This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Regarding this edit [[1]], it is WP:BOLD and nails the whole process of community consensus. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• +1. SilkTork *^YES! 09:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• +1. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the relevant procedures for reversing/appealing administrator enforcement actions are also here, which is probably easier than looking up cases/motions.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you. I don't recall this page (but I remember about AN/ANI). Given the concern expressed in the first couple of lines here about some inconsistency, it would help if the following two suggestions are implemented. First, the notice at the top of the AE page (and any other relevant arb pages) are updated in line with the page you've linked - it would mean both the experienced and inexperienced can look at the same place efficiently. Second, in simple cases like this where an user is clearly trying to convey an appeal to the community, it would be helpful if the actual appeal by the restricted user (that is, the original text they made in the appeal) can be pasted at AN rather than the whole thing being shut down after the community was notified of the appeal. I think both would require explicit authorisation from arbs though.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is actually already addressed in the WP:AE header, where the text from the motion is reproduced. However, it's a lengthy header and the appeal bits are easily overlooked. I don't have time right now to look at this closely myself but I will mention it to one of my colleagues, and see where we go from there. The second point would, as you say, probably involve a broader committee discussion and our current workload being what it is is unlikely to be swiftly resolved. Thanks for the input,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ncmvocalist. I know I've seen you at RfC's before, which I normally read and don't comment on. As such, I'm not quite as confident on the procedure. In your opinion, has the RfC on Bidgee met the minimum requirements of an RfC? Worm^TT 09:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as procedure, I've looked at it and so long as a part of it is shifted to the RfC/U page, it does seem to meet minimum requirements (though the presentation is a bit shoddy) - see what I wrote here to understand what I mean. And, obviously, the question of whether it was necessary to escalate to RfC/U or whether it is going to go very far is a question for others to decide in the views they express/endorse in the RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at that. Also on a procedural note, if I get agreement from the certifiers for my proposal (which effectively involes me leaving a note for Bidgee), would there be any issue with closing, since editors have commented? Worm^TT 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There still would an issue if the commenting editors disagree - if they think there are other issues that bring the certifiers own conduct into question or the involved users approach to the dispute into question (which they clearly do), then they are probably not going to endorse that note; I imagine they would think the note suggests the issue is with Bidgee alone and is therefore misleading (they were of the view that issues extended beyond the one user).

It can't really be closed early unless the users come to an agreement on the summary (which might include sending a note that you propose), or unless the users agree to close the RfC/U without a summary (but with whatever views/endorsements already provided) or unless it is being overtaken by some other dispute resolution (usually arbitration). The only other option is for certifiers to withdraw their certification which will allow the RfC/U to be deleted (but they can only exercise that option while the RfC/U remains open for comment - and obviously, a note can't refer to a RfC/U which is non-existent or deleted). Hope that helps (and more importantly, makes sense). :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, and means tat I will be looking at this RfC differently, as something that will be going ahead. I'll have a think about what to do next, most probably offering an outside view. Thanks a lot for your help here. Worm^TT 15:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I got impatient on the block page (I sometimes think I must have a cripplingly low boredom threshold) but no, I could not face researching the sections above for warnings. Actually, proving my lack of clue, I sort of assumed that a user referred to in such terms was most probably Jack. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

