User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Novels December 2009 Newsletter[edit]

Alan16 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarati[edit]

Hey Regents, fancy seeing you here! Oh, this is your talkpage. Listen, I've been involved in Tarati, God knows why--do you know what the proper template is for an infobox? There seems to be no "villages of Pakistan," and I don't want to pick the wrong one. Your help, as always, is greatly appreciated. Toodle pips, Drmies (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't go wrong with {{Infobox settlement}} as any region specific templates pull off of that one. You should also check with Dr Blofeld, he was taking quite a few regional templates to TfD a few months ago, and he has some strong opinions and good knowledge on this. Btw, RP is apparently on vacation, per the note at the top. -SpacemanSpiff 20:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On vacation again?? Thanks Spiff, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What'dya'mean'again? (I'm freezing out here - who's idea was this anyway!). I see SpacemanSpiff has fixed you up nicely. Thanks spiff. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

  • User:Ottava Rima is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.
  • User:Moreschi is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.
  • The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for the imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies. The community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

British India[edit]

The term British India was quoted by Parliament of Britain. The term was never accepted by India, its derogatory to Indians. India was never part of Britian, it was ruled by British. I would like term to be changed to British rule in India or British ruled India where applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.96.104 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of qualitative judgements we use whatever terms are reliably sourced. In this case, apparently British India is the more reliably sourced and academically acceptable term. If you feel otherwise, you should bring your sources to the talk page of the articles in question. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

... to you, and thanks for all the work you and your fellow mentors have done supporting Mattisse this year. --JN466 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Greetings of the Season
A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small.
When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#&^$%&[edit]

As our resident mediator on British-India topics, couldn't you have jumped in a bit sooner at Talk:Company rule in India and Talk:East India Company, and saved me much effort ?! PS: Does, asking someone skiing the Alps to break a leg bring them good luck or bad ? ;-) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotta be kidding! You are the resident mediator on all subjects India (past and present)! Now I better get some sleep or I might actually break a leg tomorrow, definitely bad luck on the slopes though good luck for the Scottish play (though the snow is soft, fresh, and still falling - perfect!). I'm not likely to have wikipedia access for the next few days - so good luck (and break a leg!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted you in 3O matter[edit]

Just thought that you might like to know that I quoted you in a 3O opinion. See User_talk:OrangeDog#regpkqt. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! My 15 words of fame! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Hi RegentsPark,

Thanks for all your help and support in the year 2009. Wishing you a Wonderful, Prosperous New Year 2010.

Radiantenergy (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

Hope you had a great time in Europe. When you find it convenient, could you take a look at British Raj, where the same editor user:Eraserhead1 is looking to add material. My memory of the page is that there was some concern that the history section was too long and that the first two subsections of it, both about prehistory, should be majorly pruned. Unfortunately, I am still traveling and won't have much time until after the third week of January for even routine editing, much less ideological battles. So, if you can add your input there, it would be great. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy not to add anything to the History section (i.e. stuff on the 1857 rebellion) of that article until after the 15th January. Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I want to second the thanks above by JN466, and express my appreciation to you for continuing to serve as my mentor/adviser. I seek to fulfill your expectations and not to let you down by poor behavior. Wishing you a very wonderful New Year. Warmest regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Mattisse. Your contribution to the project is amazing! All the best for 2010. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replied. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and curiosity. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (I think!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalax[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to suggest that if you wish to discuss relevance and content of the german article with me, we do it on the articles discussion page instead of the Noticeboard for India-Related Topics. Hope that is fine with you. Sas2009 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Now I'll head to German school, learn the language, and get back to you in a few years. Guten tag till then! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I was not too patronizing, I was thinking an English comment would be ok in german wikipedia, being quite new to this I am not sure. But if you speak no german at all, discussing content is going to be difficult ;) Sas2009 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello. I think its been a long time since we talked. When you find it convenient, pls have a look at National Institute of Technology, Srinagar and tell me how can I improve its rating. Thanks and wish you a happy new year 2010. Rohit Reddy™ (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back (and already fixing the news portal!). I'll take a look at the NIT article - though not for a couple of days. Happy New Year to you as well. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

users removing block notices[edit]

Hey- this is regarding this decline at WP:RFPP. Per guideline at WP:BLANKING, whois templates, blocked templates (while the user is blocked), and declined unblock notices (again, while blocked) are to remain. My general rule is I'll reblock the user with talk page access revoked if they've "abused" it more than once- that gives them a chance to cool off and/or read what is being said without revoking it needlessly. Anyhow, that's just my take. tedder (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't see anything wrong with a user removing a block notice (especially in this particular case - why add fuel to the fire) but these sort of differences are what makes wikipedia work! (I notice now that talk page privileges were revoked anyway, by the blocking admin.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I can certainly respect the overriding rule, especially when it helps with civility. tedder (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but WP:BLANKING does not prevent a user from removing block notice. Perhaps the guideline should be updated, but at present a user who removes such notices is acting well within userpage policy and should not be blocked from editing their talk page solely for such removal. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The only reason to take away talk page privileges is if the user is being disruptive. Removing block notices is not disruptive and, in this particular case, will only make a normally productive user angrier. No point in that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum) Looks like this was discussed on ANI and resolved. While I was ruminating about nothing whatsoever :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom and the Signpost[edit]

Hey, RP, the Signpost is looking for someone to write the Arbitration reports (see this week's from the editor and previous arbitration report). Interested? — Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I'm not sure I'm reliable enough to deliver a weekly report but, on the other hand, I suppose it's time I made myself useful :) But, I see there are a couple of editors already lined up so that gives me time to procrastinate. Intriguing idea though (working on the signpost) and I might add myself to a backup list. Thanks (for thinking of me)! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I thought of you because you're good at mediation/arbitration sorts of things (I think so, anyway) and when you write about something you typically do it right (articulately and objectively). Every issue does seem like a big obligation to take on, but maybe you could alternate with other editors or be part of an editorial team for it. — Athaenara ✉ 05:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're twisting my arm :) I signed up as a backup for the WikiProject Report (arbitration reports seems oversubscribed to me)! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you signed up as a backup for WikiProject Report. We could make a strong team, either collaborating on each report or taking turns producing reports. I was planning to revive the report in the next Signpost with a retrospective on the 40+ projects that were previously featured. Would you like to help with that article or start next week's article? -Mabeenot (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on that, y'all! — Athaenara ✉ 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me answer a question. What does it mean when someone who edits a wikipedia article states he considers himself "involved" and what does it mean to "stub an article"? any advice you can give would be appreciated. 189.38.250.30 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved means (roughly) that the editor has edited the content of the article and cannot be guaranteed to view the material dispassionately. To stub an article means to reduce it to a bare minimum (usually the part that indicates notability and is verifiable). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taconic State Parkway[edit]

Thanks! I have a little bit more to do and then a copy edit to finish (on hard copy) then implement; and after that I intend on taking it to PR, and probably splitting off the history section as a daughter article if people feel that needs to be done. Then GA, and later in the year if I can get out there and take some more pics I think it could be FA material. We'll see. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost[edit]

Sure, I'll take the lead for now. If you'd like to pick the next WikiProject and start looking for editors to interview, that would be great. I've listed some WikiProjects that have recently started up, but you're free to choose something else if none of these sound interesting:

I'm almost done with next week's report, so the new report will be for the week after (January 25). -Mabeenot (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood[edit]

Just as trivia: Besides the Punjabi cultural influence the language and aesthetics of early "Hindi" cinema was also greatly affected by Parsi theatre (a red link - ironic, isn't it!). Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What[edit]

do you see as a problem w/using The American Jewish Historical Society as a source?

Also, the better course if you cannot get a link to work is to put in a dead link template, rather than to delete it. That, among other things, allows bots to find the original and replace the existing w/the archived original. Deleting dead links just because they are dead interferes with that process, and is therefore a deprecated approach.

Thanks, and happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could put in a dead link template but nypress.com seems hardly worth it. Which one is the American Jewish Historical Society source? All I see is nypress, a blog, and jewsinsport.org. None of them seem even remotely qualified as a reliable source. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jews In Sports is the digital archive record of the American Jewish Historical Society. What is your basis for saying it is not even remotely qualified as an RS?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that one. If you read the cited article, it makes no mention of 'black jew', the claim it is supposed to support in wikipedia's article. One should be always be extra careful in a blp. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, do I understand correctly that you are no longer saying it is not an RS? But are now saying that you do not read the phrase: "An African-American whose family has declared themselves Jewish" to be supportive (with other citations) of the text "Judah is an avowed Israelite, or Black Jew"? If that is your position (and I'm not sure, with the other text, it would necessarily be the case, the appropriate course would be to shift the gloss in the text -- not, as you have done, to delete the footnote. Once the footnotes are deleted, they are lost to future editors.
Or one could just google the issue and find other RSs such as this one that refer to the Black family as Israelites, or this one that refers to him as a black Israelite.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why we're having this conversation. You are obviously perfectly capable of googling and 'shifting the gloss in the text' ( (the meaning of that statement completely escapes me = I'm a matte guy myself!) yourself and I'm hardly likely to start an edit war on a couple of dead link templates. If your intent is to teach me the way you think we should do things, consider the lesson learned if that's what makes you happy. If you are piqued that I declined your request for protection, consider that you could have done all that (the googling and dead link thingy) yourself when the IP complained about dead links and racist remarks rather than labeling their edits as vandalism. This conversation is quite unproductive and I'm sure both of us have better things to do. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Now that I've looked at the article with more care, I have a few suggestions which I will make on the talk page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP's complaints were of quite a different tenor. Had they been, as yours were, that the site of American Jewish Historical Society is not an RS, I would have responded as I did above. You indicated the IP might be correct on the basis that an RS was not an RS, and on the basis that the text appeared incorrect when the text is clearly RS-supported. I thought it acceptable to mention my contrary view on both points. I offer you a cup of tea.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. We were both getting hung up on a distraction and a cup of tea hits the right spot. May I offer you a chocolate chip cookie to dunk in your tea? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offer accepted and appreciated. Best wishes for a happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should AfD United States and state terrorism[edit]

The article is propaganda, one-sided, skewed in its very title.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day NYC[edit]

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info on Macieja/Seewolf case[edit]

Im posting this for records keepin, case progress:[1]

I dont understand why they argued over few things, seewolf was totally out of line, such reverts r pure vandalism, sad i took wikipedia 8 days to notice!
seewolf's insane reverts/vandalism:
direct proof http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bart%C5%82omiej_Macieja&diff=prev&oldid=335907778 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMasta (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.162.212.225

Next WikiProject Report[edit]

Don't worry about having to put an article together for next week. We can work on it together. I just thought you'd like to pick the project. Burma and Hudson Valley may have limited appeal to people outside Southeast Asia and New York, but either one would work. I noticed you're involved with WikiProject Novels which is another possibility. There's also the option of doing a newly founded project like WikiProject Java. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's try Novels. I'll start something off tomorrow. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q&A is good when you can't think of anything. I'll give it a go!. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Monet[edit]

Bonjour Regent,

The history of Monet's page is one of multi daily vandalism/revert/vandalism/revert...

On 14 January, you half-protected the page, [2], but how good can this be if only for three days? The minute the half-protection was lifted, vandalism came back.

Can you put the half-protection back with no limit on it?

Merci d'avance, Frania W. (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No problem. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your speed. Merci beaucoup ! Frania W. (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novels on signpost.[edit]

Yeah, I'd certainly have the time. Getting the message out to a larger audience would be great. Thanks. Alan16 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just so you know, I'll get around to answering the questions tomorrow afternoon. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Also thanks for the kind words about the RfA. I was perhaps a bit too optimistic doing it so soon. No worries about me going away after it though - just editing a bit less what with trying to keep my head above water with uni work. Alan16 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I know it's too late to change anything now, but I'll just post a note to say I think you've done a good job, and thanks for the cheap publicity! Regards, Alan16 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks a ton for your time. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice[edit]

Dear RegentsPark,

Thank you for your advice. Even though regretfully I didn't quite follow it, I urge you to freely offer me you council in the future. I did learn from this episode that I do not handle certain situations well and need to identify and then simply avoid those particular situations in the future.

I value you as one of my advisors and hope you will continue to participate actively whenever you see me go astray.

Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Mattisse. Just keep your head down for the time being and it'll all work out. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Hello! IMDb is reliable only for hard data of released films - awards, credits, characters, crew etc., but its trivia, biographies etc., are written by users, therefore it cannot be used in such instances. Also, when future films are concerned, it's better to verify the info with other sources (WP:NFF). Shahid • Talk2me 10:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think IMDb is a good enough source to establish notability of a professional within the film industry. Could you please tell me which particular articles were nominated for deletion? Shahid • Talk2me 18:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Thanks for letting me know - I think this is a fantastic idea. I'd be happy to join the efforts. Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

independence movement[edit]

you forget Nehru Jinnah and Gandhi helped lead to a independence subcontinent and all accepted divided India in the end

Gandhi is generally recognized as the leader of the independence movement. Jinnah, while a part of the independence movement, is more associated with partition and the formation of Pakistan (which is why his photograph is more appropriate in the partition section). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forget Pakistan is apart of India in this page but not republic of India furthermore
  • Jinnah did contribute to independent India even if he wanted a divided India also it would be pov not to put him their
  • I removed his picture until a resolution is reachedMughalnz (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC
  • Not only that Gandhi did not want a independent PakistanMughalnz (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it will be pov just to put Gandhi who only accepted independent Pakistan when it was created ;so Jinnah did play a role in par with Gandhi in some respect Indian independence movement

02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think you understand what goes under Indian History page ( India and Pakistan(1947)) Indian independence movement means independence movement of India and Pakistan so Gandhi and Jinnah are the main leader of the movementMughalnz (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is about the history of the Indian Subcontinent prior to the Partition of India in 1947. For the history of the modern Republic of India, see History of the Republic of India. For the histories of Pakistan and Bangladesh see History of Pakistan and History of Bangladesh. Also for South India see History of South India.


  • I will put Jinnah name ,jinnah and Gandhi picture back on the page ( until you can prove me wrong)Mughalnz (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you delete my edits ;you did not even replied wp to reply to editorMughalnz (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Article[edit]

Your article looks great. Thanks for doing such an excellent job and getting it together on schedule. I did a small copyedit and added a teaser for next week at the end (WP Dinosaurs is coming). Would you like to take WP Olympics for the week after next? -Mabeenot (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ce. I'll take a look at the Olympics project and let you know if I can do it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pak kashmir[edit]

  • But if the opinion(from one person) is allowed in Pak kashmir then it will be allowed in Indian Kashmir(including institute from china and Pak)
  • Furthermore the same Publication was used in State sponsored terrorism (in Indian section ),they were called unreliable resources (Asia time ).Mughalnz (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on your talk page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • have replied on my page
  • are you going to reply
  • So do you want to keep the satus quos currently and not add rahman or my info until you decide

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Lists[edit]

For the most complete alphabetical list (and also the most cluttered) try Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject. Alternately, you can look at the WikiProject Council directory which allows you to browse by subject or try the WikiProjects category which includes subdivisions for inactive projects and other things. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-consideration request[edit]

Heya, would you please consider this, and possibly this. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 10:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep bothering you[edit]

I know I'm probably becoming a pain, sorry! You addressed my concerns (twice now) at WP:RPP for User:Shirik/Commitment. I see it's protected now, but I was hoping for full protection, not semi-protection, because this is something that should never change (as was done with User:Shirik/PGP). Rather than keep spamming WP:RPP I figured I'd pop over here and ask you directly since you had taken care of it twice now. Please feel free to ask if there's any questions. Thanks again! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did that too. (As long as you realize you can't edit it either!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I totally understand I can't edit it, and I should never need to. Thanks again! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mughalnz[edit]

this editor is going around removing well sourced info about Al-qaeda activities in Kashmir from Al-Qaeda as well as Kashmir Conflict article. can you take a look Wikireader41 (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i see he is doing similar things at Pakistan-administered Kashmir. best of luck working with him ;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look later this afternoon. Pressed for time this morning! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse alerts page[edit]

G guy set up the page so that discussion is on talk, and the Conclusions and consensus section is not to be used for discussion. Since you started a discussion there, Mattisse logically followed it there, but according to how G guy set the page up, that threaded discussion should be moved to talk. I raised the alert because SusanLesch has put over 500 edits (I think, didn't check) into trying to salvage the article, and she seems very stressed, as obvious by her comments on the FAR. She has been hit three times by a dynamic IP damaging the article, and the timing of the incorrect tagging was unfortunate. An apology on her page might help (I haven't yet checked if that has been done), as she seems to be growing very frustrated. Now, since the threaded discussion is on a page I'm not supposed to edit, I can't add these comments there :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation. I refactored everything (corralled the runaway talk!) and asked Mattisse to either copy her apology to SL's page or drop a talkback there. Thanks for watching out! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (Glad the system is working :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad too, and hope that this allows issues to be discussed without escalation. Thanks especially to RegentsPark for helping out here. Geometry guy 23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like you all are managing this fine, but I'm curious about which diff I missed on your statement that Mattisse apologized before I filed the Alert. As far as I know, that is incorrect, so I may have missed something. I brought it very quickly to Alerts, as there have been some strange posts on mine and Raul's talk page in the past from SL, and I didn't want Mattisse to find herself in a huge problem that could complicate the FAR, particularly since SL was already frustrated about the dynamic IP. (I've got a cold, but you can search my talk archives or Raul's to see what I'm referring to.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored [3]. Thanks again (for the attention to detail in this case). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that; it's important to get the details right in this instance, as I brought this to Alerts lickity-split to avoid what could have become a disastrous escalation (if you have time to search mine and Raul's talk pages, you'll see what I mean ... there's a search button on my user page). Alerts worked, Mattisse apologized, SL accepted, escalation avoided, and while it's frustrating to see such inaccurate implications about me "baiting" being made on Monitoring talk, I'm confident that you all are handling it well and the Plan is working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did apologize before the "alerts" page, as I apologized as soon as I got the message on my talk page and had examined the situation. It did not occur to me that someone was going to jump on a small issue "lickity-split". I did not know about the "alert" page until after. There would have been no way for me to know, as I don't know if there is an "alert" unless I am perusing my enormous watchlist. I do not peruse my watchlist if I am in the middle of doing something else. There should not be a reason to try to down play my good behavior. I ask SandyGeorgia to assume good faith. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a small issue, Mattisse; the potential for escalation from SL was huge, and it seems that no matter how hard I work to protect you, I'm accused of baiting. I ask *you* to AGF and recognize that there may be factors that you aren't aware of when I try to protect you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I don't think you should worry about this. Sandy is rightly pointing out that the alert was posted before the apology and not stating any assumption about your apology itself. Best to leave it at that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will now; you all are handling it fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you were pressured into changing your accurate comment about my behavior. The one good thing about this incident is that you recognized that I did the right thing on my own. I am not allowed to have even the satisfaction of a compliment from one of my advisers. Regretfully, —mattisse (Talk) 16:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The potential for escalation was in one editor's eyes who chose to make a big deal out of it. Please see vested contributors and article ownership. There is no need to jump on me "lickity-split" although I recognize that is the style of some editors. I urge avoidance of "lickity-split" reactions. I have been criticized for that, and my detractors should be also. There is no reason to think I would harm an article. I have never been accused of doing so (other than by SandyGeorgia in this "alert") and have no history of doing so. I suggest SandyGeorgia should examine her own behavior also. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, let it go. Sandy is right about the timing and has not said anything about whether she thinks your apology was before or after you saw the alert. Let's just leave it at that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article who could use salting[edit]

