conveying the complete context of my situation here. ] (] · ]) 09:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba

Can you look at the article and raise any issues that may hamper it's success at the FAC? For reference, Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Section_break_A Vithoba is spelled as "Vithobha" in your comments. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz 15:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If I get a chance later this week, I'll try have a look. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Indian Barnstar of National Merit

		The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
		Awarded to Ncmvocalist, one of the most prolific editors from India. We are proud of you ! -- Tinu Cherian - 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

Just letting you know, your friend the IP address has opened up a discussion about you at ANI here . Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - checkuser is already onto him; just deciding what to do with the main account. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Can you link the checkuser discussion? - Mgm| 10:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not at this venue, unfortunately. If there are no privacy concerns, I can provide more information via other means. There is however another community discussion at ANI which may provide some insight. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Answered

I answered your latest questions. Let me know if you have more. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, no more. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Proposed decision - Cold Fusion

In case it was unintentional, wanted to make you aware: although you proposed this finding, you did not provide an accompanying vote/comment/signature to confirm that you made the proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself while reading Flo's comments, but thanks for the notification! I usually double-check sigs before posting but I was in a bit of a rush yesterday. --bainer (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem; cheers for the prompt response. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:RfarOpenTasks.

I noticed your recent edits to RfarOpenTasks. As your editing Committee pages has been an issue of attention recently, I would like to observe here that I'm happy with your participating in this way, and that I find your changes (at least to that template—I am unsure what other edits to ArbComm utilities you have been making) helpful and constructive.

If you're thinking of moving on to helping out in other ways, do think about pinging me for a sanity check—just to avoid wrecking all your hard work with more negative attention.

Keep up the good work and thanks for your ongoing assistance.

Regards, AGK 17:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions answered

Thanks for those. Let me know if anything needs clarifying. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I have no further questions. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I got mine answered as well. If you have any follow-ups I can answer them, and i'll do it quickly this time :) Wizardman 23:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Thanks for the questions :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your messages

Well, I think I'm all up to date on your questions now :) --ROGER DAVIES  12:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you are, and the best part is...no more for the elections from me. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup Q

Your followup Q and clarification request have been answered. Joy.  :-) — Coren  23:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP India template

There is a problem with your change. Preview ANY page with this template, will show something is wrong! Please fix it ASAP. I think an extra }} has been introduced in this latest change. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting any error on any page using the template, but I'm rechecking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it checked+fixed (I'd missed 2 lines of code) - I think it should be fine now though. Let me know if you find any other errors. Cheers for letting me know, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, they have been fixed - when I purge my edits done in past couple of hours, I see they are fine. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

File:MLV1.jpg

Hi, I was working on Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 27 and encountered this image. Did your last comment meant that the image was published in January 5, 1947 issue? If so, I will add that to the image and remove the pui tag. Garion96 (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette comments

I appreciate you views as a non-involved user. Thanks.

I noticed that you have done a lot of the work on the Carnatic music article, and I appreciate that too. I developed a fondness for Carnatic music from the first time I heard it, and derive great pleasure from it -- as someone with no musical training, just a listener. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Concern with some edits

I'm making this comment not as a clerk of the Arbitration Committee, but as a fellow editor. I found it hard to agree with what you've done with these edits you made to the WP:RFAR page. It is very bad etiquette to alter/change other people's statements, even formatting wise, unless you're explicitly asked to do so (which is why that even though there is a supposed limit in comment size, clerks generally do not enforce it unless asked by Arbitrators - and it's only enforced when the original commentator refuses to shorten it after notices are given). In the future, please refrain from editing other people's comments, even formatting wise. - Penwhale | 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I'm replying to you in both your capacities: as an editor, but more particularly as a clerk. The nasty business that happened a couple of months ago ended with me making a conclusion - I still maintain that.

Regardless of what stage of dispute resolution, I enforce formatting guidelines to maintain consistency - the guidelines are in force for a reason. Ignoring them on some occasions and enforcing them on certain others is one problem with the dispute resolution process. The RFC/U process gave all appearances that it deteriorated into an attack zone due to lack of enforcement - this is now resolved in some ways due to more consistent enforcement of formatting guidelines. The guidelines exist to maintain consistency for all parties. If that isn't their purpose, I wonder what is - especially if it becomes a norm to neither respect or enforce those guidelines consistently across all stages of dispute resolution. Although arbitration may be a binding process, that neither eliminates, nor changes the purpose of those guidelines.

With or without notices, arbitrators are entitled to ensure such consistency is maintained (by completely removing statements that fail to adhere to the word limit). Kirill was bold enough to do so for the greater good and I endorse his action on the relevant request - as well as his message to the clerks' noticeboard: a request that the clerks get their act together. I did not strictly enforce that word limit or remove any statement; I merely touched a couple that were unreasonably long so that they are not removed in part or in entirity. Although I can appreciate the chance that John Vandenberg or Abtract may not have been pleased that their statements were alterred by someone else, I am confident they appreciate my reasons for me doing so, as well as the edits I made - unless you know something that I don't. If I am mistaken, I will apologise to those affected. Also bear in mind that both of them were given a courtesy note that my edits could be treated as a mere interim action and that they may change their statements accordingly as they please.