No worries, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the WQA, what would you have done differently? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "Do not make baseless accusations against me, or involve me in your dispute.", something like "Not sure what long term pattern you are talking about or how that is relevant to whether WLU has actually made personal attacks. Though you've made some claims, I don't think the evidence you have given supports those claims. But I can't comment as to whether other uninvolved editors agree with me or not." As to the closing, the allegation is about civility so NWQA is actually not right. I wouldn't put any tag on it; more reasoned discussion may have produced some better outcome. If not, or if that was all that could be done and I must put a tag on it, perhaps "stuck" to say no resolution between parties. ANI might be (in part) correct for wikihounding, and AN3 for edit-warring, but I would not have recommended either venue unless the request specifically asked for admin action. Would not have made the comments dated 23 July either; need to know when to let it go stale unless he is genuinely wanting some perspective - in which case direct answers to the questions would be more helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the response, I agree, in hindsight, that I should have let it go stale. I pointed to ANI because there was an active and ongoing discussion on the wikiproject medicine page about this topic that was getting very messy. Some of the editors also have a large history of previous interactions with each other [2][3]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Nice to see you back... Hope you will be a bit active again... Regards. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :) Thanks; nice to see someone familiar even after all this time. I'm not expecting to be online very often at this point, but more than before. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just checked in today after a while off-wiki and was pleasantly surprised to see you at ANI. Good to see you back and hope you're here to stay! --regentspark (comment) 23:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya...your return has made my day...I have not seen you online in ages! Actually, I was pleasantly surprised by how quickly VasuVR noticed my return (barely made a few edits I think), but it was depressing when I found that so many went on wikibreak or were not longer active - yourself included. At the time I left, I could see the ultimate fate of the project and accepted it, but I'm here with the mindframe that it can be delayed at least. It's funny that with so many neat bells and whistles (improvements technically to the site) since I left, the deeper issues and fundamental problems thrive in a lot of ways and still chip away at the roots; that part is a pity and I don't miss it at all. Anyway, I am very pleased to see you back also, and hope you've had a well-rested break - and that you're staying for as long as I am here at the very least. :) Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, this is merely a curiosity visit. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, a time sink of colossal proportions with no obvious real life return and I find that it detracts from the many other things I would like to do. Fowler has the right approach to editing here. Edit for a few months and then disappear for long periods of time. My goal is to emulate him as far as possible :) But it is good to see you providing your common sense perspective again - much needed on wiki. --regentspark (comment) 18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, and my findings are fairly indifferent. I expect I will be following a similar example too. :) As for common sense perspective, I find that attempts are too often made to drown or discourage it, as it usually does not bode well with the other agendas being pushed around at this place. Unfortunately, the product doesn't match what is said on the label/packaging. Overall, that's when it seems that the time, effort, stress, or hassle is simply not worth it. Well, I hope you do hang around for a bit longer at least, but I can't blame you and will probably follow suit soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vocal spiral
Thank you, veteran editor defined by appreciation, recognition and nice things, for contributions to articles about India, such as "lots of bits and pieces" on Carnatic music, for quality articles from Nithyasree Mahadevan to Zee Tamil Sa Re Ga Ma Pa 2009 Challenge, for encouraging comments and warning of unconstructive editing, for Signpost arbitration reports, "There is a distinction between moving on and forgetting about it", and for voicing the spiral of justice (pictured) - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looking back through some of those things made me cringe but some of those things I'm rather pleasantly surprised with too. I suppose that's the reaction to be expected of a "veteran" editor though huh? ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleasantly surprised by you seeing a person where others saw only saw admin abuse, and I looked a bit deeper, but naturally only a bit. "Veteran editor" is for me anybody who is here longer than I am, so I will never be one ;) - You deserve the image, part of my memories.

Thank you for reflecting the Gerechtigkeitsspirale!

Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?

The poem ends with "Praise the right thing".

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1191 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - My friend, mentioned above, died in January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Merry Christmas!
		Merry Christmas to you Ncmvocalist and a Happy and Prosperous New Year! Thank you for everything you do in this place. Cheers. :) Dr. K. 07:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for taking the time to carefully review and close Talk:St. Mirren F.C.#Requested_move_20_January_2016. I understand why you felt it appropriate to revert due to lack of tools.

However, I do have the tools, and as nominator I am very happy to take responsibility for implementing the close. So if you felt able to reinstate the close, I can do the rest.

If feel that's inappropriate, the no prob ... but the offer is there. Either way, thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm happy to reinstate the close if you can do the rest; have reinstated on that basis. Glad to have assisted. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'll do it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, in these edits. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I must say it was very kind of you to pro-actively volunteer to take that responsibility, and spend the time doing that, especially as it saves requiring yet another person to do it when it is not critically necessary here. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance/Archive navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Terasail^[✉️] 01:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Terasail:, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I agree that it can be deleted so I've requested a speedy delete as the author; you are welcome to withdraw or close the discussion you have referred to above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ncmvocalist:,

Have proposed a New Tag & Assess for WikiProject India here. Do let us know your view. :) Happy editting! AshLin (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AshLin:, thanks for the heads up and a hat tip to you for all of your previous efforts - and for floating the idea now in any case! I generally refrain from making time commitments to Wikipedia these days as I no longer have the luxury of dictating when I will have time like I did once upon a time. As you have approached me while I am sporadically around, I can say that if time permits and I'm given notice when it proceeds, I'd be happy to assess a few articles. Beyond that, I'm just not sure how much time or how many articles that would amount to though. Sorry, I'm not sure if that's particularly helpful, so thought it might be better to leave my message here for now. I think you might be able rope in a few more editors by using a similar personal touch, if you have seen other good editors in the WP India area.

In the meantime and in any case though, I've added one count to your tally for the elections you are a candidate in. This is probably the first time I've done so in any election without really reading about a candidate. However, the fact that you have taken the time to answer so many of the 60+ questions and given some thought to the couple or so I picked out (eg; noting that you would not answer a question which did not make sense without having the benefit of some context) was enough for me today, when coupled with the efforts I have seen you undertake for WP India generally. All the best, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote :). I would love to have a conversation with you regarding my answers at any time. I really do understand regarding the Tag & Assess editing. I was myself in a pandemic-induced fugue with sporadic editing till some friends pressed me out of my slumber to stand as a candidate. Whatever few assessments you do are most welcome. I would also request a vote of support on WT:INB talk page for the New Tag & Assess, if you see fit. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2021 is going on at this moment. We request you to participate in the assessment drive. Learn more about the event here, learn assessment process and rewards details. Please add your name as a participant here. --Titodutta (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aishwarya Prabhakar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aishwarya Prabhakar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking some nuanced details regarding Carnatic music, @ Talk:R. K. Padmanabha#"Clarification needed" tags

Request message sent to you since you seem to have participated in discussions @ Talk:Carnatic music previously.

Bookku (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]