You salted Alejandro (song), but then they went ahead and created Alejandro (Lady GaGa song) instead. Any chance you can salt that as well? Thanks. Nymf talk/contr. 18:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this action is entirely inappropriate. The single is WP:NOTABLE having charted in the UK charts (See WP:NSONG) as was referenced in the article. Also, whether you agree or not on the notability, deleting an article like this completely bypassed the AFD process. It's obvious contentious yet not been discussed. Where is WP:CONSENSUS? Consensus is a policy yet it's overridden. SunCreator (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same article as Alejandro (song). Get consensus on that one and you'll be all set. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is required to redirect and salt an article(effectively deleting it), not to restore anything that was removed without discussion. See the lack of talk here:Talk:Alejandro_(song). SunCreator (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MUSIC, Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song and a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. You can seek consensus here to replace the redirect with an article and get the article unprotected. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And read the next line of wp:music, specifically WP:SONG. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. And again as i said before you can debate the notability yet no consensus (or even discussion) has been made prior to the removal of this article. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and you have overridden it. The clear simply way to resolve the issue is to send the article to AFD. I would do myself but it's impossible when salted. SunCreator (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You're right. It should go to AfD. My mistake. I've unprotected both Alejandro (song) as well as Alejandro (Lady GaGa song). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Lady Gaga was the 12th most viewed article last month? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, Good on you. That action earned my respect. SunCreator (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro (song) update[edit]

RegentsPark,

  • The AFD of the Alejandro (song) article, resulted in a KEEP.
  • It's now 10 days since the redirect was unsalted. Please take a look at the article now. Plenty of content, well-organized and everything sourced.
  • I'd welcome your comments on the suitability of repeatably redirecting such articles, which removes editors work and bypassing the policy on establishing content and sources.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I saw that (I was watching) and I'm glad I unsalted it - nice work! The suitability of repeatedly redirecting such articles is a gray area that is best determined on a case by case basis. After you challenged my protection, I realized that there was no such consensus on this article (and that I had mistakenly protected Alejandro (song) in the first place). If you don't see consensus for a protected redirect, the best thing to do is to challenge it (like you challenged this protection) with the protecting admin, on the redirect/article talk page, or ask for more admin eyes at WP:RFPP. Once again, thanks for being tenacious! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following it too and was glad to see the keep, even though I did not know about Lady Gaga until recently. Someone posted a link to one of her songs on my talk page.[4] —mattisse (Talk) 20:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just after this, there she was on the Grammy awards! I could talk about Alejandro and Fame Monster with confidence and my friends think I'm a lot cooler than I really am. :) (It would help, of course, if I actually listen to something by that young lady.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Caste[edit]

Hi... the user Ikonoblast moved the article Forward Caste to General Caste without reaching a consensus on the talk page. Could you revert his move and start a "request to page move section", so that everyone will be able to give their opinion? Thanks. 122.177.221.149 (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is there on talk page. Ikon No-Blast 05:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem at all evident to me. However, the move request should take care of that (an uninvolved editor will evaluate the arguments and figure out what is right). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can wait, but you should have contested my decision on talk page itself, and can you check user this IP, which I think is one of the editor on FC page who have strted trolling on Different pages hiding behind IP. Ikon No-Blast 05:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very possible about the IP. But, regardless, in general, it is not a good idea to move a page without seeking consensus from a neutral party when the move is contested. It usually results in edit wars and long unnecessary discussion. This way is much better. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Report Feb 8[edit]

iBen can't do the WP Olympics feature for next week. Would you be willing to take that one and he'll do the following week instead? -Mabeenot (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm getting busy in RL (and was thinking of bailing out the following week but will try to do something). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

This was the response to my adding the wording you suggested: bugger all to do with a "spirit of cooperation" Does this not seem to be an example of article ownership? It seems that if an opinion is given on whether or not one thinks an article is appropriate for TFA, the article's editor takes personal umbrage. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-War/Vandalism[edit]

There seems to be a constant stream of vandalism/edit-war on pages such as Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi & RAGS International. I've tried to make both pages to a level of satisfaction for all users and freely invited editors to make contributions to make the article better. It is a redirection to other pages, but Falconkhe constantly redirects the page to another article. He's been requested more than a dozen times to discuss it on the discussion page for any improvements or constructive edits, but to no avail. Please help :) --Nasiryounus|Talk 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mipur[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirpur,_Azad_Kashmir

are you able to unblock page and revert the edits when you ahve timeMughalnz (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is recently protected by YellowMonkey. Which particular edits do you want reverted? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ref to pok etc,back to AtticusX (editor)last edit thanks man have good day.Mughalnz (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this one?--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When?:[edit]

Hi, when is my 48 hours up, as I would like to comment on other (unrelated) subjects on the page I was banned from for 48 hours. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess 2pm US ET tomorrow. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your next WikiProject[edit]

When you get a chance, please add your next WikiProjects to the table iBen created in the Signpost newsroom. There's no rush on the later ones, but we'd like to know the Feb 15 topic before Ks0stm finishes the Olympics report so we can include a teaser about your article. If you're still really busy in RL, feel free to swap weeks with my WikiProject Java. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do something (even if I have to interview myself!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could interview User:Graham87. He is an interesting editor who has been completely blind from birth and uses Jaws. His tips on alt text were fascinating and provided an insight into how much we sighted editors assume about the descriptions that are most useful to a sightless person. He also enjoys doing esoteric work on Wikipedia. Plus it is mind blowing that a blind person can do as much if not more than a sighted person here. He also has useful tips on WP:Accessibility. (I was going to interview him at one time, but then became overwhelmed and distracted by events on Wikipedia. He agreed to the interview so I think he would be willing now.) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very interesting. It'll make for a good special story for Signpost. Let me see if he is interested. Thanks! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Signpost interview[edit]

Yes, certainly, it'd be an honour. Graham87 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I assume you mean the 1st of March ... the 29 February issue will be a long way off. :-) Maybe have some questions about things like my accessibility-related pet peeves, how I use a screen reader, and the like. However the majority of my work isn't accessibility-related; most of it is WikiGnoming, delving into old Wikipedia history, or, sometimes, reverting vandalism. I have some interesting vandalism-related stories to tell. I occasionally upload audio to Wikimedia Commons and add it to Wikipedia articles as well. Graham87 03:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also made some comments on interview ideas on Mattisse's talk page back in August. Graham87 07:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. March 1st. Sometimes (often?) I don't think! Since it was her idea, I'm trying to get Mattisse on board as well. She's a bit down on wikipedia these days and needs a healthy dose of Buck-U-Uppo! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten. I have bunches of questions to ask, but I am not sure what to emphasize. I know that I am fascinated with Graham's ability to deal with wikipedia on such a high level, but I also want Graham's insights into issues that us sighted persons may be "blind" to. He could teach us a lot, I believe. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have time so no worries. Good to have you on board. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost[edit]

Hello! For your March 1 WikiProject Report, the Signpost commitee has suggested that you do WikiProject Severe Weather to kick off the start of tornado season in the Northern Hemisphere. Hope to see you in a Signpost slot again, Belugaboy535136 contribs 00:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I've heard of a "Signpost committee" suggesting a WikiProject. The newsroom discussion shows that iBen agreed to do a report on WikiProject Severe Weather for March 8. That report could be moved up if RegentsPark wishes it. RegentsPark currently has the March 1 slot, regardless of whether he prefers to become a backup. We should leave it up to him which slots he wants to keep and which projects he wants to cover. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Desk[edit]

Hi RegentsPark. Pretzels set up a new workspace for us at the Signpost called the WikiProject Desk. The suggestions section, schedule chart, and discussions have all been relocated there. You can continue to conduct interviews in your user space or create a subpage to the WikiProject Desk if you'd like it to feel more official. I noticed you changed yourself to "backup" so I'm sure real life has gotten busy for you. How often would you like to write reports? -Mabeenot (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look. RL has always been busy but I moved to backup because I'm not sure I can write about projects that I have little interest in. But, i'll be happy to do a few. Looks like you're doing a great job!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would start the interview for your WikiProject report for this week. Belugaboy535136 contribs 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RfA Support[edit]

RegentsPark/Archive 8 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocks[edit]

Mattisse tried to edit at some point while blocked, and that triggered the autoblock of her IP address. You then unblocked her account, but the underlying autoblock needed to be undone too. In future, you can go here, and enter the account name. It then searches for autoblocks. I can't remember whether it undoes them automatically, or whether you have to click something else, but it's all obvious once you enter a name that an autoblock applies to. Hope this helps. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit no more[edit]

I hope the persecution stops now. Please. I can take no more of this ugliness. Perhaps I will start storing up diffs for any arbitration coming up. Hope that is not illegal and blockable. It probably is as I got punished for doing so before. Otherwise, I will be doing no more editing on wikipedia in article space, dyk etc. I have inquired as to how to modify the plan. I now realize that the mentors/advisers are not familiar with it and are not applying the graduated warnings as specified. They seem to go straight to the block. A very demeaning and unproductive situation that only engenders ill will. At the moment I have no desire to contribute to Wikipedia. Very different from the pre arbitration days when I was an enormously productive editor. I doubt I ever will be again. The desire is gone. —mattisse (Talk) 22:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your kindness[edit]

If you will have me back, I will help you with the Graham67 interview as planned originally. I would sure like to see him get an interview and he is an interesting guy and deserves recognition. Also, he expresses himself well. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Kundra - Vandlism/spam[edit]

Please help me protected this page by the following non stop changing I.P. address:

189.164.88.207

189.164.86.232

189.164.154.72

189.164.97.160

189.182.25.226

189.182.30.51

189.164.84.85

189.182.24.12

189.164.93.129

189.164.163.139

and many more...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryGD (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for very helpful information on WP:AN or, better still, WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP). Best Wishes. - MaryGD (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryGD (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost[edit]

I'm puzzled. Isn't the interviewer... you? --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It is I! (I liked my formulation better - it is more me - but thanks for the , and the 'and'!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks also for reverting the anonymous editor - hadn't noticed his/her rather literary addition to my talk page! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshima Book[edit]

Hi, looks like the two of us were editing Pellegrino's article at the same time in regard to his Hiroshima book.

I merged what you had written with what I had written and was trying to post at the same time as you. I hope the results are satisfactory. Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. --RegentsPark (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana[edit]

Hey there - it was nice to try the unprotection, and it's never a bad idea, but I'm prepared to reapply the semi soon. I'm afraid there will be uncaught vandalism after only a day or two. And even though page viewing from Dec '07 → Feb '10 has gone down about 24%, and the level of activity it still quite high and I seriously doubt the level of vandalism will ever improve until she becomes less of a pop icon. Just letting you know, cheers, JamieS93❤ 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protect at will. I figured it won't work but always worth a shot! --RegentsPark (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian subcontinent[edit]

I have posted my rational. But, the other party who kept repeatedly calling all my edits non-consensual have yet posted anything yet, though the person is active on the Wikipedia. What would come next? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of America Bazar[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, America Bazar, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America Bazar. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Favonian (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I took the liberty of changing an archived discussion at Talk:Daśāvatāra, because it wasn't clear to me that everyone was in fact discussing the same thing. (And there was no discussion at all, just "votes".) I hope this doesn't offend you. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the talk page. (Your comment is a fair one, so no worries.) --RegentsPark (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Daśāvatāra#Requested_move[edit]

As per your closing remarks on the move, so initiated Talk:Daśāvatāra#Move_to_which_name: a vote to select a non-diacritic name. I leave it to you to close the vote and move the article, when if you there is a sufficient consensus. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. I hope I spelled it right. :) --RegentsPark (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I deserve one you surely do[edit]

The Third Opinion Award The Third Opinion Award
For being the fourth largest contributor to the Third Opinion project (and in a period of only seventeen months, at that). Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I figured that since you made the award, and have given a hefty number of third opinions, you should be the first to get it! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I gave some of these out on New Years Eve, 2009, to some folks who had been doing this for a long time, but at that time I hadn't yet spotted this tool and was pulling out the names manually. I reworked the template slightly and finally mentioned it on the 3O page this morning and, after getting your very kind award, decided that I'd give one to anyone who both (a) had more than 50 edits in that list and (b) had at least one edit within the last 6 months. I'm going to try to remember to check it periodically and keep giving them to folks who fit in. Our friend Mildly Mad ought to be due one very shortly. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tyson the Cyclops[edit]

Hello RegentsPark,

Thanks for moving Tyson the Cyclops to Tyson (Percy Jackson). It's definitely a better name. The talk page, Talk:Tyson the Cyclops, needs moving, too, to retain its history. May you please address the issue when possible? Thanks, Airplaneman talk 03:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RegentsPark (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move protect ?[edit]

Can you move protect the Orissa/Oriya related pages recently moved by Bishupriyaparam (talk · contribs) ? I already moved them back, and perhaps am uninvolved, but prefer to pass the buck... Cheers.Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got em all. Let me know if I missed any. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010[edit]

Indefinite protection of List of male performers in gay porn films[edit]

With regard to wp:ANI#Request to remove unjustified indefinite protection of List of male performers in gay porn films, the discussion has been quickly side-tracked and de-railed. I was considering raising a RfC on the talk page of Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films, though I suspect that the same folks will attempt to confuse any discussion, it might be more successful. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed considering the relevant admin is convinced this is a way of enforcing BLP? Ash (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

let me ask Scott.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a bit busy, apologies. Here is Scott's response: User_talk:Scott_MacDonald#List_of_male_performers_in_gay_porn_films. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well the process I have followed has been to:
  1. confirm policy on RPP (SMD's action appears to go against the explicit guidance of SILVERLOCK)
  2. raise the matter on SMD's talk page with the expected response of "No"
  3. raise for discussion on ANI
  4. ask for further advice with a further definite "No" from SMD
The conclusion seems to be that SMD has the ultimate power and can ignore the SILVERLOCK guidance even when there is no definitive consensus. I guess I could raise an RFC on the list talk page but I really am a bit sick of SMD's rather uncivil language with regard to LGBT issues and have no desire to be exposed to more of what s/he considers "robust" language such as the classic "dogs pissing on lampposts". Obviously I could grow a thicker skin but that may take a while and I did not understand that to be a prerequisite for ensuring that the consensus that default policy such as SILVERLOCK represents would be implemented. As with the law, if the rules are unenforceable, then they may as well be repealed. Probably time for a break from the matter before I have yet more accusations of ABF, I may reconsider in another week or so. Cheers Ash (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on Scott's page, admins are here to implement consensus or policy not to implement their own likes and dislikes. Since I have no experience with this admin beyond this issue, I don't want to make general comments but will willingly explain my position on this one if you need me to do so. Best. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SHA-1 Commitment[edit]

You may not be aware that SHA-1 commitment on your user page is considered broken since 2005. Therefore I would advise you to move to SHA-256 or SHA-512. --JovianEye (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use this software which I obtained from Template:User committed identity. I would recommend SHA-512 since it currently offers the highest level of security. Also, avoid using the exact same input sequence which you used for SHA-1 since that would also provide a loophole in the security. Hope this helps! --JovianEye (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010[edit]

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21[edit]

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area
Last: 11/15/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted licensing on image File:Barbados Banks.JPG[edit]

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010[edit]

RfC on changing the protection policy for schools[edit]

As you commented on YellowMonkey's statement on WP:AN I thought I should mention that the schools part of that is now an RfC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've watchlisted the page and will give the concept some thought. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.[edit]

I just want to thank you for protecting the Sarah Jessica Parker article. It's very much appreciated. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --RegentsPark (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your reply to Semi-protection Article. Can you tell me how I can protect my changes done to the article as any one can revert back to old version which is Spoiling the Sikh Identity & Violates the NPOV fundamentals of Wikipedia. --Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for valuable words , Let me put my changes one by one. Moreover, this topic is controversial and in articles reference are misused , Talk from non-Sikh were preferred and moderator is Biased(Check the Discussion Page).--Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010[edit]

Help stopping edit war[edit]

Hey, Regents, I'm hoping that you will take a look at Talk:Wizards_(film). I issued a 3O and cautioned both users about the edit war there on the point that I was asked to opine on. The war stopped on that point, but then continued on a related point. I warned them again and put warnings on both of their talk pages (Sugar Bear (talk · contribs) subsequently deleted it). It looked like everything had calmed down, with one chunk of information (the one on which I had opined) out and the other in, but then Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) — the one who was adding the information in dispute — revered again today. Would you consider reverting the todays's edits, fully protecting the page for a week, and issuing such warnings as you may see fit? I'll watch this page for your response? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC) PS: If you'll check their block logs, neither of these users is unfamiliar with edit warring. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (Minor correction 01:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) - TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK))[reply]

I've protected the page and will take a close look. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Regents, looking forward to seeing what you think. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the discussion of the wrong version, may I point out that part of the conto

Wizards (film)[edit]

The editor Prosfilaes is clearly trying to push his own POV on the article Wizards (film). He removed sourced content and added the opinion of an author whose opinion was already determined to not be notable, and is, in fact, overtly negative and not in any way objectionable (comparing the film itself to "the Nazi propaganda mill"). Your decision to protect the page rather than reverting Prosfilaes' vandalism is absurdly misguided. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's only for a couple of days. We'll figure out what is right. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the discussion of the wrong version, may I point out that the sourced material that he's complaining about me removing is "Critics loved the movie" (cite: the filmmaker, http://somepage that doesn't even say anything about the subject.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010[edit]

Wendy Doniger[edit]

If you are around can you take a look at the recent edit-warring at the article, and see if warnings/blocks/protection are warranted ? Although I am not a regular editor of the article, I have commented on its content and am probably "involved" at this stage (despite my disinterest in the subject!). Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It would help if you/SpacemanSpiff/YellowMonkey watchlisted the page, which is often a scene of edit-warring and pretty toxic talk page conduct. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also features editors having their friends block editors for being on the wrong side of a conflict. Lovely stuff. — goethean ॐ 03:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010[edit]

