Talk:Paktika sector

RFV discussion: December 2013

From Paktika sector at Wiktionary:Requests for verification:

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Paktika sector

All of these were added by the IP who's been adding all the divisions of India (and who seems to like putting political views into their definitions). —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in Books or Groups Chuck Entz (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete All as Sum of Parts. The place names are provinces, not sectors, and the word sector is even in the definitions. --Dmol (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Junagadh and Bantva Manavadar

Nothing in Books or Groups as worded, though the two are attested as individual entities Their rulers both attempted to join Pakistan at the same time but both states ended up in India. Otherwise, I'm not sure there's anything linking them that doesn't link them to other princely states in the area. Also, the description in the definition doesn't make sense: "Landlocked state within Kathiawar peninsula, on the Arabian Sea facing towards Pakistan". A "Landlocked state" isn't on the Arabian Sea, and only the north coast of the peninsula could be said to face Pakistan (even there, Kutch lies between it and Pakistan}. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Nangarhar sector

Nothing in Books or Groups Chuck Entz (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete All as Sum of Parts. The place names are provinces, not sectors, and the word sector is even in the definitions. --Dmol (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Paktia sector

Nothing in Books or Groups Chuck Entz (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete All as Sum of Parts. The place names are provinces, not sectors, and the word sector is even in the definitions. --Dmol (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Kunar sector

One occurence in Books and none in Groups Chuck Entz (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete All as Sum of Parts. The place names are provinces, not sectors, and the word sector is even in the definitions. --Dmol (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Nuristan sector

Nothing in Books or Groups Chuck Entz (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete All as Sum of Parts. The place names are provinces, not sectors, and the word sector is even in the definitions. --Dmol (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I already deleted one of these speedily as "no usable content given" since it was unattested and SOP and POV all at once. I'll delete the remainder shortly if there are no objections. - -sche (discuss) 22:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've speedily deleted all of the entries as unattested or nearly so, SOP, and POV. I've also blocked the user for a few days for their POV-pushing. (Technical note: someone who remembers how to perform a range block might want to do that.) - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

For rangeblocks there's a calculator that you can fiddle with to get the address you want; generally speaking the range of the block is dependent on the last block + slash + CIDR, like 192.168.1.0/20, but the trick is that the lower the number after the slash is, the bigger your range is, so you'll have to think in reverse. And if he's using IPv6, I'm not gonna bother calculating. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems with range blocks- not even for IPv6- but this person has only used 3 IPs (Special:Contributions/89.240.237.161,Special:Contributions/89.240.239.10 and Special:Contributions/80.47.17.213), one at a time, and, aside from half an hour of edits with their second IP, hasn't evaded any block. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

So anyone want to review all the IP edits made so far? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The block having expired, the user is right back to POV edits, adding info on Pakistan's claims to Indian-held territory and removing info about other peoples' claims to Pakistani-held territory: [1]. - -sche (discuss) 23:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Not anymore. I blocked them again, with an expiry of 3 months. They had their chance to learn from the 3-day block, and escalated instead. No one else has ever used that IP on Wiktionary, and they've been using it continuously since December 4, so I'm not worried about collateral damage. Metaknowledge blocked their first IP for three months on September 1, so it's not like they had no clue this might happen. They did wait three months before they started editing again that time (September 6, notwithstanding), so maybe they'll observe this one for a similar period. Regardless, their edits stick out like a giant, flashing-neon sore thumb, so I'm not worried about their sneaking around the block with another IP. If they try, I'll do the range blocks myself. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, when I made the comment about rangeblocks, I was tired and in a rush and mixing up the fact that this user has used more than one IP with the fact that IPv6-havers often have lots of IPs readily available. In this case, the user has only used a few IPs, so blocking specific IPs when they are used should be sufficient. - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Particularly for whenever this is archived, a note: see also WT:RFDO#Category:en:Federally_Administered_Northern_Areas, which will presumably be archived to Category talk:en:Federally Administered Northern Areas. - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)