User talk:Taxman

Note: I strongly prefer to keep conversations intact. I'll usually respond only here to comments made here unless you request me to do otherwise. Likewise I will respond on your talk page to any comments made there, and I'd request doing the same. Thank you, and happy wikiing.

For older discussion see: Archive1, Archive2

Request

To anyone reading here, please peer review an article to help it reach a higher quality level. Keep in mind the featured article criteria and consider some featured article advice, both of which should help give you ideas of where an article needs improvement. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 14:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Script check

Hello Taxman, I hope you are doing well. Yes, some of the former scripts were an attempt to vandalize the page with inappropriate lanugage (see this revision). However, I have corrected the script titles. Actually, neither of your versions are the official ones. The Bollywood film industry usually transliterates the film name into the Devanagari and Nastaliq scripts. As a result, the official version of the film title in Hindi would be माई नेम इज़ ख़ान (mai ném iz khān). I also corrected the latter script which is properly rendered مائی نیم اِز خان. A useful tool for you might be the Hindi-Urdu Transliterator, from the city of Malerkotla. Even though, it is by no means perfect, it may aid you when you are checking transliterations next time. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm trying to think of a Bollywood film I've seen with an English title to see what you mean, but I'll take your word for it. I don't even know what one would consider official other than the certificate they sometimes put on the beginning of the movie or the title screen. I assumed they would translate, but if they go with an English title, transliterating is just as appropriate I suppose. - Taxman ^Talk 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I also left a note on my talk page. My thanks to Taxman for pointing out my mistaken rvt. It was a mistake on my part and I'm glad Taxman caught it. My Name Is Khan has received a great deal of vandalism from both IPs and registered users and thus this one slipped by. I think all that this article needs is more editors to watch it, particularly editors with this type of expertise in Hindi script. It would be great if you could both keep the article on your watch list. The more editors that are watching it, the less need we will have for semi protection. Thanks again for catching this and for your help with this article. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A question on RTV re: User:Jtkiefer

Was reading through some unsuccessful bureaucrat request pages and couldn't help but notice the above user who ran five months in a row. Then I saw his notice where he said he was allowed to start anew with a fresh account with only a select few knowing the name for the express reason of erasing his troublesome history here. Did this happen? If so, I have some questions about this that I hope you can answer.

1. Was this allowed under policy at the time? Is it still? Is there an "under a cloud" exemption if you tell the bureaucrats?
2. There has been an issue of undisclosed socks like this being made administrators with the full knowledge of other admins. Can I be assured by you that the same didn't happen here?

I'm sorry to dredge up old history here, but I was frankly shocked to read the whole incident. It seems contrary to my admittedly newbie understanding of RTV and socking as wikipolicy. Auntie E. (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He was allowed to get a new account with the express agreement that he would not be allowed to run for RfA or any other type of trusted position without either disclosing the account relationship himself or having it disclosed involuntarily. He also agreed to various checkuser inquiries and those have been performed. He most certainly would not be eligible to ask for his bit back for several reasons and has not so asked. He also hasn't requested through RfA again, so he is not an admin and the issue hasn't come up. I admit it was a strange method, but it worked in this case, and we had a lot of evidence to support that it would work. He has been a good user since and no issues have come up. To answer your specific question, there wasn't exactly policy that covered it, there was just an agreement among those involved that it would work.

To answer your general questions, there is no under a cloud exemption if you tell the bureaucrats. If there is a cloud, they must go through RfA. Recent Arbcom cases and community response have also made it clear that the community will not accept the hiding of past misdeeds at RfA. Past cases of undisclosed accounts being made admins were (in all cases I am aware of) cases of protecting the identity and safety of admins from stalking, outing, etc. and the generally held opinion is that it doesn't work and they should just build up a new history and go though RfA again. - Taxman ^Talk 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know about the RFA deal. But still, ignoring the bit about him being a former admin, it still seems unusual for any user to be allowed to "disappear" into a new account unless 1) he is an editor in good standing, and 2) it is necessary for reasons of privacy. I don't see either issue at play here. In fact, it looks like he was given special treatment beyond that given to other abusive sockers. I mean, not being able to run for RFA again is a small price to pay to buy a clean slate. I feel the wiki should be open and aboveboard unless absolutely necessary. We are a very forgiving lot here for most misdeeds, but secrecy is not one of them. Here, the coverup is always worse than the crime.

Forgive the rant, just my gut feelings on the matter. Anyway, it was a long time ago, a generation in wikiyears. I doubt I would see anything like that happen in our current climate. Auntie E. (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing My User Name.

I have decided to change my user name to Rondo.--Remisx (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)