My own opinion differs from yours. I would appreciate thoughtful action being taken on any excessively long statements I made at the RFArb page - so no, this is not a plain case of very bad etiquette: your opinion is not absolute. Rather, I think it's futile to single my edits out as if I did not give them any thought. My edits highlight only one potential problem - certain clerks' refusal to maintain consistency. However, just because I highlight this inadequacy, the fault (if any) does not become mine. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you did not comment on this. With regards to formatting, I followed the same style that clerks have used previously this year (diffs available). However, it appears SV's understanding of correct formatting is different. Could you link me to a relevant guideline that indicates which edit is correct in substance (I.e. whether my edit was incorrect or whether SV's edit was correct)? However, if there is none, please let me know - in that case, I'd like to open a discussion to resolve this difference so the relevant guidelines or policies may be updated for the benefit of the community. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have written on my talk page, but for the reference: you are confused about which edits I'm talking about. I'm not inquiring about the edits you made on the 15th (regarding formatting, which SV restored), but rather, the edits you made to collapse other people's comments. While clerks do occasionally enforce the length limit, it is generally not a strict limit and collapsing the boxes, for obvious reasons, will make it harder to process. - Penwhale | 15:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ncm., I would discourage you from brining into this discussion the complaints that were made in the past about your editing in a fashion that made it appear you were a clerk (a complaint that was, of course, duly resolved). Penwhale made it quite clear this was an editorial etiquette concern; sidetracking that complaint is unhelpful. Just my two pence. AGK 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have not failed to consider the sentiment about general editorial etiquette here, nor am I "sidetracking" the concern, AGK - these issues are not so simple that they are completely separate from one another. It cannot be labelled as a plain "editorial etiquette concern" given I do not edit others' comments in general. However, when it comes to enforcing the relevant comment/statement guidelines of whichever stage of dispute resolution, I do - the diffs cited in the original message are an example of that. The selective (occasional) enforcement of the length limit during arbitration is clearly a problem - I'm not suggesting limit should be absolutely enforced as 500 words or less; but when it exceeds double that length, it is no longer reasonable. If there is such a problem in me enforcing these guidelines, then I challenge (whomever concerned) to revise the guidelines so that they may be consistently applied across the board - the current ones are either past their expiry date (and no longer work), or the concerned clerks need to step up to the plate and do their job in a consistent and timely manner. I hope this response is clearer.
  • Of course, collapsing boxes isn't ideal Penwhale, and if the clerks would rather completely or partially remove/refactor those comments, then I don't think I have a reason to object; nor could any of the users affected. As I said, my edits were a mere interim measure - an attempt to avoid the need to significantly refactor or remove those comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ncm; while I think we are all grateful of your obvious desire to assist, you're not being helpful right now. By tradition, the arbitrators have generally preferred to give wide latitude during the arbitration process, enforcing the limits only as things get out of hand. It is generally considered to be counterproductive to bog an already acrimonious process down with rule enforcement. For this reason, unless a participant is clearly disruptive, the clerks will warn users and trim or remove statements if, and only if, an arbitrator requests enforcement of the limits. As well, and because editing or removing statements from participants is a very contentious area, only clerks named by the committee are generally allowed to make enforcement actions (the arbitrators themselves obviously could, but the clerks' raison d'être is to do those housekeeping duties for them).

To date, the clerks and arbitrators have allowed you to find a niche helping around the RFAR pages; but now I must ask you to take care to avoid editing active requests, be it for formatting or enforcement of the stated limits. Placing collapse boxes around statements from other editors is not acceptable, nor is editing their statements in any other way. If you feel the limits should be applied differently, raise the issue on the talk page or with the committee itself, but leave the enforcement to the clerks. — Coren  02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Although it's not written down anywhere and I haven't discussed it with anyone, I think one issue here is that greater leeway should probably be accorded to the length of statements on motions and requests for clarification or amendment (where the statement on the RfAr page will be the editor's only chance to comment before the arbitrators take action), as opposed to on a regular request for arbitration (where the primary issue is just whether the case should be accepted, and if it is, then a whole set of case pages will be opened). Fairness to all participants in the process is desirable, but rigid "wordcountitis" should be avoided. In general, enforcement of statement length guidelines by removing or cutting editors' submissions should be left to the arbitrators or clerks, and (unless a statement is really grossly out of line) the editor in question should first be notified and asked to trim the statement length before it is removed or cut. However, other editors may raise such concerns in their own section of the relevant thread or in another appropriate place for attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree; greater leeway should be accorded in that section - I think I followed that in my edits too (the word length of John and Abtract's statement still did exceed the limit even after my edits - but necessarily so). In any case, I have no reason to object to giving even more leeway if relevant guidelines are revised accordingly - nor would I be concerned with such enforcement in that case. I've made an edit to codify part of your comment which, I gather, is one of the unwritten norms that needs to be written for transparency. In this way, any user making a statement will not spend any more time than is necessary in worrying about whether it complies with the word limit. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to respond to the other part of concerns raised by the others, succintly put by Brad as "In general, enforcement of statement length guidelines by removing or cutting editors' submissions should be left to the arbitrators or clerks,". This issue keeps coming up in regards to you. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Count me as another user concerned by this proclivity of yours. It's not the first time I've pointed out that I think you placing collapseboxes is not universally helpful. I hope it is the last. In general you should refrain from editing the words of others unless there is a specific reason to do so. Your sense of order is not such a reason. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic rāga

This article seems to be a good idea. The scope for Carnatic music within rāga seemed to be a little restrained by the context of rāga in all forms of Indian music.

Couple of thoughts I want to share on this. Scope can be expanded to other forms of music in South India that either use Carnatic scales and those that contributed to them. Examples are folk songs, chanting, villupattu, etc (as appropriate based on references we can locate). Another area of thought is the duplication of information in multiple pages - this page seems to share with Carnatic music page. Can we work on them in some way that there is less of duplication (causes problems with info is added to only one article)? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)