Okip[edit]

I think you should post a note on Okip's talk page that he has been unblocked. He may not be aware of it. I would, but there's enough reasons for me not to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done. thx. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States and State Terrorism[edit]

[5] I tried to point this out earlier (though not quite so well-worded) and found it to be nothing but banging my head against a brick wall. You might find it easier just to give it up and let NYCJosh and Jrtayloriv have the page and keep it tagged, as they will never allow changes to be made. Soxwon (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what happens. I have some faith in the overall ability of wikipedia to correct itself (when enough generalist editors weigh in) but it does take time. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Re [6]. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

je vous en prie--RegentsPark (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010[edit]

Cantonese (Yue)[edit]

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has been attempting to rename a series of three articles against since December 2008, and has not succeeded in convincing the community. He took it upon himself just a few minutes ago to once again move the article to Yue Chinese, effectively reversing the move that you made earlier today in line with the talk page consensus - he ironically argues that the move is consensus driven. I believe that he has been acting in violation of WP:UNINVOLVED, and would ask you to please undo his move and to protect it from further moves until clear consensus has been demonstrated. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Regents,

I was rather puzzled by your move without any discussion or explanation. There have been months of discussion, and a Request for Move which was closed with a decision here to move to Yue Chinese by User:Angr, one of two long-standing uninvolved admins at Wikiproject Language. However, a few editors such as Ohconfucius flatly refuse to accept the change. (Angr gives his reasons there, and defends them on his talk page.) Anyway, the path to renaming the article, if they wish, should follow the normal path of discussion and consensus, and there has been no discussion recently. kwami (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think RegentsPark would have moved it if xhe hadn't seen evidence that the previous move was improperly established, so don't try to patronise him/her. Unfortunately, this little game Kwami's playing has been going on for a year and a half. Kwami has this misguided agenda, and has failed to achieve consensus on the page moves. His previous page reshuffles have left users totally perplexed as to what the articles are now supposed to be about - and if you can figure out, then you are a better man than I am. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Regents had seen that and judged that it was improper, that's a different matter, but the only evidence is one brief comment, which gives no indication of that. I hadn't even seen that comment, or the closed move request, when I reverted the page move, as that discussion had petered out two weeks ago and I had only checked recent threads to see if there had been discussion on the move. Anyway, with two adamantly opposed camps who've failed to come to terms over years, a suggestion to work it out ourselves is not helpful. The only viable approach is to weigh the competing arguments, which is what Angr did. kwami (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regents, since I didn't see that you had closed the old RfM, and can't really tell whether you have problems with Angr's closure of the previous RfM or not, I've put the page back until you have a chance to get back to me. kwami (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, I'll get back to you later today (busy morning!). Thanks for undoing the move in the meantime. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Responded on article talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, everyone's had their say for months now. Have you read the archives? This was not a sudden move. It's been advertised all over the place. Nothing new was being said; it was the same stuff rehashed over and over. Also, there was no consensus to revert; it was only that the 4 or 5 editors who lost out made a big fuss. I didn't think "squeaky wheel" was a reason for decisions. The current name is factually inaccurate: there is no non-Yue Cantonese, and the article at Cantonese is also Yue, so it does not work even as an erroneous dab. Anyway, what would you suggest is the proper way to do this? Relist as a move request and leave it X days? kwami (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that would be the best way. I did scan the discussion and, admittedly this is a naive view, I think there are pertinent points in favor of either name. A properly conducted RM should resolve the issue one way or another. I'm willing to add a comment summarizing the two previous RMs (as a neutral observer) if that helps. And, of course, I won't close subsequent moves! --RegentsPark (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's going to be hard, because some of us have been trying to bring some sanity for this for years, and are burned out. Many of the supporters of the ISO and per-MOS name are hard to motivate anymore; what we have left is a group of Cantonese editors who want a walled garden, who have actually said that only Cantonese get to decide what English speakers should call their language. There are Cantonese editors on both sides, but the revert crowd is all Cantonese, or maybe all but one, which would be unexpected if the argument were based on anything substantial. It's more like the debate on what to call Macedonia. Nationalist/zealot movements generally have more staying power than editors who simply want a neutral, well-formed encyclopedia, so what do we do when the nationalists raise a cry of persecution any time a reasonable decision is made that doesn't go their way? Do we just let it go on until no-one else cares any more? If we can't get previous editors to restate their opinions, does the more vocal side win merely by being more vocal? kwami (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just go down the RfC route. That usually does produce a logical result. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've had several of those, but I'll try again.
BTW, the argument that "not enough time" has been allowed for discussion has been made for five months now. And that was after many months of debate already! I really have a hard time understanding how this isn't enough. kwami (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC):::[reply]
The point of a formal RM is that you get outside eyes on the issue (otherwise the issue can be decided by the talk page regulars). One day is not enough for that. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should ask Angr to wait an appropriate amount of time, and then to decide whether any new arguments have been brought to bear that affect the situation? What would be an appropriate length of time? The request just prior to the move request was open for over a month. First the opposition said to leave it open for a week, after they said another month, and after that they said another three months! kwami (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion either way on that. I'm beginning to have an opinion on the title (!) but don't want to muddy the waters. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angr says he's sick of the whole thing and suggests leaving it to you. Can I trust that if the RfC doesn't result in any new outside ideas, but only a rehashing of the old arguments, you will move the article back per Angr's decision? I'm curious as to what your opinion is, but if you start expressing a POV, there will be howls of protest that you're not neutral. kwami (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Let's set up the RfC with the two alternative titles and a comment section and let people explain their reasons in either section. I think I can figure out what is reasonable from all that. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is already set up. There aren't just two possibilities. If it were only that, it would be easy, as the decision that "Cantonese (Yue)" is inappropriate has already been made by Angr. He would have gone with any of several possible names, though, and "Yue Chinese" wouldn't have been his first choice. We have one newbie so far at the RfC, though he hasn't suggested a concrete proposal apart from the long-dismissed "Cantonese (linguistics)". kwami (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Barbados Banks.JPG[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Barbados Banks.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados[edit]

Sorry, bad phrasing. I completely accept that the cuisine and food of a nation are of paramount importance to a country and its people. My question was "How is Banks beer cultural important to Barbados?". I'm not from the country, so I felt it should be explained as for all I know it was created in Poland and now brewed in Iran. Rather than Banks Beer at sunset, which sounds like an advertisment, It should say something on the lines of "Banks Beer has been brewed in Barbados since 1923 and is the best selling beverage on the island." then it is relevent to the article. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No worries. (I'm just particularly fond of that photo!) I'll try rephrasing it. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Echo[edit]

En mi opinión, el artículo hablaba más del Municipio (Valle de Echo) que de la localidad (Echo), por eso he trasladado. Más tarde quería mejorar el artículo del municipio con algún dato más. CHV (O mío Buzón de Correus) 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article told Municipaliry (Valle de Echo) that over the town (Echo), so I moved. Later I wanted to improve the Municipality's article. CHV (O mío Buzón de Correus) 19:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That makes sense. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010[edit]

Talk:Whanganui[edit]

You appear to have forgotten to sign the close of the move discussion. You probably should do that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

Could you please clarify your opposition to topic ban Mathsci? Specifically these 2 questions:

  1. Did you give Mathsci a license to use WQA as a battleground (by importing unrelated disputes about uninvolved users) as he has here?
  2. Were you of the view that Mathsci is not the worst offender and should not be the first/only user sanctioned? Or were you of the view that everyone except Mathsci should take a break from the dispute? Or were you of some other view?

Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you like me to clarify? I assume my talk page is not the right forum. Also, please note that your first question has framing issues (it is not neutrally expressed). --RegentsPark (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know; it wasn't very clear either. If you're running short on time, clarifying it either here (where I can grab a diff), or at the WQA, or at the ANI, would work, though if you do have time, the last comment in this exchange should provide more background behind what it is I'd like. Sorry if it is unclear!! :S Time is not my asset nowadays. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on question 1 :) The way I see it, mathsci is seeing a serious problem of neutrality in the articles in question and, it is his/her observation that a group of SPA editors are at the root of the problem. He has been bringing this to the attention of the community (principally at ANI) and has been getting a vague endorsement of his views with no actionable suggestions. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with his/her bringing the matter up at various forums. Unlike you, I don't see him/her using WQA as a battleground - he/she raised a very specific etiquette issue (comment on the edits and not on the user is a useful adage). My view on who should be given a topic ban (I hesitate to use the word 'sanctioned') is expressed here. Hope this helps.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments make sense, except we seem to disagree on how this should be approached. WQA is designed as a preliminary step in dealing with incivility (this is effectively spelled out at the top of the WQA page) - it's not as a step for seeking blocks for incivility or for mediating long-term ongoing conflicts of this nature (especially if they are already at ANI; admins are expected to handle civility issues that occur at ANI). If all he's getting at ANI is vague endorsement, running to WQA in particular is foolish because it is far less equipped than ANI for the purposes of bringing about NPOV to an article - unless you are aware of WQAs that have proved otherwise (i.e. WQAs that have accomplished a more favourable outcome for the encyclopedia on the topic of tendentious SPAs when ANI has failed; I'm not aware of any). In such circumstances, the views of 'both sides are wrong' that have been expressed at WQA have been entirely predictable. On a side note, the battleground mentality I refer to is specifically in relation to the first sentence he writes (see the diff in Q1) - it's not really in relation to his comments re: the mediator/SPAs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see this the same way you do but no worries. The larger issue here, the SPAs on articles (not just this set of SPAs but the niches that SPAs are carving out on wikipedia) is much more concerning. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Liam Hemsworth[edit]

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

03:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: William Tecumseh Sherman[edit]

RegentsPark: You're the boss. As I said, though, Grant and Lincoln are indefinitely semi-protected, and I think this should be too. I think it is a terrible waste of time and resources to allow a lead page like this to be vandalized so easily and watchers to have to be so vigilant. But thanks for your intermediate step of blocking a user. I was suprised to see vandalism from an identified user, but I suppose the person has multiple accounts. Hartfelt (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of think you'll be right and we'll have to indef the article - but figured it was worth a shot keeping it open for a bit. I've got it on my watch list as well. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark: Just writing to note that the vandalism continues apace in the Sherman article. I think it is a waste of Wikipedia's money/computer space and of contributor time to allow this. I really think, as you know, that this article shld have the same indefinite semi-protection that the Lincoln and Grant articles have. Please let me know if the time is right to renew my protection request formally. Thank you. Hartfelt (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and renew your protection request. I don't think the vandalism is high but there is some so it's a judgement call. I'll leave it to some other admin to make that call! Thank you for your patience! --RegentsPark (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark: In light of your May 22 response, I held off requesting semi-protection, but today's stupidness pushed me over the edge. I confess that I do not understand why vandals are given such leeway while those who contribute constructively and care about an important (featured) article are forced to monitor the article all the time to try to keep it up to snuff. This is rather pushing me away from the Wikipdeia community. Hartfelt (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Adding a sign-in requirement raises the editing bar a bit (it is onerous to expect someone to create an account to do just one edit - that, for example, is how I did my first edit). If we semi-protect too many pages, this'll become an encyclopedia that only a few will edit (those who bother to get an account). For these reasons, we need to balance vandalism with openness and often the balance point is not well-defined. I'm sorry that you feel that the load on you is unnecessarily heavy but there are good reasons for that and I personally would rather err on the side of openness. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark: Thank you for your response and perspective. I will try to bear it in mind. Hartfelt (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010[edit]

Tasty, huh?[edit]

A3RO has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

as I agree with your thoughts left on Tan's talk page. --A3RO (mailbox) 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was the silliest series of blocks I've seen in a while. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tigres de la UANL[edit]

There is a least two user to move the page to un-popular name and non-exit name. The most famous one is Kaka12o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who often use cut and paste move and move them to un-popular title, and he had socketpuppet of Kaka12 (talk · contribs) and many other (i did not count, but named Kaka11 or something). 210.6.121.21 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does seem that this is the common name if not the official one. However, I don't want to preemptively protect it without discussion so let me know if the article gets moved. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC):[reply]

But the "official" name is totally un-sourced and the users keep on move to a unsourced or even not exist name. Likes Tigres de la UANL was moved to C.D. Universitario de Nuevo León but the university name is Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. Common name with reliable source and claimed "Official" name without source, i prefer the former.

But the users is crazy and prefer latter and moved again and again to his name he remember or seems remembered. Another case is Club Atlas and Club América they were had reliable source supported and crazy users keep on move to new name that had no source to support or (Atlas was moved from CF Atlas to fútbol Club Atlas then Futbol Club Atlas but the fact is the name is Club Atlas and went wrong for years. "Club América" was moved to CF América but the officialsite of the club just called himself "Club América" Look at the damm log of crazy move Matthew_hk tc 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know if the page is moved. We'll take it from there. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Andrews[edit]

Regarding the move request, I didn't move the page, but somebody else did. That person didn't close the request, so I've just done it (as the template displayed a request to that effect). That person also didn't clean up the incoming links, so I'm just doing it now. As for 'refactoring' it, if that means that the move request template itself is to be removed, then that's what I've done as part of closing it. If you mean something else, I don't know what it is that you are talking about. Schwede66 18:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else moved it then no worries. I thought you had proposed the request and then moved it yourself. In which case, you should just drop a note explaining why the move is a good one and not bother with a move request. But, I guess I was wrong. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Bronx[edit]

Noble move; I agree to let it rest. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured we're both on the same side - wikipedia! :) --RegentsPark (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we learn from wikipedia ...[edit]

Sikh extremism has grown since the 1990s, with Canada being its center-of-gravity. ( more). Abecedare (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just imagine the term papers being written based on the article - the mind boggles! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010[edit]

Harman[edit]

Thank you, your work is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (For the thanks!) --RegentsPark (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RPP decline[edit]

Hello, can you please reconsider or explain your decline here? This is a well-known case; we've had dozens of incidents of the same type with this user over the last few months. He is on a dynamic ISP, if you block one IP he will just hop to the next. He doesn't care about blocks or about breaking 3RR, because he's indef-blocked anyway. He will never stop reverting, out of sheer spite, until a page is semi-protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only see 71.172.192.37 in the last few days. If the IP starts shifting, then a semi may be appropriate. Since I don't know the details of the case, this is the best I can do but feel free to semi-protect if you have better information. I won't be offended. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfortunately barred from taking admin action here myself by an exceedingly stupid Arbcom rule. But I really don't see what good it would do to wait until he's actually shifting IPs. He's a banned user (clearly known behavioural profile and ISP range, absolutely certain), he's edit-warring, he should be stopped. Of course, you could try a block of this one IP first and hope he'll heed it and refrain from hopping. But he won't, I can tell you that right away, from months of experience with dozens of incidents on dozens of articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22[edit]

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan
Last: 03/21/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request[edit]

Hello. I assume that your request on ANI was for the subpage to be archived. That does not seem to have happened. Is it possible for you to get an uninvolved administrator to do so? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Mathsci (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Rushdie - Req[edit]

Pls have a look at the rev history of Salman Rushdie. feels like its protection level must be upped. thanks. Arjuncodename024 11:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it three days. Let's see if they go away. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Arjuncodename024 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.. the great.[edit]

As you moved Ashoka the great to Ashoka; i would like to invite your attention; to check whether the same rationale applies for Akbar.Rgs.Arjuncodename024 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Thanks - I'd forgotten about the discussion on this. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mootros (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email from TM[edit]

I've sent you email. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And back atcha (if these user page notes aren't needed, let me know; all my WikiMail gets forwarded to my main "real" email address, so I don't need them, but one is never sure about everyone else's here). — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. I watch my email fairly closely! --RegentsPark (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tagging[edit]

When I was discussing Mathsci’s possible misuse of tags with you on the talk page for the Snyderman and Rothman article, you explained under what circumstances it’s appropriate to remove these tags:

“Generally, it is better to give the tagger a couple of days to add a rationale on the talk page. If no rationale is added, you can then delete the tag. If the tag is repeatedly added without explanation, then you can alert the WP:AN3 noticeboard.’

Six days after Mathsci had tagged the Mainstream Science on Intelligence article, he still hadn’t provided any rationale for the tags on its talk page, so I removed them. Mathsci immediately added them back, still without providing any rationale, except to say in his edit summary that there’s “still a dispute”. There haven’t been any comments on this article’s talk page, dispute or otherwise, in over six months.

I’d rather not keep removing the tags myself, because when I tried this on the Snyderman and Rothman article Mathsci just keep edit warring to add them back. He also tends to threaten me with being blocked whenever I revert any of his edits, which is annoying. Now that you’ve explained what behavior is and isn’t appropriate while tagging articles, and it’s clear that this situation falls into latter category, is there anything you can do about it? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a note on mathsci's talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mootros (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move reqs.[edit]

  • Can u please have a look at this and do the needful.

Thanks You for your time. Arjuncodename024 07:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I guess I missed this. Will take a look. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Policy Studies[edit]

Do you think it's safe to unprotect now? NW (Talk) 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Let's see. (thanks for the reminder!) --RegentsPark (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010[edit]

The Lost Symbol[edit]

Hi, I noticed no one ever acted on the request for unprotection and the admin didn't comment further. It got auto-archived. Alio The Fool 20:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The admin's comment seemed to imply that he/she considers the six month protection to be warranted. I took a look at the page history again and there is a repeated attempt to insert a specific piece of information by a wandering IP over a period of a month. Noting that Nightscream has more experience with the article, and noting that I know nothing about the novel in question, I prefer to leave this at that admin's discretion. However, I will drop another note on the admin's talk page asking that he/she look at this conversational thread. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regents pretty much said it for me. The level of vandalism warranted the block. I see no reason to remove it, and anyone who wishes to edit the article can simply sign in and do so. Nightscream (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rvcx (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user has made 228 content edits in his wikipedia life. I have no idea why has planted himself on WP:BLPN. Nor for that matter why he has reported me on WP:WQA for pointing his unfamiliarity with the way priimary souirces are used on WP> as you he has attempte his own analysis of Jensen's 1969 paper, which I said he was in no poisiton to do (like any other wikipedian). He has twice reverted the two articles History of the race and intelligence controversy and Mainstream Science on Intelligence. His edits and comments (eg about the eminence of Donald T. Campbell) show no awareness of wikipedia editing policies. He has claimed the content I was using was libellous. Please can something be domne to control this editor who is edit warring, forum shopping and appears not to be willing to invest any effort in reading secondary sources? he has made an incorrect judgement about a BLP violation. Edits that are just a little bit out of control and totally ill-informed? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he/she certainly appears to have an interesting choice of articles. However, let's AGF and assume that he/she is acting in good faith. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research fellow[edit]

Hi, Thanks for protecting the article. I would like to add a citation to the article which I think is not controversial, as it is clearly in line with the current policy Talk:Research_fellow#Non-English_sources. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#user:Kushsinghmd[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:Kushsinghmd. Mootros (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]


The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010[edit]

Requested move of Punjab_(Pakistan)[edit]

I have requested a move of Punjab (Pakistan) to Punjab (Pakistani province). You may wish to express your opinion on the talk page.

comment placement[edit]

Your comment at | this ANI thread is misplaced. Would you mind not putting it in the middle of the discussion between me and Yworo? Thanks? David.Kane (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has moved it. My apologies, the misplacement was inadvertent. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr[edit]

Since you have commented at length on topic bans for SPAs active on race related articles, please see the current Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Race and intelligence. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look next week (still traveling). --RegentsPark (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR Race and intelligence[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayawati[edit]

Regents Park hi. I have requested protection of Mayawati again. The edit warring is massive. Please assist. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. Elockid did it. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010[edit]

Move req[edit]

Pls see Talk:Pratap_Singh_of_Mewar#Requested_move - uncontroversial. Arjuncodename024

Isn't he better known as 'Rana Pratap'?--RegentsPark (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, i am confused. I guess the request at the talk page must be given its due course.Arjuncodename024 20:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Blackwood[edit]

Regents, would you please take a few minutes to look at the edit war, incivility fest, and all–around brawl that's going on at Nicola Blackwood. I opined there, then warned both of them about personal attacks and they both just keep after it and complain to me about each other. Thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting debate. But I see that it is protected so I guess I'm off the hook! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nonetheless, for taking a look. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010[edit]

Hemant Karkare[edit]

Can u pls have a look at the latest developments at Hemant Karkare - i strongly feel they are WP:FRINGE; more so sources furnished are twocircles.net, hardnewsmedia.com etc. Just thought you would be the ideal guy for this. Arjuncodename024 07:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted those edits for the time being. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I noticed you just removed an entire section from the Hemant Karkare page. It's a very hot and debatable top I agree, but labeling it as WP:FRINGE is ridiculous! Deleting rather than editing is not going to help. Arjun appears to have a WP:SPA and has been constantly deleting sections from the Hemant Karkare page, coming up with some new weird reason each time.
As for the sources, HardNewsMedia is the South Asian partner of Le Monde diplomatique, Paris, France.
TwoCircles.net - a very respectable news website based in USA.
IbnLive - CNN-IBN is a partnership between Global Broadcast News (GBN), a Network18 Company, and Turner International (Turner) in India. If you like I can provide more sources! SuchiBhasin (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for deleting the content was not because of the sources. Rather, the material takes a few news stories (the IBN ones are more like opinions and the twocircles is an interview) and then constructs a 'controversy' section by stringing these together. That is both WP:SYNTH as well as WP:UNDUE. I don't know much about the topic itself but, if the death of Mr. Karkare is considered controversial, then there must be more reliable sources (articles in magazines or leading newspapers) that make the same points. I suggest focusing on those sources. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fwd:sock-puppet[edit]

The following is a query from an anon i received on my talk page; I thought its better to forward it to you since i do not know really know anything about the sock puppet stuff.

Sock puppetry on Hemant Karkare

The following users are probably sock puppets:

They are edit-warring on the article in tandem. Perhaps you should file a sock puppetry report and also put a complaint at WP:RFPP.117.194.197.61 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arjuncodename024 10:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking after the fwdd query. Arjuncodename024 16:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for taking care of the move. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: arborsculpture[edit]

Hello RegentsPark. While I appreciate your help in moving things forward, you have closed a discussion on this page move, I feel, too hastily. Given the easily hundreds of hours that have gone into the discussion, just on the move itself, let alone during what clearly was a 3 year long battle on the page itself, it is difficult to imagine that you might have adequately considered, much less fully appreciated the depth of the issues discussed, in one hour of study for your closing. The reason I say this is that it took me almost 2 months to understand what had happened after I started working on that page this past April.

One point that you have clearly not addressed is the fact that the phrase 'tree shaping', which was arbitrarily and capriciously chosen in the first place, off the discussion page and completely without consensus, is itself not at all neutral. Your closing explanation seems to conflate the trade name Pooktre, with the phrase used to re-title the page. Pooktre is an established trade name of the questionable editors. It is not at all generic, nor in common usage, and is thus not under any consideration as a title for the page. Clear consensus was already reached that the current page title is unsatisfactory. We have carefully and clearly documented, concerning the phrase 'tree shaping' that:

1. This phrase is being used inappropriately and not generically, by one pair of involved editor/author/artists, posting under a single user name, in a long and nasty campaign both on and off-wiki, to benefit themselves and disparage another editor/author/artist, and
2. This phrase is also, perversely enough, in well-entrenched common usage to describe a different subject: arboriculture, a point that was raised early on and had strong consensus.

I do understand that it is entirely your option to re-list or not, and to move or not, based on the strength of the arguments for & against, but do you not think, given the consensuses that were reached by non-involved editors and also given that the discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, that relisting would have been more appropriate in this case?

I agree with Martin Hogbin that a closing discussion is needed to reach further consensus. Without one that is satisfactory to all participating editors, and not just to the one involved editor who precipitated the original and very suspicious change, I feel that the editing atmosphere on that page is unlikely to improve and thus that the page itself is likely to suffer, not least in terms of content dilution. A page titled 'tree shaping' can no longer describe the specific and fascinating art that the article content presently describes (and which is and has been for many decades practiced by those artists detailed therein), but must instead also encompass fully all the myriad other arboricultural practices inherent in the actual activities of shaping trees. There would be no reason (or space) in such an article to include any of these inosculation artists, or their craft, at all. See? Duff (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the Requested Move should have been closed as no consensus, that seems clear, I do not think your move and subsequent protect of the article was the best representation of WP policy. I agree that Martin should have started a new RfM, but he felt being bold was the best course of action. I would remind you that the first article move was done in the same way with no discussion whatsoever, at least Martin had support for the move before he undertook it. I have listed my points on the talk page in question. I hope you see fit to respond there. Thanks, Colincbn (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the headsup. I notice that there is an extended discussion and will respond later tonight (a tad busy in RL). --RegentsPark (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Karkare[edit]

Hello,

i strongly disagree with your removing of sourced material: there is a reliable source, in the form of a book (Who killed Karkare ?). Even if sockpuppets have shown up there, I was mainly responsible for the section. Please also note that the IP that asked for deletion (117.194.197.61)was probably a sockpuppet of indef banned user Hkelkar. For these reasons, I strongly demand you revert to my edited version. We can discuss and change it according to contradictory sources, but certainly not remove it. Thanks. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 18:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be ok to include a section on the controversy surrounding Mr. Karkare's death, the deleted version, which includes fringe allegations of Israeli conspiracies and unequivocal statements that say that he was not killed by the Mumbai terrorists is not tenable. Also, the length of the controversy section seems way undue. My suggestion is that you work on a toned down version of the section that does not overstate the controversy. I see no reason why that would not be acceptable. About the IP, I'm no expert on sockpuppets so I'll ask YellowMonkey to investigate. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, agree. My intention was to put a "controversy section" much more acceptable, by just referring to the book and the news articles that appeared in Indoa on this matter. I was in the process in re-arrangement when these sockpuppets and IP showned up. So please let me edit the article in that direction. Thanks. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 09:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before any rash decisions are made, I should point out that it was User:TwoHorned who added the part about the Israelis fomenting religious riots in India [7][8](and then edit-warring in order to keep it in). the absurd and conspiratorial language suggests bad faith editing. Furthermore, some of his sources are highly dubious, like this one, from a pro-Islamist website masquerading as a non-partisan news source (compare what they say about Zakir Naik[9], to what more reliable sources say about him [10][11]).117.194.193.101 (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, here is a sample of the extremely conspiratorial rhetoric found in TwoHorned's "Flagship source", a book by an Islamist sympathizer titled "Who Killed Karkare?" Can a book containing this type of militant rhetoric be considered a WP:RS?

[12]

[13]

[14].117.194.193.101 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the sockpuppets who were attacking the article on Hemant Karkare have now shifted their attention to Saffron Terror[15].117.194.193.101 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, besides the usual crap and personnal attacks typical of infdef banned user Hkelkar, please note that:
  • I didn't include the ref you're talking about.
  • The implication of israeli intelligence in the affair is not an invention of mine, but comes from the mentionned source book.
  • The controversy about the assination of 3 people, including Karkare, is something real in India.
  • There is a book and sourced material on it.
For me, that's all about it. I do intent to reduce the size of the section, and put it in more regular form, but pretend that is "fringe conspiracy" is non-sense and pov, given the proportion that is affair has taken in India. And,btw, "pressure on journalists" is not something particular to India. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 08:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TwoHorned is copy-pasting the same anti-Semitic nonsense into multiple articles, like 2008 Mumbai attacks and Indo-Israeli relations[16][17][18].59.160.210.68 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TwoHorned also appears to have a history of promoting Neo-Nazi conspiracy theories sources to dubious websites. See [19].59.160.210.68 (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd bet the anti-semitic-neo-nazi bullshit would appear soon. Bingo, Hkelkar ! I'm surprised noone noticed the use of multiple IP to evade block and R3R, by the way. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) No one is going to take any hasty actions here. The material on Karkare needs to be thrashed out on the talk page of the Hemant Karkare article first, before it is inserted in other articles as well. I've protected Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks as well until this is sorted out. 2008 Mumbai attacks also appears to be protected. Please sort this out on the talk page of Hemant Karkare before attempting to add this material to other articles. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to [20]. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 22:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion. If I'm reading it correctly, there isn't much support for the way you are using your sources? --RegentsPark (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would ask you to add in the Controversy section yourself, now that it is recognized even by leading journalists like Vir Sanghvi: [21] Now it transpires that even Karkare could have been saved. People have always wondered how the bullets penetrated the bullet-proof jacket he was wearing. The Bombay Police responded by saying that a) he was shot in the neck so the jacket was no protection, b) that the jacket was perfectly good but c) the file pertaining to its purchase had been lost and d) even the jacket itself had miraculously vanished. Cool hindu (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010[edit]

Arborsculpture[edit]

Thanks for your involvement with the tree shaping article. (Sorry you ever discovered this article exists? I sure wish I never discovered it!) I'm contacting you because I feel that relevant verifiable evidence about the uses of the word "arborsculpture" wasn't properly reviewed in the recent renaming discussion. Do you happen to know the Wikipedia guidelines about when we would be allowed to bring the renaming issue to formal discussion again? Or is there any restriction on how soon one could formally initiate discussion again? --Griseum (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is generally frowned upon to do so too early and if there are no new arguments to make, there is no restriction against initiating a move request again soon after the closure of a request. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm curious about your comment (The 'original title' argument would carry some weight but the article itself is more than 4 times the size it was before the move so the stable article argument is not a strong one.) in the closing of title discussion. My question is... does making contribution and improving to an article help entrench the current title of the article?Slowart (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is that if an article has been greatly increased in size then it has likely been greatly increased in scope as well and the original title may no longer be appropriate. If the arborsculpture --> tree shaping move had been done on a version of the article that was substantially similar to the current article, then the 'original title' suggestion would have carried more weight. However, even if that had been the case (which it is not), do note that there are numerous other reasons outlined in my decision to close the move as I did. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I my conflicted opinion, the improved article is now even more appropriately titled as it was formerly. Yes, I'll look at the other reasons, this is just the one that jumped out at me. Thank You, Slowart (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created with the name arborsculpture and is the most accepted name for this art as found in a preponderance of reliable variable sources. The Home Orchard Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California press When you said... “pooktre title as well as the arborsculpture title appear to get almost the same Google hits (not a minority viewpoint here!)” ? no one was suggesting using "Pooktre" as a title. Total Google web hits on arborsculpture or tree shaping won’t tell us much at all due to marketing. Tree shaping on the web is one thing, but [tree shaping on Google books] and [tree shaping on Google scholar] is quite a different search. Both show many "tree shaping" hits but all appear to describe some other practice in fruit tree industry. [Arborsculpture on Google Books] has many hits specific to the topic of this page with some [Google scholar arborsculpture] hits. If being nutral and fair is important then [arborsculpture Google Image] clearly shows that arborsculpture is used to describe the work of many of the various artist, where as "tree shaping" is used to describe the work of Pooktre almost exclusively.[google images tree shaping] You also said.“Finally, there seems to be no question that arborsculpture is a term coined by an individual practitioner of the art.” This fact would not exclude the word from being used in a title. Thanks for looking a bit longer and deeper into this, Slowart (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010[edit]



WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 1 - (June 2010)[edit]

Project News

WP:IND Newsletter is back! It's been nearly a year since the last edition, but we hope to bring out issues on a more regular basis now. The India Wikiproject was set up to increasing coverage of India-related topics on Wikipedia, and over the past few months the focus has been on improving article quality. A number of the project's featured articles underwent featured article reviews over the past year. Of these, Darjeeling and Flag of India survived the review process, while the rest were demoted. During the same period, Gangtok, Harbhajan Singh, Darjeeling and Mysore were featured on the main page respectively on August 20, September 17, November 6 and December 29, 2009. Meanwhile, articles on topics as diverse as Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), Marwari horse and Iravan were promoted as featured articles, and respectively appeared on the main page on March 25, May 17 and May 28, 2010. Consequently, the number of FA-class articles under the project's scope dropped from 67 in August 2009 to 63 in June 2010. The number of good articles, however, saw a more than 40% increase, from 91 to 130 during the same period, while the number of featured lists saw a 33% increase from 12 to 16.

Due to the recent policy changes regarding unreferenced Biographies of Living People (BLPs), an effort was started in January 2010 to source all unreferenced BLPs coming under Wikiproject India. 1200 such articles were identified initially and more were added to the list later. Due to the sourcing effort, the number of Indian unreferenced BLPs is down to 565 currently. During February-April 2010, There was a large scale disruption of Kerala related articles by a Thrissur based IP vandal. Editing from a dynamic IP BSNL connection, the vandal changed dates of birth, death and ages of a number of Malayalam and Tamil film actors. Later he added a few international biographies to his list. He also marked some living people like Arvind Swamy as dead. A month long range block was imposed on his IP range two times and each time he came back to vandalise dates once the block expired. Currently the range has been blocked for three months till September 11, 2010.

What's New?
Current proposals and discussions
  • A discussion is underway here to reach a consensus regarding the use of Indian number names (lakh, crore etc.) in Wikipedia articles. Please participate and add your comments.
  • A discussion is in progress here in order to determine whether non-Western (including Indian) forms of classical music should be referred to by the nomenclature of art music instead of classical music. Please participate and add your comments.
  • Watchlist the Articles for Deletions page for India related discussions. Opinions from more Indian Wikipedians are required in many of the discussions.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of WikiProject India. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – (July 2010)). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Looking forward toward more contributions from you!
Complete To Do List
Signed...
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may mention it at WikiProject India Outreach Department

This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pixable[edit]

Dear RegentsPark,

Could I ask you whether you could easily unprotect the following deleted page: Pixable . I haven been contacted by an editor who has created a credible page on the subject with supporting references demonstrating notability. Please see here User:Elaynekosty/pixable. Many thanks for your help. Mootros (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The new version looks substantially different (but this is not a comment on whether it is now notable or not!). --RegentsPark (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for the swift action and sensible comment. Mootros (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010[edit]

Talk:Bollywood[edit]

I remember you started reverting a user who kept attaccking me personally on the mentioned talk page and finally you bloxked him for a short period, but now going through it I find that in several previous posts he kept attacking me and insulting me by referring to me as Ms Shahida Kumari, etc. I would want these messages to be removed. Should I do it or you would prefer to do it? Shahid • Talk2me 12:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can remove them yourself. I looked, and they are clear violations of WP:NPA. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them, and Anupam reverted me. Shahid • Talk2me 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Ghallooghaaraa[edit]

If you have access to the article in some form, you will see that just 4% of it is devoted to the anti-sikh riots of 1984. Overall, it covers the period from 1978 to present. You will find very little of this material in the anti-sikh riots article. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But all the material is covered elsewhere where it is more appropriate (Khalistan movement and Anti-Sikh riots). The entire purpose of the article is to recast the Sikh riots and Operation Bluestar as a holocaust which is not really the case. The events were undeniably horrible but fall short of a holocaust or a genocide. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010[edit]

Hey again[edit]

I see you also got involved in the case of Dr Mukesh's sock who creates accounts to insult me and stalks my edit history. There's another one - Group all sixty (talk · contribs). Shahid • Talk2me 22:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another one: Still strong.still (talk · contribs). Shahid • Talk2me 22:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
blocked one. what is this - an epidemic? --RegentsPark (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is. This guy is obsessed. Has created over 20 accounts using my name with some terrible insults. To think that all of it started because I requested him to cite sources. Shahid • Talk2me 22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. He clearly will create more accounts though, but thanks for the help, it's appreciated. Shahid • Talk2me 22:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Reira[edit]

Thnx for the page protection. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 22:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010[edit]

Use of sysop powers in content dispute[edit]

RegentsPark, I notice you’ve just used your sysop powers to edit the race and intelligence article through page protection in order to revert one of the edits that led to it being protected. Now, I already know what your explanation for this is going to be—that the “wrong version” of the article was protected—but this is only an acceptable use of sysop powers in the case of simple vandalism. When there is an actual dispute over the content in question, admins should not be using their powers in a manner that is (quite overtly) favoring one side in the dispute over the other.

I’m not involved in this particular content dispute, because I don’t have a strong opinion either way about the content in question. This is only about your use of admin privileges, which I’m bringing up as a relatively uninvolved editor watching the article. I seriously suggest that you reconsider your decision to use your admin powers for this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've used the buttons incorrectly in this case (I've explained my reasoning on WP:RFPP). However, if you think that my action is particularly egregious, you should bring this up at WP:ANI. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you’re referring to this. Even if the reasoning you provided there is valid, the fact remains that requests like these are supposed to be dealt with by uninvolved administrators, who don’t have any personal stake in the articles in question. During the time that I’ve been involved in these articles (not the race and intelligence article specifically, but articles about related topics such as Snyderman and Rothman (study)), you’ve participated enough in them that I don’t think you can be considered uninvolved here.
Although I think your actions in this case were non neutral, I’m also not invested enough in this particular content dispute to start an AN/I thread about it, especially while there’s an arbitration case active. However, you should be aware of the possibility that one of the editors who’s more involved in this dispute will bring up your action either at AN/I or with the arbitrators. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not usual. Since you appear to be on one side in the content dispute, I will give you some time to undo before taking it to ANI. mikemikev (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the edit warring appears to be over the inclusion of text that is disputed, I believe my action is warranted. And I do not consider myself to be on either side of the dispute. Thanks for checking with me first but please feel free to take this to ANI. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“I do not consider myself to be on either side of the dispute.”
You’re listed as an involved party in the arbitration case for this article, and in the evidence you’ve presented there, you state:
Unless some action is taken to deal with these purpose driven accounts, once the narrowness of their interests is apparent, I fear that we will continue to present a view to the world which indicates that black people are genetically less intelligent than most other people and that it is a generally accepted view that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States was an act of state terrorism. Whether these are true or not, neither view is accepted by their respective academic communities as anything other than minor or fringe, but that is not what wikipedia presents to the world.
In other words, you take the position that the hereditarian hypothesis about race and intelligence is a “fringe” viewpoint, and that something needs to be done about the editors who would like Wikipedia to present it as something other than that. In the recent AN/I threads about these articles, you’ve advocated sanctions for these editors with similar reasoning. There are several editors who agree with you about this, there are also several editors who disagree, and this is one of the most central points of contention on these articles. Since the arbitration case lists you as an involved party in this dispute, you’ve stated there that you believe one side in the dispute to be in the wrong and that something needs to be done about the editors taking that position, and since you’ve advocated sanctions against them for this reason, it’s inaccurate for you to present yourself as either uninvolved or neutral in this dispute. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely your perception. I have no 'stake' in any wikipedia article and have absolutely no opinion on content on Race and Intelligence articles. However, I do note, once again, your unfortunate tendency to divide all editors into camps that are either You're either with us, or against us camps. Wikipedia is not a war and I can assure you that there are many editors who are capable of editing articles dispassionately. Though, of course, even an unbiased editor can be mistaken and therefore, if you continue to believe that my motives are suspect, I urge you to bring the matter up at ANI. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with splitting editors into two groups. All it has to do with is the inaccuracy of your claim to have no opinion about this dispute. You state that you have “absolutely no opinion on content on Race and Intelligence articles”. You also state that in your opinion, the hereditarian hypothesis is not accepted by the academic community “as anything other than minor or fringe, but that is not what wikipedia presents to the world.” Those two statements are incompatible, because the opinion that the hereditarian hypothesis is fringe but that it is not presented that way on Wikipedia—in other words, the opinion that the way it is presented here is something other than how it should be—is an opinion on content in Race and intelligence articles.
Are you able to recognize how these statements are incompatible? This is clear-cut enough that if you aren’t willing or able to acknowledge this, it’s going to be difficult for me to continue assuming good faith about your claim to be uninvolved and neutral in this dispute.
I’ve already said that I don’t intend to raise this issue at AN/I, although I think Mikemikev does. (Wikipedia:Requests_for_review_of_administrative_actions might be a more likely route, actually.) Before this is brought up there, though, it’s important for at least someone to have made an attempt to resolve this matter with you on your userpage. If you aren’t willing to cooperate with that, this will be something to point out in the noticeboard thread. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I request above, please take the matter up at ANI (or any other forum of your choosing). I take my admin responsibilities seriously and scrutiny is not a threat but a useful part of any such system. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Your actions have been reported here [22]. mikemikev (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RESTRICT[edit]

I just noticed, looking over the above linked project page, that all restrictions imposed on editors are logged there. Per your closure of this ANI thread, I was wondering if you could add the necessary information to the page.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be appropriate, as my 1RR restriction is per day, not per week. It's a stale issue anyway, and one has to wonder why it's being brought up some five months on. Radiopathy •talk• 01:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong. The inclusion of your restriction at that page has absolutely nothing to do with your restriction's specifics. That page is for logging restrictions on editors. As you are an editor who has a restriction, it is completely appropriate. Lastly, please stop stalking my edits.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits need to be "stalked" as you call it, because you are a disruptive user. Radiopathy •talk• 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned to stay away from me, instead you insist on stalking my edits and calling me disruptive. There was nothing disruptive about reporting an editor who violated policy, an editor who has now been blocked indefinitely. Last warning, stop stalking me, and get rid of your combative attitude towards me, or I will report you.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I don't see why it shouldn't be logged. Unless there has been a discussion since the one linked to above that changes things? --RegentsPark (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only change that has really happened is RP was caught socking to evade his sanction, and was warned to remain on one account.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's logged truthfully, ie, that my restriction is to one edit per day per article and not one week like it says in the list of types of restrictions, then there will be no problems. And while we're at it, why is it necessary to go over old ground this way? Radiopathy •talk• 02:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:RESTRICT is a log of all current restrictions. As long as the restriction is current, it is better to log it so that it is available to all editors. I'll reread the discussion to see if there is anything specific about the 1RR duration but generally 1RR refers to one revert per day.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said or mentioned anything about it being a 'week', so I see no need to even mention that. My own beef is that it be logged, per policy.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the history here, but can you (Daedalus and Radiopathy) both make an effort to leave each other alone, and not further this dispute? Thanks much; I think that would be in everyone's best interest. -- Pakaran 02:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

I've logged the restriction with the 1 per day specified (though it is not necessary). Beyond that, I think Pakaran has the right idea. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a general point of order. I note that the logging of restrictions is described above as a 'policy'. It is a convention rather than a policy and there is no specific requirement that editing restrictions be logged. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I'd like to request that the restriciton be removed from the log. Radiopathy •talk• 03:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until the community lifts the restriction, the restriction will not be removed from the log; the same goes for any restrictions imposed by the community. That it was inadvertantly missed or forgotten doesn't change the effect of the restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010[edit]

A small note about the RFC[edit]

You closed the AN/I on Pmanderson a bit early. The RFC is likely to get deleted in a couple of hours by Bishonen. As far as I can figure out, he will close it because I, when asking Pmanderson to not do personal attacks, instead of writing something like "I would like you to not attack other editors", used a template that said pretty much the same thing. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pmanderson#This_RfC_is_still_uncertified. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey - Talk about confusion! Are you sure pmanderson won't waive the 48 hr requirement? Personally, I don't see either the ANI thread or the RfC going in the direction you want them to, but, since I explicitly mentioned the RfC in archiving the ANI thread, I guess I can reopen it if you want. But, my suggestion would be to let it go and to focus on discussing content issues on article talk pages. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if he will waive it or not. This whole long preocess has started because I find it impossible to focus on discussing content issues, as every edit I make will be reverted with "vandalism" comments, and all discussion ends in endless repetition and stonewalling. I'm completely exhausted and desperate from this as nothing I do goes anywhere, and WQA and ANI are simply being ignored. This should obviously not have gone to RFC/U, but now it did. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Reopened. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super, thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is my first involvement in an RfC I'm unsure of the process. We do have the minimum requirements fulfilled by now, but nothing seems to be happening. Is that normal? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the RfC. A hot RfC would see plenty of comments soon after it is opened but, if people have not a whole lot to say, then nothing much will get said. Like I said above, I doubt if this will work out the way you would like - but you never know until you've tried. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it has lots of comments, and even something looking like an emerging consensus, but it's not certified, even though minimum requirements are fulfilled. As I understand it an admin needs to certify it, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that editors who are listed as 'tried to resolve' also certify the RfC. I don't really follow this stuff but let me take a look. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Xeno to take a look [[23]]. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be certified by an admin, just two editors who have "tried and failed to resolve the dispute". Bishonen seems to feel that the certifiers have not "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" - I haven't looked deeply enough into it to endorse or reject that claim. –xenotalk 19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So does someone have to explicitly move an RfC from 'candidate' to 'certified'? I assume any editor can do that? --RegentsPark (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it won't move on its own. –xenotalk 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, so certified is not the right word. What I'm actually asking was the above; who are allowed to move the RfC from "Candidate" to "Certified" on this list: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/UsersList. I assumed that was an administrator only, but now when I look at the edits, I'm not sure it is. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not administrator only, but given that there has been some dispute over whether the certification is valid it may be best left to an uninvolved user. –xenotalk 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely, I'm definitely not gonna touch it. I would be pretty angry if anyone involved did that if I was the subject of an RfC. :-) I suspect that means it will linger on candidate for a long time. :-/ But I've come to realize that these processes take a very long time. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) to comment as he is quite familiar with the RFC process and related precedents - much moreso than I am, anyway. –xenotalk 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od)(ec)Thanks Xeno. I'm not sure what the practical effects of having the 48 hour rule waived but the RfC 'uncertified' are, but I suspect this is better resolved properly! ncmvocalist is likely the right person to deal with this. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010[edit]

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)[edit]

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abominable conduct of RegentsPark[edit]

RegentsPark, You first say, “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”. This you have stated after unequivocally stating that, “I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies”. Then you have the audacity to say on 20 October 2009 at 18:53 when in fact, I had been endeavouring to arrive at a consensus with John Hill , “In the light of previous discussions, you need to get consensus first and only then modify the article. The fact that you've posted something on the talk page is not enough”. You, RegentsPark had stated that I am “consistent in pushing views on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE and he seems to have no other purpose on wikipedia” But When I asked you, “From what you are saying, “The “Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir” only on the basis of “a number of disparate pieces of information” "and the Times Atlas is not a reliable source!”, You do not at all respond. You do not have even iota of shame. When 86.96.226.22 in revision 372726931 endeavoured to create a neutral and comprehensive article blending both the rival versions, you could have none of it and nipped it in the bud and did not permit it to be taken forward for constructive modifications! Now you have the audacity to shamelessly say, “Blocked user attempting to evade block”. My stance is clear in the discussion page, and has not been refuted by the shameless administrators. None of you are accountable and you people can make sweeeping unsubstantiated allegations against me and do what you please with impunity. Why don’t you “protect” your version of Hindutash just like you have done to the Aksai Chin article? It will save a lot of my time and energy. And, It will also confirm that wikipedia is not "a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site". Hindutashravi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.67.109 (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hindutashravi. You first need to get your block removed - then you can edit articles on this site. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi RegentsPark,Thanks for informing me that I need to get my block removed! For your information, I would like to inform you that my communication to Jimmy Wales and ArbCom pertaining to getting my block removed and further for punitive action against the dishonest administrators who have blocked me is still pending and I am awaiting a response from them. Perhaps You can do some thing about that! Thanks!!
I will reproduce the latest communication sent to Jimmy Wales dated 9 June 2010 20:48 titled "Conduct of Toddst1" hereunder:
Conduct of Toddst1
In my previous correspondence with Jimmy Wales and Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), notably Roger Davies who has been replying purportedly on behalf of ArbCom, Roger Davies has been pretending that my correspondence has been pertaining to issues pertaining content dispute when it has definitely been regarding conduct , where as Jimmy Wales has evading the profound and pertinent issues pertaining to Conduct that I had raised and harping on content issues when I had specifically contacted him only on the issue of conduct and he apropos the issue of content, he has ignored my suggestion that since the issue of content dispute pertains to law, the issue may be placed before a legal panel and he does not reply. There is a conspiracy of silence!
But now coming to conduct of Toddst1, He has stated, "You have not been allegedly blocked, you have in fact, been blocked. Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour. You've had enough appeals here and you have now lost your ability to edit this page”. He is indulging in misrepresentation and lies. I am definitely blocked. It is the reasons given for the block that is alleged. He is lying when he says that in my messages contesting the block, I have not addressed my behaviour. I had explicitly inter alia stated that “I was in the midst of my endeavour for consensus when Abecedare blocked me”. “I as a Lawyer myself, was planning to get in touch with Wikipedian lawyers like NJA for their third opinions but before I could do that *I have been blocked by Abecedare and these constant blocks are hindering my endeavour for consensus”. “I have already made it clear that I was willing to not insist that the article should state that the pass is in Kashmir provided Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark also do not insist in stating that the pass was allegedly in “Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China”.
Further he says “You've had enough appeals here” . My earlier message was allegedly declined not on merits because my earlier “request” was allegedly “far too verbose”. Besides, even in the previous 1 month block dated 27 July 2009 , I had asked Toddst1 to “ Please pin point the exact nature of my disruption, and I will do what is necessary on my part to take remedial measures” and “I will also attempt to look for some mediation or third opinions first as suggested by User:Lifebaka” . But he did not, and he willfully ignored and evaded the issue and now he again states, that “Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour”. How can such a despicable perverted behaviour be countenanced? I demand that you take action against him.
If FisherQueen says, “ You were offered a fairly reasonable condition for your return” or “getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles”, then the “fairly reasonable condition” should be applicable to both (all) the parties and “getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles” should also be applicable to both the parties. What does she mean when she says, “You've given a lot more information that I needed in this request”, or “I didn't read most of that”? She is lying. She has not just read all that I had stated and she has also perfectly understood what I had stated. Just because she very well knows that what ever I had stated therein is perfectly true and she cannot refute it, she is making such statements. I cannot give her information in a platter which is tailor made to suit her whims and fancies! I give information which is relevant to me pertaining to the true reasons for my block and if she is not interested, then she should just not interfere and let some honest administrator to deal with my contest.
Toddst1 has not just removed my ability to contest the block for false reasons. He has also removed my ability to edit my own discussion page. This show how much prejudiced and mala fide his action is. I will pin point the reason why he removed even my right to edit my own page. It is because of the new subsection “Basis” that I created which angered and irritated him!
I demand that I be given a chance to contest the block in the manner Ottava Rima was given. I am not necessarily stating that he, i.e. Ottava Rima was given a fair chance. But he was the only one to have the guts to challenge RegentsPark, and all of us know what happened to him! If you are going to not give me a chance to disprove the statements of RegentsPark and his colleagues, rather than making unilateral and arbitrary unsubstantiated prejudged statements like, “However, the evidence you have provided tends to confirm that you edited outside policy; were reasonably blocked for it; and rejected a good faith offer of conditional unblocking. I have little more to add, I'm afraid”, I will have to do what is necessary to expose you. Your article on ArbCom states that, “A statistical study published in the Emory Law Journal indicated that the Committee has generally adhered to the principles of ignoring the content of user disputes and focusing on user conduct.”
Why don’t you just confess that Wikipedia has a policy to support the Chinese and has a bias in favour of the Chinese on the issue of Chinese territorial claims in India and for that reason, I just had to be necessarily removed and the allegations of disruption are just a pretext! Your appointing the first ever Indian Board member is not at all going to change all that. The issue is not just about the Hindutash pass in Kashmir. It is also for example about my contribution in inter alia the Aksai Chin article where in I had added immense information which are neither my original research nor my point of view but are extracts or quotes from acclaimed research books and supported by verifiability which are not being retained by the coterie who want the article to be in their preferred version. The POV version of the article refers to Arunachal Pradesh which, but for the fact that Arunachal Pradesh like Aksai Chin are both parts of India, has nothing to do with Aksai Chin in order to serve the ulterior purpose of the racket involved. Hindutashravi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.63.102 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Well, good luck. Meanwhile, do note that posting from an IP is block evasion, which is frowned upon. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Kashmir War[edit]

Because the source quoted so ranks it; it is one of the few cases (because they comment on it specifically), where it is possible to be sure that they count both states as democracies. Both India and Pakistan were Dominions then, and had unwritten Consitutions after the British manner (as did Canada until the 1970s), but the legislatures on both sides were elected, before Independence, in the knowledge that they would be national legislatures and Constituent Assemblies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copy this comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buckup of Article[edit]

Can I take buckup of these articles World Organization for Scientific Cooperation and Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes. Thanks.--Earth Defender (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to user space. You should make offline backups of these pages from there. User:Earth Defender/World Organization for Scientific Cooperation and User:Earth Defender/Global_Network_for_the_Forecasting_of_Earthquakes. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

for realising that there are situations where nothing is going to happen unless somebody does something. --FormerIP (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

For reading Pmandersons source on the Kashmir war. Of the sources he uses which are available online he usually gets them wrong them, but I haven't had any chance to check out the other sources. I should probably give you a barn star or something, but I don't really know which one. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?[edit]

Hi RegentsPark. I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that this is a great idea. First, I think that there are nuances that are not easily covered. For example, while point 1 is generally correct, there are situations where the POV of the author is important, especially where it is self-declared or is generally recognized by his/her peers. For example, when Richard Dawkins writes on religion, it makes little sense to ignore his views on religion. I agree that it is not for us to use Dawkins' known POV to interpret a piece that he has written but rather to, legitimately I think, use the commentary of others that points out Dawkins' POV and uses that POV to comment on the writing. However, the line between content POV and writer POV is fuzzy by definition and I don't think it is something that can be easily clarified. Second, I personally (and this is a wikipedia POV!) like the fact the way WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS go together. WP:NPOV explains that neutrality is a desired objective of the encyclopedia. WP:CONSENSUS is the way we decide what neutrality is. All this is ably supported by WP:FRINGE and WP:RS which are guidelines rather than policy prescriptions. These are my immediate thoughts but I'll follow any discussion on this and figure things out as I go along. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that "the line between content POV and writer POV is fuzzy by definition and I don't think it is something that can be easily clarified." I guess my point was that in these cases the author usually identifies his or her POV clearly in the text itself (Dawkins surely does). And if the author does not identify his or her POV in the text, I believe it is pretty easy, usually, to find a secondary source that identifies the viewpoint. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Buck[edit]

I'm sorry to say that I (respectfully) disagree with your apparent assumption that this individual now meets any of the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN and, to the best of my knowledge, will not do so until he actually wins the election or attains considerably more in the way of non-local media coverage than is present. My belief is that we have a responsibility to ensure that articles about political candidates are held to this standard because otherwise we could inadvertently be contributing to electioneering; frankly, I have seen many, many pages where these sorts of assertions of notability are being made by obviously partisan political workers in the hope that Wikipedia's imprimatur will be lent to their candidate. In this case, the article in question actually failed at AfD about 60 days ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Buck, which leads me to suggest (again respectfully) that you may have erred in restoring this page without asking that it be taken through deletion review. May I know your thoughts? Accounting4Taste:talk 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the notability of the individual has changed with the end of the primary which means that, at the least, it should go through AfD again. IMO, that is. I guess I should have pinged you before unprotecting but didn't think that this would be controversial. Apologies. Since I should have asked you, I will not take it as a personal affront if you override my unprotection. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wandered over here after working to semi-recreate the article so people looking for this new nominee wouldn't wonder what was wrong with Wikipedia. jftr, we do have an Infobox 'congressional candidates' for notable candidates - and certainly nominees for major parties - for important offices when the person is indeed 'in contention' (as opposed to being a no-hoper according to the various polls and rankings available for these elections). If I had known the article was in an Afd earlier, I would have posted that information there at the time. So, I'm letting you know this now in hopes of preventing future mistakes of this sort. As I posted in the article's Talk page just now, I don't know who this guy is and am only interested in helping those interested in working on the article get off to a good start. Flatterworld (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think WP:POLITICIAN point #3 leaves notability to consensus. Prior to the primary, he was not notable (as a politician). Post the primary, it depends on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, which, assuming it is a question, is better left to AfD. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate being pointed to the link for the "Infobox 'congressional candidates'", or whatever standard it's being suggested is applicable here other than WP:POLITICIAN; I'm interested also in precisely what you (User:Flatterworld) are suggesting by "mistakes of this sort". I'm not suggesting that this article should go through AfD again -- I think there is little point in that, since to me the article as it stands is quite eligible to be speedied as a recreation of a failed AfD (there are many links but only one useful reference, and it is a local one), so I think it quite likely that a second AfD would fail for the same reasons as the first. In fact, I think the article should go to deletion review and it will be less time-consuming for all concerned if it's in place for people to read. I'm not going to take the unilateral action of speedying it because I gather that there is some sort of policy of which I'm not aware governing this situation, and I'd like to read it before proceeding. Incidentally, I wanted to note that the previous AfD echoed my point above about electioneering, which is why I think careful and thoughtful examination of both policy and facts is entirely in order. If Mr. Buck is indeed a "notable candidate", and that definition meets a Wikipedia policy requirement, there will certainly be plenty of arm's-length third-party non-local experts who corroborate that. BTW, if this should more properly be at the talk page of Ken Buck, for wider consideration, that's fine with me; I don't know User:RegentsPark's level of interest here. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in the article beyond handling the request at RFPP. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll thank you for your involvement and your courtesy and look for future discussions on the relevant talk page. Much obliged. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-17/Operation Blue Star[edit]

I'm closing the case as stale, after a week of inactivity; should this dispute flare up again, feel free to reopen without prejudice. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in India[edit]

Can you take a look and see if protection is necessary? I was involved in a similar issue on the article a while back (with a sock drawer), so I can't take any action. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is necessary at this point - I'll watch it. Back from your travels I see!--RegentsPark (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly back, just taking a break :) —SpacemanSpiff 19:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just a note[edit]

… to thank you for your note, and for your honest good-faith participation on a difficult talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult is an understatement :) But, and this is why I love wikipedia, these 'difficult' articles are interesting learning experiences. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've explored many topics through editing WP that I never would've ventured into otherwise. And then there are the learning experiences that occur outside the article content spaces — those are also fascinating. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

I don't mean to flatter, but I have you down as someone smart enough to see that there would be a point in having a definitive external list to de-POV the issue RegentsPark. I suspect that avoiding a load of nonsensical chit-chat, whilst understandable, isn't particularly noble as a motive for doing nothing. :-) In all seriousness though, I view the UN list as being like SI units or something - the UN are the people who approve nation-states and agree to their names, boundaries, etc. Wikipedia should be as bound by that as by the SI standards. It really is unflattering to have UN-recognised country name exceptions governed by who has the most votes (Georgia) or Arbcom people not being able to stand any more rows for a while (Ireland). 15:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the common names policy. It allows us to examine everything on a case by case basis and, in most cases, we seem to have a good solution. For example, Georgia is better off as a disambiguation page than as the country article (IMO). I seriously doubt that, moving to a UN mandated list, is going to solve anything because there are too many exceptions. Sorry! --RegentsPark (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu language[edit]

Can you protect for a few days? Minor content dispute between two IPs that's basically made this a revert garden. I've edited the article before in a similar content area, so I can't take any action. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hopefully this will settle the issue. BTW, did you see the message on my talk page, the doc is waiting for you to nominate him at RFA? cheers —SpacemanSpiff 15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does he know that as an admin he'll only block, protect and pontificate and no longer edit! Still, if he's ready, willing, and able, then I could write something up. Much prefer a co-nom though since I'm really and truly ensnared by work and family till December.--RegentsPark (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha. No, it was really just a joke (at least that's what I thought), but our edit summaries requested you to respond. Anyways, I've got to head out for a while, can you check out my post at WT:INB on the holocaust? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of .... --RegentsPark (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Indian freedom struggle'/1857/template[edit]

The relevant discussion has been moved to Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars#.27Indian_freedom_struggle.27 Zuggernaut (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll watchlist that page. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help re speedy reason[edit]

I was wondering if you might look at a deleted page history and help me figure something out. In doing hangon patrolling yesterday morning I came across a A7 speedy deletion nomination on Kafani, a musician, and declined it because I confirmed that the article subject had a charted single at Billboard, meeting WP:BAND #2. Since a declined speedy cannot ordinarily be reasserted, I was surprised to see that Esanchez7587 subsequently deleted it under A7. Not being a sysop, I can't look back to see what happened, so I asked Eschanez, but he's apparently choosing not to reply. I'm not asking for undeletion or deletion review or challenging his position, I just don't understand what happened and would like to know if and, if so, how I messed up in declining the speedy. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the single wasn't considered enough at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kafani) where it was also felt that there were no albums. Unless there is additional evidence of notability, the old AfD applies (is there?). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD ended in August, 2007, but the single didn't hit the charts until October, 2007. Unless Billboard's "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles" doesn't qualify as a "national music chart," then WP:BAND #2 would seem to be satisfied, as I noted in my edit summary when I denied the speedy. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further research: And that could be the answer. Billboard's web site says:

Most of the charts in Billboard are either pure sales or radio charts. The only exceptions in which we mingle sales and radio data are two of our signature charts: the Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (as well as two charts based on the same data feeds as the Hot 100: the Hot 100's Bubbling Under chart, which ranks the top 25 titles that have not yet reached the Hot 100, and Heatseekers Songs, which reflects the most popular songs by new or developing acts, defined as those who have never appeared as a lead artist in the top 50 of the Hot 100, or the top 50 of Hot 100 Airplay prior to Dec. 5, 1998).

Doesn't address Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart, but the logic is pretty much the same, I suspect. I think that's enough answer to satisfy me, however. Thanks and sorry to have bothered you. TM
Not a bother. I learn something new every time! I have zero understanding about the way the music world works, now I have zero + delta. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx/The Bronx[edit]

Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Talk:Telugu_language.
Message added 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please remove the protection. or reduce the protection time to one day Ranjithsutari (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid77 and ANI[edit]

Assuming you've read through all the discussions at ANI and the editors talkpage before you made your decision; And like you pointed out in your wrap-up comment I too hope they will live up to their latest response. My experience with this editor tells me different but AGF should never be dismissed, put aside or even forgotten. I want to express my respect for you finally touching and deciding on a difficult and contentious matter. Best, TMCk (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When I saw the 'you have new messages', I was ready to run for cover :) --RegentsPark (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I do the latter usually myself XD
BTW, Now that the editor is not facing an extended topic ban there is still the question if they should be unblocked or not. Maybe you want to have a private talk with the blocking admin if you feel the block should be lifted or altered.TMCk (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The block was not only for the ban vio. TMCk (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RegentsPark.

I think you should a least give an apportunity for discussion of what Wikid77 has proposed. What he seems to be proposing is that, since he is right and the problem is entirely with the conduct of admins and WP policy, he will campaign to ensure that blameless editors such as himself don't fall victim to this kind of thing in the future and he will write an essay about how to deal with unreasonable and agreesive administrators. Admittedly, he has offered to only launching one discussion at a time but, overall, I find it hard to credit that you have read his bulleted list and reached the conclusion that it adds up to anything.

You say in your summary that a topic ban does not have wide community support, but AFAICT all administrators and uninvolved editors who commented (up until you) supported a topic ban. The only support Wikid77 seems to have got is from within the cluster of SPAs discussed in another ANI thread.

You also say the ban would be excessive because it is over a "one day confusion (or not)" (just for the sake of saying so, it was two days). Which neatly misses the point. It is clear that Wikid77 breached his ban deliberately for some purpose, since he acknowledged the length of the ban a couple of days before breaching it and ignored my querying of him doing so. I don't think it is appropriate to spell out why I think he did this, but I also don't think it is necessary. --FormerIP (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban is a serious matter and, while I agree that the editors who commented on the thread were generally in favor of one, it would be far better to see a widespread consensus in favor of such a ban. That is not what I saw, which indicates (to me) that the community in general likely feels that he hasn't reached that point yet. Clearly if he doesn't fix his editing patterns he'll be up for a topic ban or worse soon so my suggestion is to just let it go. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after e/c) I do agree with FormerIP but think that ones unblocked, the editor in question will either refrain from such mentioned activity or not, in which case a widely construed topic ban + block should and will be applied. This is one more (and the last) chance given to them and by not obeying their own terms could be easily indef blocked with little chance appealing it.TMCk (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(ec)Okay, so if you think that a topic ban can't come from a relatively narrow discussion on ANI (I have no idea if you are correct on this or not), then surely it is not the case that the matter is resolved, just that the wrong remedy has been discussed or the wrong forum used (?). I mean to be polite, and this is nothing personal, but marking the discussion resolved with a conclusion so clearly contrary to the consensus in the thread may look like it oversteps the mark. And it is frustrating because, against my expectation, it gives a disruptive editor exactly the outcome they were looking for - admins trying to do the best for the article are undermined.
Aside from which, the editor has basically offered to spread themselves all over wikipedia sniping at the conduct of admins involved in this case - and you're letting him off the hook on the understanding that he follows through on this promise. Can you at least undo that part? --FormerIP (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP makes some good arguments that I didn't bring up (b/c maybe I'm to nice deep in my heart?). One qualified question I do have for RegentsPark: You indeed marked it solved while the editor is still blocked for this and other violation so now I'm wondering if you indeed read through the whole case before making your judgment since you released "the defendant" while keeping him (unknowingly?) in "jail". Could you please provide some more defined explanation for dismissing an extension of his topic ban while not addressing his block? Thanks in advance, best, TMCk (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying I am not nice deep in my heart?
Only joking. I generally believe in redemption, but I think that, if there is one thing to learn from the MoMK saga, it is that spending a year giving incurably disruptive editors the benefit of the doubt is not actually "nice", it is actually unkind to the rest of the community. There are plenty of other things to do on the internet (in this case, elsewhere in WP would suffice) and it is not actually a cruel and unusual punishment to protect an article from incessant drama. Have you noticed how civility and a spirit of compromise starts to blossom in the wake of blocks like this? But it never gets to take root, because there's always someone coming to the end of their block...--FormerIP (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You sure are nice deep in your heart since I have to AGF. I'm too just kidding of course. And yes, I'm not blind and have observed the same (like anyone watching the page). I'm (unfortunately?) not with stupid.TMCk (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FormerIP — the only opposition to the indefinite topic ban proposal has been from a handful of SPAs (who may or may not be clones of one another — that has been debated in a previous ANI thread, but the issue has gone stale) who, far from constructing a response based on reasoned argument, policies, and guidelines, have opted for whining and protest (e.g. this edit) instead. Their contributions at ANI have been tagged accordingly. The fact remains that Wikid77 broke the terms of an earlier topic ban — not just casually, but with a series of talk page edits demanding sweeping changes that would have radically altered the nature of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article — despite acknowledging a later date for his return in a previous edit.
Now his "alternative proposal" effectively blames all others editors except himself for this thinly-concealed dishonesty. For example, take his idea to push for consensus to prohibit specifying block and ban durations in months, on the grounds that a set number of days would be less ambiguous. I'd be interested to hear of any previous cases where a blocked/banned user encountered such extraordinary difficulty in understanding that three months from 11th June would generally be considered 11th September and not the 9th (discounting all the smokescreening nonsense about a "Federal Calendar"). It is also ironic how he refers to the general editing situation at the topic talk page as a "hornets nest", having apparently forgotten that his own drastic edits contributed to that same situation. The whole comment shouts out WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM.
Furthermore, edits such as this (retreading the same old alleged BLP concerns regarding the Kercher article once again) do not inspire me with a great deal of confidence as to his intentions. From the same edit: "I also thank those who issued negative remarks because it gives me an idea of how much hostility is still out there, even though I have been "gone" for 3 months from MoMK. Typically, happy people don't dwell on negatives, so it seems Talk:MoMK has retained a hostile aura, even with me gone." He may have apologised about his early return (but note the caveats, which distance him from the "hostility" at the topic), but at no point in his alternative proposal does he appear to refute MLauba's other concerns, which include WP:GAME. On the contrary, his intentions to campaign for fresh consensus on issues relating to his conduct seem implicitly charged with a wish to game the system further.
RegentsPark, please be assured that I intend no personal disrespect or abuse with this response, and I hope that none is assumed. I have no desire to cast unsubstantiated aspersions at Wikipedia. It is just that the conclusion to the ANI thread appears to be so at odds with the majority opinion (that is, barring SPA contributions in favour, and including input from other administrators). As FormerIP has suggested, it seems that with this result, other users are playing right into Wikid's hands. SuperMarioMan 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ RegentsPark. may I suggest that you reevaluate your decision after reading closely through the entire thread (incl. links provided) and do so the same at Wikid77's talkpage, acknowledge that will do so here and then either confirm your first evaluation of the situation or update it if needed? As I earlier, you didn't mentioned or take in account that the editor is still blocked which makes clear that this is not resolved as of the time I'm posting. I'll take the freedom to update the ANI thread by removing the "resolved" tag while pointing to your talkpage for further information regarding this. Best, TMCk (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with this. I think it premature to impose a topic ban and believe that you should seek much wider consensus (i.e., community wide consensus) for such a topic ban. Merely writing up a topic ban statement, getting a few supports, should not be an acceptable way to do this. I am aware of the block and have no comment on it and don't see why the topic ban thread (which is what the ANI complaint is primarily about) cannot be dealt with independently of the block. Anyway, if you feel that the discussion should continue, then que sera sera. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y sera continualmente hasta que una buena solution (es) presentado.... :) My guess.TMCk (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oui :) --RegentsPark (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Si, oui. I tengo mas preparado en Ingles ;) TMCk (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai un pingouin dans mon porte-documents. Souhaitez-vous le voir? --FormerIP (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offense meant and I asked the following before: Did you read through the whole thread, checking the links provided and the same at Wikid77's talkpage? I know it's a lot to ask for an uninvolved admin that is therefore (at least usually) not familiar with the editor and their history. I personally think in general that uninvolved editors like you should either take the time to get to the bottom of an issue or just leave it alone. Not saying you didn't, just saying that it happened before that admins closed a ANI thread w/o reading it at all (wp:TLDR) and later after more drama and disruption happened editors where "shot down" with the original admins who involved themselves as neutral keeping their mouth shut, like it would be a shame to act on something they might have made a mistake before. Admins are as human as editors without the tools and have any right to make mistakes (or just simply overseeing something) like anybody else here.TMCk (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that a topic ban, from a pragmatic point-of-view, would be a helpful thing. We have a problematic article and it is clear (IMO) from recent events that it could (maybe) be healed if the most disruptive editors were excluded from it. However, if a threshold has not been met or a topic ban is not a normal outcome from this type of discussion (btw, what would constitute "community wide"?), then someone ought to argue that in the context of the discussion. It strikes me that all admin comments (except yours) have been in favour of a ban. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few admins should not a topic ban make. Topic bans should be a community wide consensus thing, not an admin only decision. Anyway, like I said, I don't agree with keeping this open but you have the right to continue discussing it, so be it. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen topic bans enacted based on discussion both at WP:AN and WP:ANI. Wikid's three-month restriction resulted from an ANI discussion, and none of the contributors (both users and administrators) queried the choice of venue/procedure. SuperMarioMan 22:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was wider. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How wide do you think it needs to be? Obviously no-one wants a topic ban on a poor basis. --FormerIP (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that discussion was wider, even so not by much and still resulted in a 3 month topic ban. I wish you would've commented as an uninvolved admin instead of making a quick decision. But that's just my opinion.TMCk (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is fairly obvious that we differ on this. As far as I'm concerned, the topic ban is premature. You people, who are all clearly involved in the murder of meredith kercher (the article, I mean) feel otherwise. The ANI thingy is still unresolved. I'm not sure what point you all see in continuing this discussion here but feel free to keep commenting. :) --RegentsPark (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe tomorow. As of being involved, of course I can't say no with a straight face but I can say with a very staight face that I only propose remedies against editors whyo showed no improvement at all after much time. Otherwise I give them a slack as they are not worth the effort and don't really are a big burden to WP. Wikid77 (and for another example from the same topic, PhanuelB) didn't met that threshold for a long time. Anyhow, let's see what happens. Just don't say nobody told you so if things running badly again :) . Best, TMCk (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth hearing from people who differ from you, though. What do you think the width requirement is here? --FormerIP (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current discussion actually appears to be "wider" than the last: I count 19 separate contributing users (compared to 14, I think, previously), with 10 votes in favour of an indefinite topic ban (among them all 5 contributing administrators), 6 votes against (including Wikid77; all objections are unsubstantiated by diffs, and 4 are from SPAs), with 3 contributors yet to offer their opinion. How much more discussion should there be? SuperMarioMan 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having counted, there are 19 votes on that discussion - 10 supports of a topic ban and 6 against - except that the 6 against include Wikid77 himself and 4 SPA accounts, all of which are new, all of which edit exclusively on the Meredith Kercher article, and all of which support Wikid77's POV there. I can't help feeling our processes are going awry here. My concern - which is why I suggested the topic ban in the first place - is that since Wikid77 can't help being disruptive on the MoMK article, he'll end up getting himself blocked again in the future, which doesn't help the other areas of the encyclopedia that he edits (well) in. He has a stated POV on the subject and simply doesn't seem to be able to avoid issues on the talkpage. I hope the rejection of a topic ban doesn't rebound on him, and us. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Missing the point[edit]

To be clear, Wikid77 wasn't blocked because of breaking his topic ban two days early, he was blocked because by doing so, he immediately resumed the kind of disruptive editing that led to his three months ban, and coincidentally, is at the root of his entire block history. Beyond the immediate disruption on the articles around the Knox case, he has also been an active voice in coaching two (or three) other users, PhanuelB (talk · contribs), PilgrimRose (talk · contribs) and Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) (those last two might be one and the same) into escalating the dispute - a review of Wikid77's interventions on PhanuelB's talk page while he was under a topic ban should make clear what this is about.


In all of this, Wikid77 has never acknowledged a sliver of responsibility. He could have, over more than a year, been a voice of reason and explained all the partisans who popped up at the article that the best way to get heard and to learn how Wikipedia works is to tune down the rethoric and listen. He never did, on the contrary, he has, without fail, done everything to inflame. Wikid77 does good work on other parts of the encyclopedia, but the Knox affair is toxic to him just as much as his actions are toxic on it. A topic ban is a way to avoid having to remove him from the project for a long term. Letting him carry on will only lead to a long term block or a full community ban, something that could still be averted by taking the right action now. MLauba (Talk) 08:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Wow! I go away for a couple of days to take care of RL stuff and, lo behold, WP:ANI has moved to my talk page. I hope that was a policy move backed by consensus (but, on the plus side, I can take ANI out of my watch list). --RegentsPark (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks[edit]

Hi Regent. I read your edit summary too :) As insane as my poetry was. Wanted to leave a personal note commenting that it was very sweet of you to withdraw your oppose in my RfA. It mattered a ton to me. Thanks again and sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. With a sense of humor like that, you can't go wrong! --RegentsPark (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping[edit]

Hi Regents Park, I feel your comment has left out the fact that others have made suggestions, that are also are not getting sufficient traction. Your comment gives the impression colincbn is the only one trying to come to an agreement. I understand this probably wasn't your intention, this is just how it comes across to me. Thanks. Blackash have a chat 04:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said 'even the alternative names suggested by colincbn' which sort of implies that there are others as well. But no worries. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India[edit]

Brilliant! :) --King Zebu (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Just a quick note that I've sent you email relating to this. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to co-nom, the initial nomination page is up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TransporterMan. Many thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the co-nom, but I saw references to diffs in your edit summary: You add or me add? What diffs? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a few diffs in support of my statements. Give me about 30 minutes or so, and I'll be done. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave a note here when you're finished and I'll watch for it. Thanks, and thanks again. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I usually like to spend more time on noms but RL is calling so let me know if you disagree with anything I've said or think I should change something. Good luck! --RegentsPark (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you might want to delete Quarl's support and then transclude it (and let Quarl know). I think there should be no !votes before transclusion (but I could be wrong). --RegentsPark (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so very, very much, all looks good to me. I'll look at the Quarl issue before I transclude. Thank you for putting your RL on hold for awhile to do this. I certainly know how hard that can be. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I dragged you into this, but I've withdrawn my nomination. Thank you again for your support, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't drag me into anything. If anything, your comportment during the RfA (a difficult one mainly because the very first !vote was an oppose -which I consider a rather 'poor-form' act considering you're an editor in good standing) only strengthens my conviction that you'll make a good admin.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of category[edit]

I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. SilverserenC 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email,[edit]

You have a new one.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got your email. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to examine this - hopefully the other admin will take care of it. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, RegentsPark and TransporterMan[edit]

Should we develop a stand–up routine? I create messes and you come in to clean them up? Or is it the other way around? Best regards, and with all my respect, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whadya mean Hardy and Costello. The name is Park, Regents Park.

CarTick[edit]

Re: this - the warning was a result of a request at RFPP for full-protection of Nair. Under the circumstances I felt a warning to both editors was preferable to full-protection. I did note at RFPP that neither editor seemed to have gone beyond two reverts. TFOWR 16:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16[edit]

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan
Last: 05/22/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content discussion at 3O[edit]

Regents, (I'm tempted to call you "Reggie," but then you'd be tempted to call me "Trannie," and I wouldn't like that one little bit ... ) It appears that the content vs. all disputes discussion at 3O is going to stall out with no consensus. Despite the way that I phrased the proposal, I see that as leaving the content restriction in place but I don't want to assert that at the 3O talk page until I make sure that you and I are not going to disagree on that being the result. I'm not saying that a non-consensus result would necessarily result in the content restriction being now firmly established by consensus, but only that it would move us back to the status quo before the discussion arose. Is that how you would see it if there's a no-consensus result? Watching this space, regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I don't really understand why you want to restrict it to content only. Leaving aside arguments of a status quo nature, isn't it better to be able to, if necessary, address all kinds of disputes between two parties? --RegentsPark (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making it open to behavioral disputes seems redundant to me because it duplicates what's available at WP:WQA and isn't the best thing for WP as a whole because editors seeking help in disputes are more likely to get a quality opinion at the venue most focused on their type of dispute. To expand on that, WQA is virtually identical to 3O except for its focus (behavior), the manner in which disputes are discussed (at the WQA page, rather than at the site of the dispute), and the fact that they don't have a two-editor rule. Though CordeliaNaismith in the debate at 3O–talk suggested that a "3O request is much friendlier than noticeboarding someone" the fact is that WQA simply isn't WP:ANI. Its guidelines say, in so many words, that it's not a place to seek sanctions against someone, but is, just like 3O, a place to get a neutral opinion about someone's conduct. I see the content restriction as merely a way to nudge folks to the place best suited for their dispute, where the regular opinion–givers are more versed in the particular kind of dispute in question. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC) PS: So what's your take on what happens if we stall with no consensus? TM[reply]
WQA is really for civility issues and often leads to a 'slap on the wrist' kind of action. 3O, on the other hand, is a much friendlier way to resolve things (and, consequently, retain editors). However, WQA aside, there are many disputes that are neither content related nor civility related that are excluded by a 'content-only' policy. The case that started this whole thing is a good example of something that is neither a content issue nor a civility issue. If we put a content only restriction on cases like that, they're likely to escalate to a venue such as ANI where polite tact is not generally the norm. Your 3O was well constructed, well received and seemed to have settled the issue quickly and with a minimum of fuss and we should be encouraging the posting of these sort of disputes on 3O. About the discussion on WT:3O, I'd just leave it alone if I were you. Someone will hopefully come along and close it, or it might die out, or it might come back to life. No hurry.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my most recent proposal at the 3O talk page. Maybe this can be a middle–ground compromise. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. Except that disputes that involve more than two editors should also be excludable. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Marks[edit]

Thanks for protecting the article--I just noticed that most edits in the last year, whether coming from a similar IP range or from named accounts, have been the same. Same person appears to have targeted Joe Sestak. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected that as well (till after the election). --RegentsPark (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the support. I would not like you to be put in a situation where your support for me could be misunderstood and "Fighting battles on wikipedia is far from easy when you're up against obdurate editors and POV pushers and PBS does a reasonably fine job in dealing with these editors, IMO." could be taken to mean that you think that SV is an obdurate editor. I know you did not mean it, but that is because I know what sort of editor you are referring to and it is not editors like SV or Tony1. I would suggest that you clarify this with a personal note to her explaining that your words could be misunderstood by less charitable people than her and that you meant, for example the British India issue with editors like User:Xn4. -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Thanks for pointing that out.--RegentsPark (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Pmanderson[edit]

I am a little bit surprised by this unblock. The editor's unblock request clearly indicates that he doesn't even understand why he was blocked (he says he was blocked for using the word "misconduct", when he was actually blocked for incivility for for this edit in which he refactors another user's comments (see the bottom of the diff; on top of that, he links to this ANI thread as evidence that user "generally disapprove of" my actions, even though that thread is about his actions and only one user there says anything about mine), so I don't see what makes you think the "user sees the error of his ways". The admin who declined the unblock request also indicated that the user clearly doesn't understand the reason for the block; would you care to explain why you unblocked anyway? Your unblock rationale seems to suggest that you are excusing Pmanderson's refactoring of talkpage comments because I did the same thing to him beforehand, even though he never provided any diffs regarding that (and I just looked through a month's worth of my diffs and found nothing; the only thing coming close was this, which was on someone else's comment and was only formatting).

Also note the blocking admin's message here: "I would like to urge other admins NOT to lessen the block duration this time; I don't see any sign that he "got the message" from any of the prior actions, RFC, warnings, etc. We need to have a sanction that sticks and has effective long term behavior change here."

Anyway, I'm sorry to be a bother, but you were expecting flak on this anyway. Could you please explain your reasons for unblocking a little more clearly? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It appears to me that the editor was suitably aware of the reasons for his block. Once that is established, continuing the block is merely punitive, which is not a good idea in general and a bad idea when dealing with a productive editor. About the unblock request being declined by another admin, note that I had asked a question of the blocked editor with an edit summary indicating that I was reviewing the request. I see no reason why I should take the trouble to review a request and then not follow through with my review. Hope this answers your questions. Regards.--RegentsPark (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the basic facts (whether or not the editor understands the reason for his block), so there's not much that can be done beyond that. Anyway, what's done is done now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly believe he does. Of course, only time will tell if the message was internalized. Best. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So is he on probation or something? Is accusing an editor of being opposed to policy on an article talk page indicative of the message being internalized? [24] I've had conflicts with this editor in the past, but I've had many disagreements with countless other editors too (including you recently, as you know). But usually these discussion remain civil and amicable, focussed reasonably objectively on the content of the disagreement, rather than on the persons involved.

With this editor the tone seems to quickly get personal and "attackish", as I feel it has again in the discussion I just cited above.

I share your optimism about this editor, because my opinion is that he has valuable contributions and opinions to make and share, and does, but he still has trouble expressing disagreement by focusing on content without crossing the line into making derisive comments about those he disagrees with. Not sure it's worth filing an ANI anew, but thought I should bring it to your attention since you unblocked him. Perhaps a warning from you would be helpful? I'm pretty sure a warning from me would not have much if any effect. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pmanderson is not under any civility restriction or probation to my knowledge. Usually, these are placed in WP:RESTRICT. I looked at the exchange in the diff you've posted and don't see this as a personal attack since he is commenting on your post rather than on you. Perhaps there is more? --RegentsPark (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is "Born2cycle disagrees with policy" a comment on my post rather than an ad hominem attack on me? Need I point out that the grammatical subject of that statement is a person? There is more on his talk page, where he concedes the basis for making that statement is his opinion of me from previous encounters ("a long-standing and idiosyncratic opinion"), not what I posted in this discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the entire post, rather than the single remark you quote above, I see: If we're going to have supports of this quality, I can only strongly oppose. Born2cycle disagrees with policy; that's fine, but the rest of us don't. It is more than reasonably clear that the 'disagrees with policy' is in the context of pmanderson's reading of the quality of your post. Indications of policy disagreements are certainly not personal attacks. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment about a person is a comment about a person and not a comment on a post regardless of context. Further, nothing I posted there warrants such a radical characterization of me as "Born2cycle disagrees with policy" implies. Remember, when I asked PMA to substantiate this statement, he had to rely on vague references to posts and edits I made elsewhere long ago; this was not a comment about anything I posted in the discussion at issue. It's an attack, intended to disparage me, plain and simple. But perhaps I'm missing something, if so, please quote my exact words from there that you believe warrants that characterization of me. It's like someone in a debate about morality in foreign policy with Bill Clinton stating that he disagrees with Clinton on his views about marital infidelity. Such a statement is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and only serves as a personal attack intended to disparage the person (and, by implication, anything he has to say).

Let me put it this way, in what I have gathered in my limited interactions with you, I sincerely doubt you would ever make a comment like that about anyone in that context or otherwise. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in question does appear to be a personal attack to at least one other editor, who writes, "This does seem like a personal attack to me, and I am sure Born2cycle respects policy as much as any other editor." [25]. This supports my point above that the assertion about me disagreeing with policy was a non sequitur unsupported by anything I posted there, and intended solely to disparage me and, by implication, anything I wrote. I was hoping we could nip this thing in the bud, to help PMA understand why these sorts of comments (this being a relatively minor example) are inappropriate. Unfortunately, I've apparently failed to convince you that this is indicative of a continuing general problematic pattern in behavior, and so instead of being able to help PMA see this and improve accordingly, the net effect of my raising this issue here will probably embolden him to continue in this inappropriate manner. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think you're on the wrong track here. I hope I would never express myself in the way pmanderson did in that post but would not take umbrage if someone addressed me thusly. (Personally, I would find the quality part of his post slightly upsetting and the policy part quite meaningless.) If I were in your shoes, I would ask, preferably on the article talk page, what policy he believes your comment violates but would not see this as a civility issue or a personal attack. Given the general tenor of discourse and your long history on wikipedia, I am surprised you think it does. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [26]. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explain this more successfully than I have managed, please do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all been explained reasonably well. The rest is up to born2cycle. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that I was falsely accused of misrepresenting policy (which implies acting in bad faith), without any indication whatsoever of how policy was supposedly misrepresented, and disagreeing with policy (again without any basis whatsoever). If false accusations are not personal attacks made specifically to disparage the person they are directed at, what are they? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are personal attacks and there is rhetoric. This is just rhetoric. Asking for an explanation as to how your view disagrees with policy is the right thing to do. (Though, I would not have framed it the way you have done. Too defensive and you have lost the moral high ground. Never a good place to be in a contentious discussion.) --RegentsPark (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here, by the way, is another example of this uncivil behavior, and PMA's inability or unwillingness to see it, even when pointed out [27] and explained [28]. What might be most relevant here is Kotniski's (unanswered) question, "So why do you say such nonsense, consistently, whenever you and I happen to be on opposite sides of a discussion?". Taking either of these incidents in isolation without the context of previous interactions may make it more difficult to realize what's going on, but I suggest there is a general pattern of saying unsubstantiated "nonsense" like someone misrepresents and disagrees with policy (when it's not true) and "you never do see why an idiomatic and natural distinction should be kept", specifically to disparage those with whom he disagrees. He knows that it just appears to be a normal disagreement, but it puts the other in a bad light. I don't know if it's conscious, but it's sharing opinions about people, not discussing content or arguments, and it needs to stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that consistent and long-term incivility, however productive an editor may be, always leads to a ban on wikipedia. We've seen that time and again. This incident doesn't rise to the level of being actionable and should properly be addressed on the article talk page with a request for further explanation. It is possible that a simple, politely framed request (that's where you've conceded the moral high ground) would lead to actionable incivility but it is also possible that the request would result in a reasoned explanation. Whatever the past of an editor, we should always AGF and give the editor an opportunity to explain their position before escalating the issue because there may be no issue to escalate. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only action I was seeking here was a comment from you to PMA akin to what User:The Celestial City wrote - 3rd party confirmation that the statements like this are violation of WP:CIVIL to help PMA understand he needs to be more civil. I picked you because I thought coming from an admin who unblocked him early it might carry more effect. There is a pattern here and it continues as long as it is sanctioned. I don't want PMA banned; I want him to interact civilly with me and everyone else. It would be a shame to allow the behavior to get so bad it does warrant a ban when it could be nipped in the bud with just a little well-meaning helpful advice. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge review[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to research the issue raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incorrectly_closed_move_request_at_Cambridge.

I presume we agree there is a big difference between reviewing a challenged decision about a discussion and deciding whether a significant error was made in that decision vs. reviewing the discussion anew without regard to the soundness of the challenged decision. The difference is significant because if challenges to decisions don't review the decision but simply re-evaluate the discussion from scratch, the effect of that is to encourage using the challenge process as a kind of forum shopping. It is my understanding that appeals courts in the "real world" review appealed decisions before "retrying", and only make decisions anew if an error is discovered in the appealed decision. This seems to be done for very good reasons that also apply to Wikipedia. If you don't agree, please let me know.

So, I'm curious as to why in this case you reviewed the discussion, apparently without reviewing the decision itself, much less finding any errors in it. That is my impression since I've been given no indication about what error I may have made in the original decision. I've seen closes reviewed by admins in the past, including my own "non-admin closes of contentious discussions", and I don't believe I've ever seen the earlier decision ignored and the discussion simply re-evaluated as you apparently chose to do in this case.

I'm also very concerned about the judgement that "page hits are not much use in this situation because for all we know, every US city searcher might be typing Cambridge, Mass", which appears to be key to your decision to close as "no consensus to move". By this reasoning "page hits are not much use" in any primary topic determination, because we never know what searchers might be typing. But if that's true, that puts into question countless naming decisions made in Wikipedia since its inception, and continuing to occur every day. I suggest this is a fundamental error in the reasoning, the kind of error I expected the reviewer of my decision to identify if my decision was not affirmed.

Since this decision about the significance of page view counts in primary topic determinations has widespread implications, would you please re-evaluate this decision accordingly, or ask someone else? Thanks. -Born2cycle (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering when you'd get around to moving the question to my talk page :) I think you've misread my close. I closed the move discussion as 'no consensus' because the primary topic rationale is weakly supported and because there are other factors in support of not moving it as well. A no consensus decision simply means that there is no consensus to move the article and does not necessarily imply that one title is superior to another. This may or may not be the the perfect solution but It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise - with the understanding that the article is gradually improving - than to try to fight to implement a particular 'perfect' version immediately. Note that consensus is not immutable and can change and, presumably, out of the welter of place name discussions going on, something will emerge that will give a better sense as to where consensus lies. About reviewing your earlier close, I will be happy to comment on it if you like but I think it is fairly obvious that there isn't a consensus to move the article at this time. If I may take the liberty of adding a personal comment, your non-admin close of a contentious discussion in which you apparently have a personal interest was a bold move on your part. Bold moves are generally good and, IMO, are helpful for this project. But it is also a good idea to know when a particular move has not paid off and to move on. Fighting a lost battle is not a good way to win a war. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By saying "I closed the move discussion as 'no consensus' because the primary topic rationale is weakly supported and because there are other factors in support of not moving it as well", you seem to imply that in a move discussion the Support side has the burden to show consensus; if that burden is not met then that means "no consensus" and the article is not moved. I agree with that, except in cases where primary topic is at issue, like this one. When there is a claim for primary topic, I view the burden to be on the side of the primary topic claim. From that perspective the primary topic rationale was very weakly supported (I'd go as far as saying consensus, broadly interpreted - not just counting votes - was that the current use is not primary), therefore the article had to move, period. That seems to be how RM decisions go (when primary topic is at issue), and I've been supported by other admins when making decisions accordingly. That's what is at issue here. If all closers flip a coin on this point, well, that's how we might as well be making these decisions... by flipping a coin. I suggest there is a better way. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the primary topic claim has not been shown to be incorrect. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to agree to disagree on whether the claim of primary topic has not been shown to be incorrect, but, more importantly, this point is moot. It might be relevant from the POV that the burden is always on those favoring a move, but it is my understanding that that is not how RM decisions have been made for quite some time when primary topic determination is an issue.

That is, in order to comply with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the predominant POV among closing admins has been that those who support having an article at the plain name have the burden to show that that article meets primary topic criteria, regardless of whether the discussion is about moving the article in question to, or away from, the plain name. Thus, if those opposing the move of an article from its current place at a plain undisambiguated name cannot show that it is the primary topic for the name, then the move should occur, regardless of whether those in support can show that that article's topic is not primary for that name.

For example, a few weeks ago I made a closing decision accordingly at what was then Talk:Stockman (now Talk:Stockman (Australia)#Requested_move). As with Cambridge, there was consensus that the topic in question was primary in one country (Australia for stockman; England for Cambridge), but the claim that the topic was the primary use beyond that one country was not shown, so I found no consensus to keep that article at Stockman, despite the majority of those participating favoring that the article not be moved. That decision was challenged, and it was supported by an uninvolved admin here. So I applied the same reasoning at Cambridge.

Don't you agree that if we don't get some consistency on this point about who has the burden in these decisions involving primary topic determination, then we might as well be using a coin toss to decide them? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're trying to construct a straw man argument. The bottom line is that the primary topic claim has not been shown to be incorrect. In which case there is no reason to move the article away from the current title, with or without a coin toss. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out an unstated premise in your argument -- that those in support of the move have the burden to show that the primary topic claim is incorrect -- is not constructing a straw man. If your argument is not based on that premise, then how can your point be the bottom line? There is no straw man construction here.

You're ignoring my point, which is that your point, the primary topic claim [that the city in England is the primary use of Cambridge] has not been shown to be incorrect, even if true, is irrelevant.

The bottom line in situations where primary topic determination is at issue is not whether the primary topic claim has been shown to be incorrect, but whether the claim has been shown to be correct. If the primary topic claim is not shown to be correct, then the article in question should not be at the plain undisambiguated name. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it should be fairly obvious from reading my close, the reason for the no consensus decision was not based on a single argument. I do understand your frustration. There have been numerous situations where I have been disappointed with this consensus determination or that but have learned that it is best to move on because picking on one part of a close reasoning and repeatedly bringing it up because you don't agree with a close is borderline tendentious. At this point, if you continue to believe that my close was incorrect, I suggest you take it up in the form of an RfC on that page because this discussion is fairly obviously not going to go anywhere. Regards --RegentsPark (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My most recent statements were in regards to your "bottom line" point made here. Regardless, my concern is about an issue underlying the particular decision here, but which has far greater implications. But you don't seem to share that concern. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
has far greater implications. But you don't seem to share that concern. Nope. I am, by nature, unsuited to grandiosity. Since you are, I suggest you just take this elsewhere. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"indigenous aryans" and India[edit]

Can you weigh in on the discussion going on in the India talk page. We have reached a standstill and could help benefit from your views.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoy ahoy, yo-ha[edit]

Ah, Regents! Yes, I suppose it looks like I'm completely obsessed with the names of Southeast Asian nations, heh. But the truth is I'm not firmly rooted in any Internet community, per say. A little on Youtube commenting; a little on tvtropes.org. But here, I'm more likely to just cruise articles idly and check my very limited watchlist to see if the naming issue has come up again, or if the Monkey Island game franchise is being misrepresented. -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Hey RegentsPark!

I just resurfaced on the wp scene. Wow, so much has changed. Congrats on your adminship! (A little late, I know). I was going through my old archives, and found this and this! Wow, I feel old :D!! Amog | Talk • contribs 12:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back and thanks (for the congrats)! --RegentsPark (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime! And thanks mate :) Amog | Talk • contribs 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Claims on Taj Mahal[edit]

Hi RegentsPark:

I saw your comments upon your edit on Taj Mahal. Requesting you to keep the references to temple claims to at least 3 reliable sources (links) - BBC, Stephan Knapp and http://veda.wikidot.com/taj-mahal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskilaar (talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eskilaar. Those three sources are not reliable sources. The BBC source is not a BBC report. h2g2 is hosted by the bbc as a place where anyone can post opinions. Personal sites, such as the stephan knapp one or the wikidot one, don't qualify as reliable either. P.N. Oak's claim is already included in the article and adding more would be WP:UNDUE. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Radiopathy at WP:RESTRICT[edit]

Hello RegentsPark. Your change to the restriction still leaves some '1RR' language in place. Presumably you meant to say '0RR', and with no reverts at all, a 'per day' should not be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarified. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Meetup[edit]

Thanks for catching that! :P It's 116 St, as I've tried to clarify it.--Pharos (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I now have no excuse for not attending :) --RegentsPark (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting WP[edit]

So, was this a violation of WP:POINT? Belated thanks for the bon voyage, too. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask me mum (and welcome back!)--RegentsPark (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the block warning appropriate and necessary[edit]

  1. I have clearly stated in my last edit on the BE page regarding sepoy that those were my last words for quite some time, there was no need for the block warning.
  2. Is it appropriate for an administrator who is involved in a discussion to use his administrative privileges?

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has gone too far and I'm just warning you (you didn't heed my milder warning). Have I used any 'administrator privileges? Not to my knowledge. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warning for a block, isn't that an administrative privilege? Did I not state that all that I had to say on the topic had been said?
Aren't allegations of WP:SOAP a little baseless? Which soap box did I climb? Also remember my arguments were repeated because they fell on deaf ears.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about sepoy mutiny is mere soapboxing. And, when you find yourself making an argument that many other editors are unable to hear, you should question the validity of that argument rather than the auditory abilities of the other editors. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I did I explicitly withdrew, then the block warning came. Quite un-necessary abuse of administrative privileges. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you've withdrawn, then there is no problem. BTW, warnings are not an admin function. Anyone can give warnings. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect a block should be preceded by a warning, the warning was issued by you an administrator engaged in the discussion, a clear abuse of privileges. That I had withdrawn for the time being has been clearly stated on the BE talk page, before your block warning was issued. Wonder why people don't listen, and then blame others for being incoherent. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement for withdrawl from discussion regarding sepoy made 14:28, unnecessary warning abusing administrative privileges issued on 14.45 see time stamp for proof. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not listening. Warnings are not an abuse of administrator privileges because anyone can give a warning. I haven't blocked you so give it a rest. If I may suggest something, you need to learn to withdraw from a discussion sooner rather than later. You are now getting tendentious and disruptive on my talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page sounds like my towel.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming your warning was a friendly pat on the back, I give you the benefit of the doubt, it had nothing to do with your being an administrator, but that it was un-necessary still stands. See the time stamps. Nobody likes mistakes to be pointed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My warning still stands. You were being tendentious there, as you are being tendentious here. How you conduct yourself on wikipedia is your business, but I urge you to heed these warnings. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India edit[edit]

Hmm. But why? Problem with sentence phrasing or too much information? --King Zebu (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original phrasing was better. It didn't add a value judgement "facing mounting challenges" and it cleanly indicated the creation of two countries. Doesn't really need changing. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. The primary intention was to add information regarding the consequences of the partition. Keeping that in mind, I guess this should be more acceptable. --King Zebu (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. Odd that there was no mention of the human cost of partition before this. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint against you.[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Administrator there is a complaint against you. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aung San Suu Kyi[edit]

Is this a candidate for RD2? Mjroots2 (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i should think so. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chapa (Gurjara) Dynasty[edit]

Hi, Someone moved it to "Chapa Rajput Dynasty", which is absurd.Even google book search for it returns 0 result.For more information vist the discussion page-title of article.SO i request you to move it back to its old title i.e Chapa (Gurjara) dynasty.I also request you to add it in your watch-list. Thank youMkrestin (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see it's been moved back to Chapa Dynasty. I'll watchlist the page. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thank you Mkrestin (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Disappointed...[edit]

To be frank, I'm a bit disappointed by your persistent support for YellowMonkey's behavior and actions. I was a bit dismayed when I read your this comment about a month ago but didn't bother respond as I realized that a person like YM didn't deserve a second of my thoughts and efforts and therefore, there was no point in carrying the discussion forward. But after going through the recent discussion over YM blocking Yogesh, I also realize that YM is an administrator with a heavy baggage of bias against India and Indian editors and will use any tactic, including insults and overuse of admin privileges, to quiet those who oppose his viewpoint. Moreover, his tremendous goodwill here gives him an impregnable immunity. For me, that is a bit disturbing.

If other Wikipedians fail to send a strong message to YM, then it is really sad for the future of this project. --King Zebu (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're disappointed. I don't approve of the way YM blocked YK (and have said as much in the RfC), and I don't approve of everything YM does but in these two cases I'm not so sure. In example above, I thought you would need to show a pattern of abuse against you and so that's what I said. BRD is fairly straightforward in the way it is interpreted (and worked well in the India article when I reverted your addition and you rephrased the text). In the YK case, I think, and continue to believe that I'm right, that YK is representing a particular viewpoint that is not upheld by scholarship. The idea that the word 'sepoy' is offensive to Indians is an extreme one and is not borne out even by the historians writing in India. The idea that Ganges is an offensive, western imposed term, is equally extreme considering that it is freely used in India. Though, in the latter case, I believe that a reasonable argument can be made for moving the article to Ganga, the blitz approach to renaming is not conducive to a healthy discussion, and focusing on an imagined slight to Indians is incorrect. Now that the full facts of the YM case are out in the open, I can see that the initial block was damaging in the sense that it got YK's back up and has probably contributed to the mess. But, I've always found YM willing to let other admins overrule his actions. If, for example, YK had appealed his block on ANI, it would have been overturned with no fuss at all. Given that, and given the long term service YM has provided to Indian wikipedians, I can only AGF, while, of course, pointing out his failures as an admin. But, I respect your opinion and am glad you're willing to let me know what you think, so thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YM is an administrator with a heavy baggage of bias against India and Indian editors; King Zebu, that's a remarkably untrue and offensive thing to say. I appreciate that you were called a retarded naturalist by YM so it's natural for you to biassed, but if anything, I'm disappointed you'd resort to the same tactic you seem to be accusing YM of. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 2 - November 2010[edit]

English WikiProject News

After a missed issue, the WP:IND newsletter is back on track to being a regular bimonthly feature. The Indian WikiProject has seen plenty of online and off-line action, both in English as well as other Indian languages, and we now have a bigger, better format that intends to feature content and news from the English as well as other Indian language Wikipedias.

Reaching out to Indians has been the theme of the Indian Wikiproject over the past couple of months, aiming to involve a greater number of Indians in editing both the English and Indian language Wikipedias. To this end, efforts to set up the Indian chapter of Wikimedia have moved into their final stages, and registration of the society is currently pending. An effort is underway to push for "WikiMarathons" at meetups, where attendees will be encouraged to edit the English and/or Indian language Wikipedias. This is intended to popularise Wikipedia editing among the general public. In addition, a bot to post DYK's from the Indian Wikiproject to Twitter was created and launched by User:Logicwiki.


What's New?

Regrettably, the number of Featured Articles has dropped from 63 in June to 58 at the end of October 2010. Several FAs came up for review and were delisted, while Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India was saved. Meanwhile, Chalukya Dynasty appeared on the main page on July 9, 2010. Hearteningly, the number of Good Articles increased from 130 to 136 during the same period, while the number of Featured Lists remained constant at 16.

The source code for the Article Alert Bot is now available and the bot itself is expected to be up and running very shortly. This means that article alerts for the Indian Wikiproject will again be available, enabling editors to easily keep track of developments in respect of reviews, nominations, deletions etc.

The date change vandal mentioned briefly in the previous issue made a reappearance when the range block on his IP range expired in September. Consequently the block was extended till September 2011.

In October there was a heated discussion in the India project noticeboard regarding the copyright status of the Indian party symbols. The discussion was triggered by the deletion of Wiki San Roze's party symbol images by Hammersoft as copyright violations. No resolution was reached, partly because of our inability to explain to Hammersoft how election symbols in India differ from party logos. Comments are requested from anyone with a background in Indian copyright law to clarify this issue.

Complete To Do List
News from Indian-language Wikipedias
  • The Bengali Wikisource, which contains the literary works of many prominent writers of Bengali language including Rabindranath Tagore, has crossed the 5,000 pages milestone. According to List of Wikisource page, Bengali Wikisource is now at rank 21 among 56 Wikisource based on number of content pages.
The Tamil Wikipedia stall at the World Classical Tamil Conference 2010 in Coimbatore in June 2010.
Jimmy Wales introduces the Malayalam Wikipedia CD of 500 selected articles during his key note address at Wikimania 2010 at Gdansk.
  • The Hindi Wikipedia and its sister wiki projects migrated to the new vector interface on September 1, 2010. In addition, Hindi is the first (and so far the only) Indian language to be incorporated into the WikiBhasha translation and contribution toolkit developed by Microsoft Research.


Community news
The first meetup in Delhi on 22 September 2010.

Mumbai and Delhi held their first meetups in September, where Wikimedia Board members Barry Newstead and Bishakha Datta met up with Wikipedians and other interested members of the public in these cities. A month later, Hyderabad also held its first meetup.

Arun Ram, Shiju Alex and Barry Newstead releasing the Wikimedia India community newsletter at the nineteenth Bangalore meetup on 24 September 2010.

Wikipedians in Bangalore continued their tradition of meeting up regularly at the Centre for Internet and Society, with the nineteenth meetup in September featuring Barry and Bishaka as attendees, and marking the release of the community newsletter. Along with Delhi and Mumbai, Bangalore is reported to be one of the three cities in contention for the Indian office of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Jimmy Wales speech at the Mumbai Wikipedia Meetup #3 on 31 October 2010. Intro by User:Bishdatta & User:Arunram. (Recorded by User:AshLin.)

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had an interaction with Wikipedians followed by a presentation to members of the public at the third Wikipedia meetup in Mumbai on October 31, 2010.

The first Wikimarathon, where Wikipedians and members of the public were encouraged to contribute to Wikimedia projects onsite, was held simultaneously at the meetups in Bangalore and Chennai on November 14, 2010. Wikipedians in Delhi also held a meetup the same day.

The Malayalam Wikipedia held several academies in different parts of Kerala over the past few months.

Wikimedia Foundation board member Bishakha Datta and Indian Wikipedian Srinivas Gunta co-authored a panel presentation at Wikimania 2010 on the Wikimedia Asia Project.

Current proposals and discussions
  • This interesting discussion on the quality of editing in India-related articles has been underway for on the noticeboard a few days. Feel free to join in and express your opinion.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject India. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Signed...

SBC-YPR, Sodabottle (Editors)

Tinucherian (Distributor)


This newsletter incorporates content from the WikiMedia India Community Newsletter, September 2010.

Looking forward to more contributions from you!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may mention it at WikiProject India Outreach Department

This newsletter is automatically delivered by User:Od Mishehu AWB, operated by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Roman re-directs and DABs[edit]

Ever since you were involved in the preliminary discussion on Non-Roman characters in article titles, there has been a separate proposal regarding the usage of Non-Roman characters in re-directs and DABs, and you may be interested in joining the discussions on this page. Your input will be appreciated. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your ArbCom guide[edit]

Please append the {{Template:ACE2010}} template to the top of your election guide (User:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2010) so that people can navigate the guides and election pages more easily. Thanks, Sven Manguard Talk 05:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:ANI[edit]

Haha! Well, I am woefully short on barnstars But it's the thought that counts!
On a more serious note, I get really irked by wrongful implications of racism. Just yesterday I was called a telemarketer from Bangladesh by a paid editor from the States. Wikipedia really has no place for this - Amog | Talk • contribs 07:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop to deleting Authentic information[edit]

Mr Regent Park Why you people trying to hide the truth of fact regarding indian revolt of 1857? you dont have right to remove the information which should know to everyone. I condemned your action and suggest you to not to do again without discussion and information. I have already given my views on discussion and to Mr. Knight. Please refer that discussion. I hope you will respect and accept the truth. Regards (Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]


Dear Regent This is the small description which i added on that page, because without that inclusion the real fact can not be come to this world. The indian government and British gazzete tell this story. The revolt which started at Meerut fueled by the Gurjars villagers and policeman. Still Meerut is a majority city of Gurjars. And this is impossible to anyone to revolt without the help of local peoples. Gurjars of Bijnor were fighting under the leadership of Gurjar leaders Kadam Singh and Dulal Singh. In the whole revolt Gurjars were fighting along with the Muslims. Gurjars in Mathura and Agra region also fought against the British and gave them a horrible period. That is why when the revolt ended, the properties of the Gurjars were impounded. Gurjars in Ludhiyana, Firozpur, Gujaranwala, Sialkot, Gujarat, Jalandhar district, Kangada revolt against the British and tried to end the British rule but when the revolt failed, the properties were impounded by the British. Hundreds of villages in district Bulandshahar were ruined by the Britishers but Gujjars fought with full strength. Not only had the Britishers declared Gujjars as criminal tribe by defining Criminal Tribes Act. However, in the freedom struggle of India, Gujjars were working as the main leaders of the Non Cooperation Movement of Mahatma Gandhi in the country. History states that there were freedom fighters in each and every single Gujjar village of the country.

So this should be included in this article. Without Gurjars/Gujjars The revolt cant be planned and implemented.

(Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hi User:Gurjeshwar. I can't be sure if the information above is factually verifiable, but a simple read through tells me it is very badly in need of a copy-edit. There is a lot of incoherence in your text. Also your line of "Without Gurjars/Gujjars The revolt cant be planned and implemented." is unnecessary POV pushing. - Amog | Talk • contribs 13:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gurjeshwar. It is generally accepted that the revolt started as a mutiny of sepoys at the Meerut barracks. Every source that I've seen says that. I can't verify your sources about the involvement of Gurjars in leading the revolt, I'm busy till January and don't have the time, but the best way to get this verified is to start a discussion on the talk page, post your sources there, and the community will see whether they satisfy our reliable source criteria and see whether the view is recognized enough in the academic community to be included in the article, per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2010[edit]

Any chance that someone can fix this for me so that the negative numbers show up as integers? I can't get it to work. :( --RegentsPark (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ARYAN[edit]

Hello. It seems user Flobot222 (talk · contribs) is (aggressively) promoting Hindu ideology on Wikipedia (please read what he wrote in his talk page). He's adding unecessary words, sentences in some articles suh as Aryan, removing refs sentences in others (see Iranian peoples).
I may mistake but it seems he's a sockpuppet of Saddhiyama (talk · contribs). Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with either editor but I don't see any obvious indication of sock-puppetry. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo poll[edit]

I reverted your restoration as being against current consensus. Please see WP:ANI#Usertalk Proposal for discussion. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If that be the consensus, so be it. (The timing seems a classic case of unnecessary pointy behavior though.) --RegentsPark (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4[edit]

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection of Nguyễn Văn Thiệu[edit]

Thanks :), nice saving of bureaucracy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The less red tape, the better! (Plus, I'm not sure if we're going to see YM again.) --RegentsPark (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unguided flight[edit]

I noticed you removed your Arbcom guide from the standard template. It still appears in my alternative template at {{ACE2010alt}} which has no official status. Would you like for me to remove it from there as well? (Or you can do it yourself.) I think your guide is useful but will defer to your wishes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No official status sounds like my kind of thing so let's leave it in :) Thanks for asking. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your kind comments and your support in your voter guide, as well as your other thoughtful observations. They are appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No NYB. Thank you for your thoughtful observations and well reasoned approach on arbcom! (You're welcome.) --RegentsPark (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_8&oldid=1199220973"